Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[davidk]

I guess then you would find Jesus' saying 'Let the dead bury the dead' as therefore an unreliable truth as it is obviously contradictory.

If Biblical teaching were an ocean, not even the soles of your feet are wet.

 

 

tolerance for contradiction, defined as a mode of thinking that accepts and even thrives on apparent bivalent logical contradictions.

The difficulty for Liberal/Progressive theological doctrine of "tolerance for contradiction" remains in the continuation of 'finding truths' in a document they declare so contradictory and in error. Given the definition of 'contradiction' you have so well provided, it's surprising the L/P 'church' can maintain such a doctrine, and still call itself Christian.

 

It is the L/P's doctrinal twin of the tolerance of uncertainty. ie; "I don't think any of us "know" our information about God is reliable. We all have to have faith in that."AllInTheNameOfProgress, Posted Apr 29 2008, 03:53 PM Finding faith in unreliablity is self-contradiction. (If, "We all have to have.." was offensive to you. Perhaps it should be addressed.)

 

When I read the Bible, I find that what God does never violates what He says. He works in a way which confirms what He says about the external world. The Universal working into the particulars defines and confirms what the particulars are. As a Christian, I have the epistemology that enables me to not get confused between what I think and what is objectively real.

 

Man attempting autonomy robs him of any certain reality. This rationalism robs Man of his hope of truth as truth. Knowledge becomes a mathematical formula, and instead of reason we hope to find some mystical experience, apart from reason, to provide the universal.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

To clarify, I was not saying I have faith in the unreliable. I have faith that humans are still learning about God, through what is called in the Bible the Holy Spirit, because I believe God has the power to inspire and reveal new information today. I have faith in the power of God. The Bible is only part of how I learn about God. The Methodist church teaches we should make decisions based upon "Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience." I think you are putting too much emphasis on the Bible as being the only way to know about God. Do you believe any people had faith in God before the Bible was written?

[davidk]

To clarify, I was not saying I have faith in the unreliable. I have faith that humans are still learning about God, through what is called in the Bible the Holy Spirit, because I believe God has the power to inspire and reveal new information today. I have faith in the power of God. The Bible is only part of how I learn about God. The Methodist church teaches we should make decisions based upon "Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience." I think you are putting too much emphasis on the Bible as being the only way to know about God. Do you believe any people had faith in God before the Bible was written?

 

You have put together quite a 'nutshell'. It is true we should decide based on the 'four' you mentioned. I will not add nor take away from them.

-

I have put quite an emphasis on Scripture because I consider it foundational, because it is God's propositional communication to man, His Word. It is reasonable. It tells us of tradition (good and bad). It tells us of the experiences (good and bad) of others and for me to expect them as well. It tells us to reason out our decisions. It is true on whatever topic it may touch.

-

The Old Testament is about God's gift of faith to man before and during and after Scripture was being compiled. The New, similarly.

-

Man's condition has not changed since he first walked on the planet. There are not any needs for the Bible to change or add anything except perhaps: do not covet your neighbor's TV during the Super Bowl.

 

It provides all the universal truths we may require.

[minsocal]

This is a sample of what the New Testament has to say about "knowledge". All of these passages can be given different interpretations, as I discovered when I looked them up. The site I use offers a wide variety of translations and interpretations which vary considerably. For example, there are differences of opinion as to what "truth" means not just in general, but even when used in a particular passage.

 

The question raised in the original post pits following Jesus against following favored interpretions of the Bible found in various forms of Christianity, some claiming to have certain knowledge and some not. Some inclusive, some not.

 

The question for me is priority, not certainty.

 

Progressive Christian scholars like Borg and others, do not deny "truth". Borg, for example, is less concerned about the literal event, and more concerned with the "truth" of the story.

 

 

1 Corinthians 8:1-3

 

1 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; 3 but anyone who loves God is known by him.

 

Romans 15:14

 

14 I myself feel confident about you, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.

 

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

 

8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

 

1 Corinthians 12:4-11

 

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.

 

Colossians 2:1-3

 

1 For I want you to know how much I am struggling for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for all who have not seen me face to face. 2 I want their hearts to be encouraged and united in love, so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

 

Luke 11:42-54

 

42 "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others. 43 Woe to you Pharisees! For you love to have the seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces. 44 Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it." 45 One of the lawyers answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us too." 46 And he said, "Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them. 47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. 48 So you are witnesses and approve of the deeds of your ancestors; for they killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' 50 so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation. 52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering." 53 When he went outside, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile toward him and to cross-examine him about many things, 54 lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say.

[davidk]

The question raised in the original post pits following Jesus against following favored interpretions of the Bible found in various forms of Christianity, some claiming to have certain knowledge and some not. Some inclusive, some not.

 

The question for me is priority, not certainty.

 

Progressive Christian scholars like Borg and others, do not deny "truth". Borg, for example, is less concerned about the literal event, and more concerned with the "truth" of the story.

Your post seems to be in the form of a question. I'm not sure what you anticipated in reference to the Biblical quotes.

-

Many of the original posts were also subjective when it came to defining either Christ or Christianity. There was not any core belief, except: "Do your own thing".

-

So, are we agreeing the Bible is true in all areas it touches; whether it be History or Science or Sprituality, or not? Or are we still at a point declaring a knowledge of the truth like Borg, where he knows the truth whether it's the truth or not?

-

As far as different interpretations are concerned, here's my 2 cents: Scripture has many applications, one interpretation.

-

I'm just a little confused: "The question for me is priority, not certainty". Can you be certain of that?

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

On one point I understand and agree. And that is; ("God...is not some theory to be proven or point to be made.") that GOD exists.

The rest is, how did you say it, quite amusing; because no 'GOD' experience, under your premise, can be communicated to any one. "The Divine defies our puny intellects... eclipses all descriptions..."

 

If GOD is real, He is reasonably understandable, and we can communicate this with others, and He with us. He doesn't defy our intellect, He gave it to us for a purpose! You even allude to your agreement by your last sentence. "We need to talk less about God and listen more for the Word."

-

So, is following Jesus Christ compatable with Christianty?

-

TGWB

"To follow Christ, means that you are following the path of a man considered to be GOD and that means you have found a very narrow path and yes it would be a parallel path that comes together as the same path a line drawn in the sand against that which is truly evil."

If I understand this, following Jesus Christ is the good and narrow path, to which another path runs parallel but with 'its back toward God'. This evil path is never able to join Jesus narrow path into righteousness.

-

This is an absurd statement. Simply because it tells me you didn't read mine! I didn't say what you seem to imply I said, that liberals don't know anything.

What I said was, what you know relies on that of which you are uncertain. "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything." Liberal philosophy floats on an ocean of uncertainty and ambiguity.

-

 

 

Well, there are a couple of things here. First, thanks for "clearing up" what I figured was my not having a proper undestanding of your earlier post. Second, where on earth did you get that I have said you turned your back on God?

 

I'm having a little trouble understanding some of your posts, so be patient with me.

 

 

Your post seems to be in the form of a question. I'm not sure what you anticipated in reference to the Biblical quotes.

-

Many of the original posts were also subjective when it came to defining either Christ or Christianity. There was not any core belief, except: "Do your own thing".

-

So, are we agreeing the Bible is true in all areas it touches; whether it be History or Science or Sprituality, or not? Or are we still at a point declaring a knowledge of the truth like Borg, where he knows the truth whether it's the truth or not?

-

As far as different interpretations are concerned, here's my 2 cents: Scripture has many applications, one interpretation.

-

I'm just a little confused: "The question for me is priority, not certainty". Can you be certain of that?

 

DavidK, you asked and I was and am very patient with you and others, I am also asking that you be patient with me, as I have a lot going on in my life, it's a matter of repair and justice...

 

If Jesus existed and I believe that Jesus did exist, and that GOD enters into our lives and that Jesus has existed many times over the years in the hearts of many people... OR Many people are lead and follow the call of the spirit of GOD.

 

About the Bible is it true with out error and that also means without contradicting the nature of GOD? I believe all religious text to be flawed every written word is not pure when it contradicts the will of GOD. How do I know the will of GOD? Pro-Creation or Pro-life not to say that as a omnivore we can't eat of nutrutional food for our survival. When I say pro-life I really mean that we don't kill animals just for the fun of killing and that includes animals of our own species, we should not kill or murder another human being. If it is at all possible we can incarcerate a bad person who has bad intentions and we should provide adequate justice as GOD is just and GOD is Love and GOD loves good justice. What leads to bad justice? Lies are the shifting sands that deystroy nations and lies bring disgrace to all actions proving that the liars do not Love or Respect GOD or people.

 

What did they do?

 

The deaf will be able to hear, many will see the truth as it is written and many will have knowledge to understand as the dumb are able to speak and the meak will find justice as a result of past failures... First the way has to be made smooth for the path of many to find peace.

[davidk]

DavidK, you asked and I was and am very patient with you and others, I am also asking that you be patient with me, as I have a lot going on in my life, it's a matter of repair and justice...

 

If Jesus existed and I believe that Jesus did exist, and that GOD enters into our lives and that Jesus has existed many times over the years in the hearts of many people... OR Many people are lead and follow the call of the spirit of GOD.

 

About the Bible is it true with out error and that also means without contradicting the nature of GOD? I believe all religious text to be flawed every written word is not pure when it contradicts the will of GOD. How do I know the will of GOD? Pro-Creation or Pro-life not to say that as a omnivore we can't eat of nutrutional food for our survival. When I say pro-life I really mean that we don't kill animals just for the fun of killing and that includes animals of our own species, we should not kill or murder another human being. If it is at all possible we can incarcerate a bad person who has bad intentions and we should provide adequate justice as GOD is just and GOD is Love and GOD loves good justice. What leads to bad justice? Lies are the shifting sands that deystroy nations and lies bring disgrace to all actions proving that the liars do not Love or Respect GOD or people.

 

What did they do?

 

The deaf will be able to hear, many will see the truth as it is written and many will have knowledge to understand as the dumb are able to speak and the meak will find justice as a result of past failures... First the way has to be made smooth for the path of many to find peace.

Yes, I know! Living requires a lot of maintenance.

-

Man's autonomy causes the problems.

-

That's some pretty heavy questions. It took a while for me to find my answers to 'em, since most people are comfortable in their status quo of some religious memory or tradition without knowing why.

 

There's a lot of that going on here, too. The general response is endless rhetoric and insult, no closer to an answer. Sort of a progressive fundamentalism.

-

The reasoning that sold me after all of those years, started with a philosophical statement.

 

Now Philosophy had never been on my list of favorites, but I learned quickly everybody's got one, a philosophy, that is. A world view in how we see the world and make sense of it.

 

Well, it was more a quasi-question. Jean Paul Sartre said the basic philosophic question is that something is there rather than that nothing is there. Things do actually exist in their present form and complexity.

-

This will have to be a stopping point. I answered this much now so you would know I'm empathetic. Family calls and I must go. It will be tomorrow before I can return.

 

God's Grace to you.

[October's Autumn]

1 Corinthians 8:1-3

 

1 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; 3 but anyone who loves God is known by him.

 

 

This is so true. Like most teens I knew everything. Only to go to college and learn I had barely touched the surface. I don't know what Greek word is used here or its connotations but that is what immediately came to mind when I read the passage. Thankfully, God loves us even when we really know nothing... like you said it is the question not the certainity. The williness to learn.

 

On a side note: this passage can be misused in some circles to put down education - particularly the education which sends us searching for truth which is outside of the narrow teachings of our upbringing!

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

QUOTE:

"----

Man's condition has not changed since he first walked on the planet. There are not any needs for the Bible to change or add anything except perhaps: do not covet your neighbor's TV during the Super Bowl.

 

It provides all the universal truths we may require."

 

DavidK,

I think at this point you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, because in my earlier post I tried to illustrate some situations in which I believe humans understand God better now than they did in Biblical times, and I read above that you do not. I don't think we are likely to convince each other otherwise. I also think this debate is no longer about whether following Christ is Compatible with Christianity. Sorry!

[October's Autumn]

...in my earlier post I tried to illustrate some situations in which I believe humans understand God better now than they did in Biblical times ...

 

Let's hope us! I would certainly hope people would no longer accept mass genocide of people to be acceptable! Yeesh... the bible is a recording human's understanding of God which is clearly demonstrated in the stories of the books of Joshua and Kings. God does not in any way condone (let alone demand) mass murder of human beings!

[davidk]

QUOTE:

DavidK,

I think at this point you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, because in my earlier post I tried to illustrate some situations in which I believe humans understand God better now than they did in Biblical times, and I read above that you do not. I don't think we are likely to convince each other otherwise. I also think this debate is no longer about whether following Christ is Compatible with Christianity. Sorry!

Would you please be more explicit if you know of any human condition existing now that has not always existed? These would definitely be foundational to the 'question'.

-

If, Autumn: "... it is the question not the certainity."

Then the question: "Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity? ", is pertinent and

Not the certainty of: 'Yes or No' or 'who or what'. For it would be irrelevent.

-

If 'certainty' is not important, why do we find consistently, remarks of 'certainty'. "I would certainly hope people..."

"...understanding of God which is clearly demonstrated..."

"God does not in any way..." , etc.

-

You certainly live in 'certainty', even though you argue against it. I want you to be just as consistant with it in your faith as you are in real life.

 

Up until now 'uncertainty and ambiguity' have been a bulwark of doctrinal Progressive theology. I think it's time to face reality.

[minsocal]

1 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; 3 but anyone who loves God is known by him.

 

"(oidamen oti panteß gnwsin ecomen)." "Paul admits that all Christians have this knowledge (personal experience, gnwsiß), but this problem cannot be solved by knowledge."

 

This is so true. Like most teens I knew everything. Only to go to college and learn I had barely touched the surface. I don't know what Greek word is used here or its connotations but that is what immediately came to mind when I read the passage. Thankfully, God loves us even when we really know nothing... like you said it is the question not the certainity. The williness to learn.

 

On a side note: this passage can be misused in some circles to put down education - particularly the education which sends us searching for truth which is outside of the narrow teachings of our upbringing!

 

Yes, that's the concept.

 

This passage has several interpretations, but it was selected to illustrate a point. In the various expert analyses available for this passage, the following is connected to a point made previously (this is a direct quote):

 

"It was the saying of Socrates, that that this one thing he knew, that he knew nothing; but men wise in their own opinions know everything:

 

knowledge puffeth up;

 

not true knowledge; not that which comes from above, which is gentle and easy to be entreated;

 

not sanctified knowledge, or that which has the grace of God going along with it; that makes men humble, and will not suffer them to be puffed up one against another;

 

but a mere show of knowledge, knowledge in conceit, mere notional and speculative knowledge, that which is destitute of charity or love:

 

but charity edifieth;

 

that is, a man that has knowledge, joined with love to God, and his fellow Christians, will seek for that which makes for the edification of others; and without this all his knowledge will be of no avail, and he himself be nothing."

 

This passage connects a view presented here and elsewhere that the Bible does indeed support certain claims made in this forum by those who consider themselves Progressive Christians.

 

It is not uncommon to hear people say that it was a particular teacher that inspired them to go beyond certain narrow confines, in our schools and in our Churches.

 

The teachings of Jesus (or the following of Jesus) can be just that sort of inspiration, but this can also leave us open to sarcasm and criticism. This is the risk, as we well know.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

DavidK,

I think there are many human conditions today that have not existed forever. We have access to a wealth of knowledge from various sources, and most of us in this country are able to read the Bible and other religious literature. We can now communicate with people all over the world, instead of only knowing the news of the small community surrounding us. This complicates the question of "Who is my neighbor?" "How many people can I realistically love?" and "Did God cause AIDS and the tsunami?" The majority of people no longer see disease or illness or misfortune as punishments by God for the sins of our forefathers, because we have learned about bacteria viruses, and genetic factors, etc. Socially we are in a different condition, living in a country where all men and women are created equal, and slavery has been abolished. From the Bible, we can't really know God's mind about the women's rights movement, or about the civil rights movement. People are living longer and marrying later, and the world is overpopulated. So, I personally don't believe we really know how God feels about birth control, for example, from reading the Bible. This is why God has indwelt us with the Holy Spirit and given us minds to think and reason about God's will in a changing world. Even within the Bible, the rules for man progressed from "an eye for an eye" to letting murderers run away to a safe town to loving and forgiving your enemies. That is why there is disagreement today about whether God would endorse the death penalty. I'm glad for you that you feel the Bible has all the answers for life today, and I am not trying to be some sort of stumbling block to your faith. I just know that the Bible has been quoted "for" and "against" the same cause by thinking Christians.

[davidk]

DavidK,

I think there are many human conditions today that have not existed forever. We have access to a wealth of knowledge from various sources, and most of us in this country are able to read the Bible and other religious literature. We can now communicate with people all over the world, instead of only knowing the news of the small community surrounding us. This complicates the question of "Who is my neighbor?" "How many people can I realistically love?" and "Did God cause AIDS and the tsunami?" The majority of people no longer see disease or illness or misfortune as punishments by God for the sins of our forefathers, because we have learned about bacteria viruses, and genetic factors, etc. Socially we are in a different condition, living in a country where all men and women are created equal, and slavery has been abolished. From the Bible, we can't really know God's mind about the women's rights movement, or about the civil rights movement. People are living longer and marrying later, and the world is overpopulated. So, I personally don't believe we really know how God feels about birth control, for example, from reading the Bible. This is why God has indwelt us with the Holy Spirit and given us minds to think and reason about God's will in a changing world. Even within the Bible, the rules for man progressed from "an eye for an eye" to letting murderers run away to a safe town to loving and forgiving your enemies. That is why there is disagreement today about whether God would endorse the death penalty. I'm glad for you that you feel the Bible has all the answers for life today, and I am not trying to be some sort of stumbling block to your faith. I just know that the Bible has been quoted "for" and "against" the same cause by thinking Christians.

"The only difference between man of yesterday and today is his air conditioning and TV."

 

These you listed, consider them as sub-headings or particulars of the universal human condition. These particulars are not the universal by which all of those particulars are a part of and defined by. Defining the Universal, will give meaning to all of those particulars.

 

When man originally began relying on an inner resource in order to find a supposed 'true inner nature', it became spiritual pride. The very cause of an actual event in space and time. As a result, the Bible explains over and again the meaning and consequences of our "Human Condition".

 

God's propositional Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and the subsequent two propositional Commandments Jesus Christ boiled 'em all down to in the New Testament, provided a more succinct list of particulars, exposing our 'spiritual pride's' guilt of missing the mark.

 

The Bible teaches that man does not possess an intrinsic divine nature, and thus man is incapable of saving himself from his guilt. The only "true inner nature" man possesses is a sinful nature. That is the Human Condition. Man's 'autonomy' is the source of all his problems.

 

I Corinthians 10:13; "No Temptation has overcome you but such as is common to man;... ."

 

We can debate the particulars, because they have universals that provide them with meaning.

 

That leads us into a dilemma; man being able to do good things (his nobility) as well as being able to do bad things (his cruelty).

[minsocal]

In many Progressive communities there has recently been a great deal of discussion concerning war and justice.

 

John Dominic Crossan puts it this way:

 

"So the real question would be, first century: do you think that Jesus is divine or Caesar is divine? Which programmatically means: do you think violence or justice should be running the world? I can translate it into that. In the first century Paul sends his letter to the Romans talking about how God is making the world just. It's called justification. This is our problem."

 

http://www.philosophyandscripture.org/Issu...jd_crossan.html

 

As a Progressive Christian, this is my "priority" concern. Justice should be running the world. This is my view of following the teachings and life of Jesus before other sources (the subject of this thread).

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

To be added to the previous post:

 

John Dominic Crossan again:

 

"First of all, the continuity from Jesus to Paul is that each of them, in different theological language, make their claims within the general constraints of a first century eschatological expectation of the great clean-up of the world - that's what eschatology means, it does not mean the end of the world, it means the eradication of injustice and violence and evil in this present world. It means, God's will be done on this earth. Both of them make the claim that this process has begun, not that it's merely imminent, not that it's simply coming. They claim in different theological language that it has begun and that human beings, as believers, are called to participate in it. Both of these are radically new claims."

 

This is a very different from arguing over epistemology.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

Universals, if universal, would have to cut across all cultures and all sources. The Bible would then have to be in agreement, in principle, with other non-Christian traditions, rendering the Christian / non-Christian distinction moot. This is the real basis for accepting pluralism. Unless, of course, one is willing to lable a large portion of the world's poplation 'defective'.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"The only difference between man of yesterday and today is his air conditioning and TV."

 

These you listed, consider them as sub-headings or particulars of the universal human condition. These particulars are not the universal by which all of those particulars are a part of and defined by. Defining the Universal, will give meaning to all of those particulars.

 

When man originally began relying on an inner resource in order to find a supposed 'true inner nature', it became spiritual pride. The very cause of an actual event in space and time. As a result, the Bible explains over and again the meaning and consequences of our "Human Condition".

 

God's propositional Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and the subsequent two propositional Commandments Jesus Christ boiled 'em all down to in the New Testament, provided a more succinct list of particulars, exposing our 'spiritual pride's' guilt of missing the mark.

 

The Bible teaches that man does not possess an intrinsic divine nature, and thus man is incapable of saving himself from his guilt. The only "true inner nature" man possesses is a sinful nature. That is the Human Condition. Man's 'autonomy' is the source of all his problems.

 

I Corinthians 10:13; "No Temptation has overcome you but such as is common to man;... ."

 

We can debate the particulars, because they have universals that provide them with meaning.

 

That leads us into a dilemma; man being able to do good things (his nobility) as well as being able to do bad things (his cruelty).

 

I don't feel like we are communicating very well. Metaphorically I feel like you are saying I do not need an up to date schematic or manual to work on my car because humans have always had a need to wander and get from place to place. I thought the conversation we were in was about if progressives say scripture is unreliable where do we find truth. In 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, I believe there is evidence that if we have received the Spirit sent by God we can have the mind of Christ. One of the largest tests I use about whether something is a truth is that of love, as written in 1 Corinthians 13. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 shows that the early church believed in inspired messages, and that we are supposed to put all things to the test of good and evil, which would imply that even though there were limited writings available for people to read at that time they were supposed to be able to make judgements about that.

[October's Autumn]

I don't feel like we are communicating very well.

 

 

YOU are communicationg just fine. It is a continued problem -- like trying to talk to a wall!

[davidk]

I don't feel like we are communicating very well. Metaphorically I feel like you are saying I do not need an up to date schematic or manual to work on my car because humans have always had a need to wander and get from place to place. I thought the conversation we were in was about if progressives say scripture is unreliable where do we find truth. In 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, I believe there is evidence that if we have received the Spirit sent by God we can have the mind of Christ. One of the largest tests I use about whether something is a truth is that of love, as written in 1 Corinthians 13. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 shows that the early church believed in inspired messages, and that we are supposed to put all things to the test of good and evil, which would imply that even though there were limited writings available for people to read at that time they were supposed to be able to make judgements about that.

Yes we were speaking of progressives finding truth in 'unreliable' scripture.

-

You had differed from me by considering the 'old' and 'modern' human conditions are somehow different (post 263). I countered by defining the Human Condition as common to all. And by understanding this universal (spiritual pride, autonomy), we have meaning for all those 'neighbor', 'love', 'civil rights', 'death penalty' issues to be discussed.

-

Your Scripture references are fine. Love is crucial. And we have a wealth of literature unavailable 2000 years ago. Whether we have a better understanding of God because of it, I'm not so sure. We can certainly make it more complicated. The authors of the Bible certainly had a grip on the truth. Modern man is still in wonder of its profound content.

-

The question I have for you in regard to Liberal/Progressive theology is in defining the terms in the verses. Who is this Jesus Christ that your scripture refers? All to often the L/P posts have denied Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior, who is the power and wisdom and Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.

 

Unforunately many take a 'higher criticism' position toward the Bible, picking out what pleases them and ignoring or ridiculing the rest by way of their own authority. You seem to rely on Scripture to make your points. Do you consider the Bible the Word of God?

-

It keeps being said I believe the Bible is my only source of knowledge about God. While it is foundational in my belief, there are other authors, observations, and studies that provide insight. I exercise I Thess 5:21.

-

OA- May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

[soma]

Liberals do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the Bible, with the intent of proving that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong just because they believe in the Bible. They do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.

 

The spiritual truth in the Bible renews the mind and increases it’s capacity to grow in the conceptual knowledge of God. The Progressive Christian’s idea of the Bible is of acceptance and love, and that there is one God that created all things. This is a conceptual truth that frees the mind to think of God all the time. This relaxes the emotions so we can praise everything as good because it came from God. This kind of encounter Jesus revealed to be the key to reality, a connection to God that has the ability to bring into physical being that which is spiritual and ultimately real. Jesus’ words were not meant to be an end in themselves, but a vehicle to lead a person to encounter the all-pervading God that is beyond the grasp of the mind and all words. The ideas in the Bible are beyond the normal mundane world of time and space and are the living expression of God where everyone can find fulfillment. This is where the Progressive Christians find the Bible reliable.

 

God is all that matters, not the constricting doctrine that Conservative Christians say is the truth because the truth that God is one is fulfilling, universal, available and applicable to all. Spiritual harmony may be hidden from Conservatives for a while because they think the Bible is a law book to throw at people, but it cannot be taken away because sooner or later they will be healed and have the ability to see God loves all His Creatures.

 

Reality, God, love, truth and the awesome material universe are something else altogether; in truth, we need to change our paradigm in order to have access to the ideas in the Bible and know it is reliable. The conservatives refuse to do this so they only believe the Bible is reliable and try to force and prove it is reliable over and over again because they don't accept it as truth and know that it is reliable. They only blieve. They talk to others over and over again about the same restricting orthodoxy, but they are only trying to convince themselves.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

-

You had differed from me by considering the 'old' and 'modern' human conditions are somehow different (post 263). I countered by defining the Human Condition as common to all. And by understanding this universal (spiritual pride, autonomy), we have meaning for all those 'neighbor', 'love', 'civil rights', 'death penalty' issues to be discussed.

-

It is evident that even people who grasp the same universal truths disgree on how they are played out in the particulars. My point is that the Bible is mainly made up of the particulars, which are culturally changing. Each of us who reads the Bible have to decide which parts of the Bible are methaphor, which are culturally relevant today, what "inspired by God" means. I DO believe humans have learned much about God since that time, and I have tried to elaborate before. I do not think most progressives are struggling with the Bible "on their own authority." I believe they are honestly seeking truth in it with God's help, because they revere the Bible's stories and its chronicles of man's understanding of God. I know I don't want to throw out the whole Bible just because I feel like it is an imperfect window to look through to see God. That would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

I hope others will be tolerant of this forum being the place for a faith statement, since DavidK has asked for it. I am new to this forum, so it may be interesting to everyone to hear mine, although I believe it probably belongs in another post.

 

I love Jesus! I have pledged to give up my life -- to let the Spirit control it, and I seek God passionately to help me follow Jesus' techings about love, so Jesus is Lord of my life. I believe God was uniquely present in Jesus, but I believe there are other ways to know God besides through Jesus. Jesus has saved me, in that he represents the fact that even when I feel I could never be forgiven by God, Jesus assures me I can. I don't relate to the idea of Jesus needing to be the perfect sacrifice, because the sacrificial system was a cultural commonality of Biblical times, but I have not ever known a single person who has killed an animal in hopes of becoming closer to God. I see examples in the Bible of times God forgave without sacrifice, and I believe it is unnecessarily hurtful to others who have alternative paths to God to suggest that God will not forgive them unless they believe this to be true about God. I Have already had these debates with a close, evangelical friend who cares very much for me and is working hard to convince me God is too holy to let sin come near and that sacrifice is just the system God gave us for cleansing. She would like to hang out with me in heaven someday, and she is convinced I will not be there. However, I think if we focus instead on the real issues of life -- helping the poor, supporting the disadvantaged, loving our enemies and our neighbors, God's love will reign and theological differences are just not that important. I admit that I only have a portion of the truth about God. I reject the idea that anyone could have the whole truth about God, and the Bible doesn't seem to try to give the whole truth. It is a collection of Jewish stories, Judaic history, prophecy, stories of Jesus, and struggles to define a new religion centered around Jesus.

[davidk]

Liberals do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the Bible, with the intent of proving that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong just because they believe in the Bible. They do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.

 

The spiritual truth in the Bible renews the mind and increases it’s capacity to grow in the conceptual knowledge of God. The Progressive Christian’s idea of the Bible is of acceptance and love, and that there is one God that created all things. This is a conceptual truth that frees the mind to think of God all the time. This relaxes the emotions so we can praise everything as good because it came from God. This kind of encounter Jesus revealed to be the key to reality, a connection to God that has the ability to bring into physical being that which is spiritual and ultimately real. Jesus’ words were not meant to be an end in themselves, but a vehicle to lead a person to encounter the all-pervading God that is beyond the grasp of the mind and all words. The ideas in the Bible are beyond the normal mundane world of time and space and are the living expression of God where everyone can find fulfillment. This is where the Progressive Christians find the Bible reliable.

 

God is all that matters, not the constricting doctrine that Conservative Christians say is the truth because the truth that God is one is fulfilling, universal, available and applicable to all. Spiritual harmony may be hidden from Conservatives for a while because they think the Bible is a law book to throw at people, but it cannot be taken away because sooner or later they will be healed and have the ability to see God loves all His Creatures.

 

Reality, God, love, truth and the awesome material universe are something else altogether; in truth, we need to change our paradigm in order to have access to the ideas in the Bible and know it is reliable. The conservatives refuse to do this so they only believe the Bible is reliable and try to force and prove it is reliable over and over again because they don't accept it as truth and know that it is reliable. They only blieve. They talk to others over and over again about the same restricting orthodoxy, but they are only trying to convince themselves.

I understand your spiritual desires for love and acceptance, it is universal. I regret that I really don't think you understand what I have been trying to say. There is a preconcieved notion of 'Biblical' Christianity here. When I say 'infallible', it is frightening to you. Yet your spirit thirsts for knowledge that is absolutely, infallibly, and certainly true. If you cannot depend on this being absolutely, infallibly true, how can you rest? We can't live without some sense of certainty.

 

God is all that matters. Christian Biblical doctrine does not constrain God, it exposes and explains His love and grace are available for everyone. Biblical Christianity explains the law is not to be thrown at anyone, it is critical of such repugnant behavior. The Biblical Christian does not believe in a blind leap of faith, he demands reliable evidence of the truth.

 

You're right to consider the Bible as not being an inexhaustable source of information about every subject, but that does not mean it is not true in the areas it does speak about, ie; of History or the Cosmos or spirituality. We know we cannot entertain inexhaustable, infinite amounts of information in our finite little brain. But again, that doesn't mean the information we can absorb cannot be considered reasonable, rational, and understandable.

 

The Biblical Christian perspective of knowing stems from the belief of a uniformity of natural causes in an open system. While the Liberal/Progressive belief is a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.

-

[grampawombat]

I had a conversation with a friend today in which she described a Bible study group in which she had participated. The group had been going for several years and its members held a wide spectrum of religious beliefs. Although it was never stated explicitly, there was a presumption of acceptance among the members of the group that, while disagreements could and should be voiced, each person's convicitons were accepted. Then a person joined the group who not only disagreed with others but called their convictions into question. The group dynamics changed to the point that several members expressed the intention of quitting.

 

My friend went to the pastor (who was not a member of the group) and expressed her concern about the possibility of losing these members. The pastor then disclosed that she was aware of this newer member and that person's behavior. She also was aware that the person was intent on "converting" the group to the "true religion." Armed with this information, my friend informed the other members of the group, and they did agree to remain. But they devised a non-confrontational strategy for dealing with the "evangelist" in a way that caused that person to leave the group shortly thereafter. I heard what the strategy was, but can't say that I can see exactly how it was implemented.

 

With all of that in mind, I was struck by the following quote from the preceding post:

 

"[Y]our spirit thirsts for knowledge that is absolutely, infallibly, and certainly true. If you cannot depend on this being absolutely, infallibly true, how can you rest? We can't live without some sense of certainty."

 

I am struck by two things in this statement. The first is the assumption that the writer knows what the person or people being addressed think regarding a particularly personal aspect of their thought processes. I'm sure that the writer believes, on the basis of earlier posts, that this insight into the thoughts of others is valid and can cite evidence of it, but I think that assumption is incorrect.

 

Second, the writer states as fact the notion that people generally cannot live with without "some sense of certainty." This statement explicitly contadicts much of what has been said heretofore in this thread, and for that matter elsewhere on the TCPC boards.

 

So one might be tempted to inquire why someone would make such statements. My observation is that, rather than attempting to engage in dialogue, the writer's intention is to convince the other participants in the thread of the illogic of their positions and bring them around to what the writer is convinced is the only possibly logical way of thinking about religion. I hope that these attemps are sufficiently evident to the other participants in the thread, but sometimes I'm not sure.

[minsocal]

I had a conversation with a friend today in which she described a Bible study group in which she had participated. The group had been going for several years and its members held a wide spectrum of religious beliefs. Although it was never stated explicitly, there was a presumption of acceptance among the members of the group that, while disagreements could and should be voiced, each person's convicitons were accepted. Then a person joined the group who not only disagreed with others but called their convictions into question. The group dynamics changed to the point that several members expressed the intention of quitting.

 

My friend went to the pastor (who was not a member of the group) and expressed her concern about the possibility of losing these members. The pastor then disclosed that she was aware of this newer member and that person's behavior. She also was aware that the person was intent on "converting" the group to the "true religion." Armed with this information, my friend informed the other members of the group, and they did agree to remain. But they devised a non-confrontational strategy for dealing with the "evangelist" in a way that caused that person to leave the group shortly thereafter. I heard what the strategy was, but can't say that I can see exactly how it was implemented.

 

With all of that in mind, I was struck by the following quote from the preceding post:

 

"[Y]our spirit thirsts for knowledge that is absolutely, infallibly, and certainly true. If you cannot depend on this being absolutely, infallibly true, how can you rest? We can't live without some sense of certainty."

 

I am struck by two things in this statement. The first is the assumption that the writer knows what the person or people being addressed think regarding a particularly personal aspect of their thought processes. I'm sure that the writer believes, on the basis of earlier posts, that this insight into the thoughts of others is valid and can cite evidence of it, but I think that assumption is incorrect.

 

Second, the writer states as fact the notion that people generally cannot live with without "some sense of certainty." This statement explicitly contadicts much of what has been said heretofore in this thread, and for that matter elsewhere on the TCPC boards.

 

So one might be tempted to inquire why someone would make such statements. My observation is that, rather than attempting to engage in dialogue, the writer's intention is to convince the other participants in the thread of the illogic of their positions and bring them around to what the writer is convinced is the only possibly logical way of thinking about religion. I hope that these attemps are sufficiently evident to the other participants in the thread, but sometimes I'm not sure.

 

grampawombat,

 

I saw the same statement you noted and took a walk to decide whether or not to voice my objection. The purpose seems evident to me. You have stated it better than I might have.

 

minsocal