Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[minsocal]

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.

 

Actually, this is an inverted defintion of systems theory. It's the other way around.

[davidk]

Actually, this is an inverted defintion of systems theory. It's the other way around.

You write that with a great certainty. However, I don't think you have the tolerance to listen while I explain that what I posted was the more correct.

-

All of you write with a great deal of certainty that you speak the truth, in every post. But for some reason when I call your attention to it, it is suddenly wild imaginings and you deny the certainty of anything. "...the writer states... people generally cannot live 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." While you may argue very convincingly that uncertainty is your way of life, you cannot actually live that way. Each post gives you away. You have to argue your position with certainty. Therefore, "Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything".

To argue with that, you must argue with yourself.

[minsocal]

You write that with a great certainty. However, I don't think you have the tolerance to listen while I explain that what I posted was the more correct.

-

All of you write with a great deal of certainty that you speak the truth, in every post. But for some reason when I call your attention to it, it is suddenly wild imaginings and you deny the certainty of anything. "...the writer states... people generally cannot live 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." While you may argue very convincingly that uncertainty is your way of life, you cannot actually live that way. Each post gives you away. You have to argue your position with certainty. Therefore, "Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything".

To argue with that, you must argue with yourself.

 

No, you argue with yourself as you alienate person after person in this forum. You seem to be the insecure person here. Who needs you to "call attention" ? (sorry grampawombat, couldn't resist). And by the way ... there is an old saying ... if you can't stand the heat, stay away from the fire. You have confirmed your intentions for all to see.

[October's Autumn]

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.

 

It would be circular reason if the bible actually claimed that, it doesn't. What is written in Timothy is that scripture specifically is those things claimed, refering to the Hebrew Bible, as the New Testament does not yet exist. The claim is not made for the New Testament because there was no such thing as the New Testament! You also have to be careful about what each of those words means in Greek versus in English. This idea of taking the bible literally as is done by fundamentalist is fairly recent, I believe it comes around the beginning of the 20th century.

[October's Autumn]

I hope that these attemps are sufficiently evident to the other participants in the thread, but sometimes I'm not sure.

 

Thank you for sharing. And yes, it is evident, at least to me! David has also made the same statement about why conservative/fundamentalists cannot do much in the way of having conversations about theology.

[minsocal]

You write that with a great certainty. However, I don't think you have the tolerance to listen while I explain that what I posted was the more correct.

 

It may surprise you that people have knowledge equal to yours, or even better. As I asked you previously ... what are your credentials? And why would anyone here bow to you?

[minsocal]

You write that with a great certainty. However, I don't think you have the tolerance to listen while I explain that what I posted was the more correct.

 

Absurd. I listened ... we listened ... you lectured ... and only you are right. I find NO movement on your part. Oh yes, certainty. Pompous, arrogant ... well ... you get the point. More correctly ... you have no right to say this. Plain, pure, and simple.

 

Justify "more correct" .... for us all. (and I do mean justify).

[soma]

DavidK, Your beliefs are not absolute truths. They are opinions about reality, not reality itself, but in your mind. Maybe, that is why you try so hard to convince others you are right. Have faith and relax a little.

 

Progressive Christianity is concerned about faith, which is not concerned about proof. This is because faith is of the heart as well as the mind. You argue against faith because you want proof, but you will not remain silent or go inside yourself to experience it. Faith leads to knowledge. Experience God's love and know God's love . You don't have to prove it. Enjoy and others will feel it too. The key is to enjoy, not preach.

 

To experience something is to know it. Experience God deeply inside yourself and you will know with a degree of certainty that God exists. There is no need to prove anything. God will give you more power and influence than silly proofs that your opinions, excuse me your beliefs are correct and everyone else's are wrong. Swim in the Love!!!!!!!

[minsocal]

DavidK, Your beliefs are not absolute truths. They are opinions about reality, not reality itself, but in your mind. Maybe, that is why you try so hard to convince others you are right. Have faith and relax a little.

 

Progressive Christianity is concerned about faith, which is not concerned about proof. This is because faith is of the heart as well as the mind. You argue against faith because you want proof, but you will not remain silent or go inside yourself to experience it. Faith leads to knowledge. Experience God's love and know God's love . You don't have to prove it. Enjoy and others will feel it too. The key is to enjoy, not preach.

 

To experience something is to know it. Experience God deeply inside yourself and you will know with a degree of certainty that God exists. There is no need to prove anything. God will give you more power and influence than silly proofs that your opinions, excuse me your beliefs are correct and everyone else's are wrong. Swim in the Love!!!!!!!

 

This is why I added this scripture in a previous post:

 

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.

 

The more I read this, the more convinced I am of it's overall significance. In fact, it agrees with A. N. Whitehead (whose work Ilike very much).

[minsocal]

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

 

The full quote is:

 

1 Corinthians 10:13 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

 

13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

[minsocal]

Thank you for sharing. And yes, it is evident, at least to me! David has also made the same statement about why conservative/fundamentalists cannot do much in the way of having conversations about theology.

 

Yep ... even davidk agreed with me that it was rational that he and I had no common ground to pursue a dialogue. But, he pursued where only a fundamentalist will, and a Progressive Christian will experience a sense of "philosophic restraint" (to a point).

[October's Autumn]

Yep ... even davidk agreed with me that it was rational that he and I had no common ground to pursue a dialogue. But, he pursued where only a fundamentalist will, and a Progressive Christian will experience a sense of "philosophic restraint" (to a point).

 

to a point...

[minsocal]

to a point...

 

I'm hoping that members who have been alienated know they have support here.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

A Ray of light breaks through broken the light shines in short segments hope exists in bits and pieces as the fulfillment is nearly complete the change that exposes all of the corruption in all corners where there will be much work for the many making the world a better place.

 

What would it take to make the necessary repairs to our world?

 

Would following Christ cause a global change?

 

What is in your heart?

 

Should an injustice be allowed to flourish?

 

Would the burden be light if we all work together?

 

Would the result be a light for the world to see?

 

Do you need a Church to learn to work for the good?

 

Do you need a religious text?

 

Is there something different?

 

Could we find a key to peace?

[McKenna]

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.

 

Thanks, GrampaWombat.

[davidk]

Dear minsocal,

 

My wife and I were having dinner at a local Greek restaurant the other night. When finsihed, my wife noticed I had spinach caught between my teeth and brought it to my attention. Having learned my lesson here, I immediately chastised her as being insecure and for having the audacity to bring it to my attention. Who did she think she was?

 

Davidk

 

P.S. For the Liberal/Progressive theologian, it is quite impossible to think of real propositional revelation, knowledge that man has from God. It is a totally unthinkable concept. The presupposition of the L/P theologian of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is because naturally there is no knowledge from outside, especially verbalized propositional revelation from God; it is totally nonsense.

The Christian, however, believes in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, open to the reordering by God and by man. It is unthinkable that God could or would not communicate to man on the basis of verbalizations and propositions. Within the Christian structure, even aetheists do not find it to be surprising. Within the Christian framework, it is totally reasonable. It is what one would expect.

 

P.P.S. "... and the greatest of these is love."

[davidk]

Dear Soma,

 

Thank you for your calming voice.

My belief is in universal and absolute truth.

-

Systematic theology: Christianity. It has a beginning and flows through to the end. Each part relates to each other and the whole, and to what stands first. It provides modern man with the answers to his basic needs, while modern theology has no adequate answer.

The first basic need is raised by the lack of certainty regarding the reality of individual personality. Every man (and woman) has tension until a satisfactory answer is found to the problem of who he himself is.

The Christian answer takes us back to the beginning of everything. It states that personality is intrinsic in what is, a God who is personal on the high order of the Trinity created everthing else.

-

I do not argue against faith, I argue for it! Faith is given by God. In epistemology we know something is there because God made it to be there. I have faith in His adequate answers.

-

The Biblical revelation, according to God's teachings, binds not only the outward man but the inward man as well. The last of the Ten Commandments is internal: "You shall not covet." This concerns the inward man, God's giving knowledge, and the outward man in regard to morals. God's giving of knowledge where it touches history and the cosmos binds the inward and outward man and there is unity.

-

Man's attempted autonomy has robbed him of any certain reality.

 

God's grace to you,

Davidk

 

P.S. In reference to going "inside" for the answers, see my letter to minsocal.

[minsocal]

P.S. For the Liberal/Progressive theologian, it is quite impossible to think of real propositional revelation, knowledge that man has from God. It is a totally unthinkable concept. The presupposition of the L/P theologian of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is because naturally there is no knowledge from outside, especially verbalized propositional revelation from God; it is totally nonsense.

The Christian, however, believes in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, open to the reordering by God and by man. It is unthinkable that God could or would not communicate to man on the basis of verbalizations and propositions. Within the Christian structure, even aetheists do not find it to be surprising. Within the Christian framework, it is totally reasonable. It is what one would expect.

 

You are now advocating principles I put forth in other threads in defense of progressive/liberal theology. Have you become a progressive (to mirror your rheorical devices)? The question to you is this: Is God a natural cause? This is more in line with Aristotle, Spinoza, and Whitehead (see thread on Process Theology). A second question concerns how do the teachings of Jesus relate to your premise of naturalism?

[davidk]

Bless your heart, minsocal.

 

Since you had previously objected to their being inverted in post 276, might I assume we now have an agreed upon explanation of the two presuppositions? If that is the case, I shall continue with a brief response.

 

1). Liberal/Progressive theology is the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system because naturally there is no knowledge from outside, especially the verbalized propositional revelation from God.

2). Christian theology is the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, open to the reordering by God and by man.

--

Had you incorrectly interpreted my describing the presuppositions as advocating the liberal position; I would have to say: Sorry, it's not, because:

The L/P presupposition is that everything is just a part of nature's 'machine', even though it dehumanizes man and runs counter to all the evidence of what man knows about man. If you are commited to the closed system, whether you express yourself in philosophical or religious terms, propositional, verbalized revelation, that is knowledge man has from God, is a totally unthinkable concept and you will never be able to consider the other presupposition which first began modern science.

--

Oppenheimer and Whitehead, neither Christian, openly declared modern science could not have been born outside the Christian milieu. Whitehead specifically points out, the fathers of modern science all believed that the universe was created by a reasonable God (the uniformity of natural causes in an open system) and therefore the universe could be found out by reason.

--

Nature is Gods creation, and Jesus' teachings are not related to 'Naturalism'.

-

Oh, I didn't understand any of the process theology thread. It was just nonsense, to me.

[minsocal]

Oh, I didn't understand any of the process theology thread. It was just nonsense, to me.

 

Thus you have inadequate knowledge of progressive/liberal theology. Process Theology makes the same claims you call your own. End of discussion.

[minsocal]

Oppenheimer and Whitehead, neither Christian, openly declared modern science could not have been born outside the Christian milieu. Whitehead specifically points out, the fathers of modern science all believed that the universe was created by a reasonable God (the uniformity of natural causes in an open system) and therefore the universe could be found out by reason.

-

Oh, I didn't understand any of the process theology thread. It was just nonsense, to me.

 

P.S. Whitehead is the philosphical basis for Process Theology. If you quote Whitehead, you are now in the realm of liberal/progressive theology. You should have also noted that Whitehead allows for a limited free will, which you seem to have problems with. I only ask you to be informed and consistent in your presentation of what you consider "facts". Since I have read Whitehead, I'm not sure where you get your information, please supply a reference.

[minsocal]

P.P.S. "... and the greatest of these is love."

 

P.P.S. Following the statements I made in the last two posts, Whitehead also concluded that God "operates by love". And, you claim that Whitehead is "not Christian". You have now entangled yourself in a web from which you have little room for escape.

[minsocal]

Dear minsocal,

 

My wife and I were having dinner at a local Greek restaurant the other night. When finsihed, my wife noticed I had spinach caught between my teeth and brought it to my attention. Having learned my lesson here, I immediately chastised her as being insecure and for having the audacity to bring it to my attention. Who did she think she was?

 

Davidk

 

P.P.S. "... and the greatest of these is love."

 

Dear davidk,

 

A VERY poor analogy. Your wife pointed out a fact. What you present here is mere opinion.

 

You still have spinach caught between your teeth.

 

(all things being metaphorically equal)

 

minsocal

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

On Earth we have created boundaries, in the Universe there are no boundaries...

 

A man comes to an intersection a crossroad, the authorities have marked the crossroad in a way that the average person with an average wagon could proceed, yet if the intersection was marked with a boundary that was a little further back then even people with much larger wagons could progress through the intersection with out being obstructed.

 

So the operator of the larger wagon wants to report to the government representatives that the intersection has bad boundaries. Who is listening?

 

The witness of the accident is charged with the profanity of another person. Who convicts the innocent?

 

In order to keep the wheels turning to conserve precious resources to remain productive and not to interfere with progress the government should provide adequate boundaries for all sizes of vehicles and the public should learn to respect all boundaries.

 

Have you crossed the line today? (There are many that have and many that have not)

 

Have you hurt someone today? (There are many that have and many that have not)

 

In order to follow Christ do you have to mame or kill another human being or their relationshiip?

 

Christian Love should be pro-life = pro-creation = procreation...

 

The burden you carry should be taking Jesus off of the cross, not putting Jesus on the cross.

 

Worship should be of the teachings and not of the crucifixion...

 

The focus should be on the good and not the evil...

 

The witness should never be the defendant - how absurd is a court case where the witness is the defendant or becomes a defendant?

 

What part of trying to be helpful is criminal?

 

Only in such a Christian Country as America the good ole U.S.A. could we get things so backwards and wrong, a prime example would be to allow our President to lie to gain access to war giving the bullies the perfect response for our country to self inflict wounds while lashing out at other nations.

 

All activities where people are being assaulted can now come to an end.

 

It is time to bring about real change and real peace...

 

It is time to turn our weapons into tools to plant and grow nourishing food to feed the body and soul.

 

It is time...

 

It is time to love one another and the Earth...

 

It is time to stop the hatred...

 

It is a time for Love,

 

It is a time for good,

 

It is long past time to remove and hold the liars accountable,

 

It is time for,

[davidk]

The modern scientific method is founded upon the principle of observation and inductive reasoning of an orderly universe. Although Whitehead's doctrine's were considered to have developed less coherence than more over time, and undoubtedly Whitehead’s writings also include points of self-contradiction, and his philosophy was criticized as incoherent because of its 'arbitrary disconnection of first principles', and to the extent that the four ultimate elements of his system (actual occasions, God, eternal objects, and creativity) are arbitrarily disconnected, to that extent some measure of incoherence remains in Whitehead’s own philosophy, Whitehead did introduce God as a systematic element into his philosophy.

 

"…faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from Medieval (Christian) theology…I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope." A. N. Whitehead, "Science and the Modern World", 1967, cited in James T. Cushing, "Philosophical Concepts in Physics" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)

 

“Faith in reason is the trust that the ultimate natures of things lie together in a harmony which excludes mere arbitrariness. It is the faith that at the base of things we shall not find mere arbitrary mystery. The faith in the order of nature which has made possible the growth of science is a particular example of a deeper faith. This faith cannot be justified by any inductive generalisation. It springs from direct inspection of the nature of things as disclosed in our own immediate present experience.” Professor A. N. Whitehead, “Science and the Modern World,” Cambridge University Press. 1926. P23.

 

“…the primordial nature of God envisions all possibilities and provides the lure ... Whitehead’s "God" in instigating the order of nature...”; “as Whitehead said "... the great fact which produced the order of the world"; Paul C. Kuntz, professor of philosophy at Emory University, Process Studies, pp. 232-242 , Vol. 12, Number 4, Winter, 1982.

 

"The early writer about Whitehead, Dorothy Emmet, whose Whitehead’s Philosophy of Organism, of 1932, was republished in 1966. She recognizes that the use of the philosophy of organism in Lionel Thornton’s The Incarnate Lord, 1928, which although accepting Whitehead’s view of the natural order, yet affirms "that Christ is not a product of the creative organic series but an irruption of the Logos-Creator (or the absolute eternal order) into the series." Paul C. Kuntz, professor of philosophy at Emory University, Process Studies, pp. 232-242 , Vol. 12, Number 4, Winter, 1982.

 

“Whitehead agrees with Spinoza that there is some one ultimate reality actualizing itself in all the entities we can know or think. In this sense there is substance. But in Whitehead’s view this substance is not a static entity undergoing change. It is, rather, itself the active ongoingness of things. To suggest both his agreement and disagreement with Spinoza in his ultimate monism, Whitehead affirms substantial activity as the ultimate reality at the base of things.(SMW 254-255.) What this means is that the occurrence of events, the sheer fact that something happens, is not itself accidental and is not subject to explanation by anything beyond itself”. John B. Cobb, Jr., Ph.D.; Professor of Theology Emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California, and Co-Director of the Center for Process Studies; “A Christian Natural Theology Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead”; Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1965.