Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[davidk]

Let's take a serious look at this, Autumn.

This is a definitive statement: "the Trinity is not present in Genesis." Read closely, please, in Genesis 1:26-27. This is the germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality. Genesis 1:22 follows it up, one more time in Genesis 11:7. The internal unity of the Godhead was not understood until Jesus came.

 

Rather than jump on this alone: we need to see something that was said after Jesus came, in Romans 1:20. By observing the created 'world', in a wide as well as narrow sense, we can understand His attributes and divine nature. So, let's observe and see.

 

We'll begin with the entire universe as a whole first. Science recognizes one known universe, (there are theories of others, but only one of them is useable in any sense) and it is made up of three distinct parts. If any one of the three is removed from the equation, the universe would cease to exist. They are: space, matter, and time. Though there are three, they are fundamentaly one.

 

Remarkably, each of these are a trinity in themselves, removing any of their three distinct characteristics, it could not exist. For example: Space. Space is defined by width, heighth, and depth. Removing any of these eliminates space. Another example: Matter. Matter is defined by mass, motion, and energy. Remove any of those three would cause matter to cease to exist. And the third: Time. Time can only be defined with its three parts: the past, the present, and the future. Removing any of those three characteristics would eliminate time.

 

Man was a creation in "His own image", and The Bible says what I've heard from many on this web say, Man has a 'soul', his unseen essence. Man also has a physical 'body', his visible manifistation. And Man has a 'Spirit', his unseen, energizing personality. Recognizing the attributes of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, explains the observed uniqueness of man.

 

The existing physical world and universe are an amazing reflection of the triune Creator. This is monotheism in its genuine state.

 

I've been through this nonsense of a Biblical 'Flat earth' discussion before. The sun orbiting the earth also falls into liberal myth. It is not Biblical. The seven day creation in the ancient Hebrew language leaves room for legitimate discussion on the length of a 'day'. "It goes on and on." The claim of Biblical error is more the myth.

 

You are absolutely right when saying the Bible was not meant to be a science, nor a history, book. It was not intended to provide exhaustive information about either.

But not being exhaustive does not make it any less true when it touches either History or the Cosmos. The Hebrew language of the Old Testament was written to be historical. The Greek New Testament often refers to the Old as having definite historical value, and it treats itself as having definite historical value.

 

"one cannot, factuallyknow anything." As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

 

There is no claim liberals have no 'ethics'. The claim is, they have no rational foundation for them. Other religions fall under the same weight.

 

So as Wayseer asks, "Exactly what do you believe in anyway?" (Are you baiting me, again?), so he has answered, "...you are a fundamentalist..." I think it was Wayseer who was looking for something that entails a lie. Well I found one! "Jesus was a cynic par excellence."

[McKenna]

Well, from an epistemological position cynicism is a legitimate way of knowing. Jesus was a cynic par excellence.

 

How so? Do you mean he was a cynic in the philosophical sense?

 

Buddhism, Doa, Islam, Judiaism are all stranded hopless without any ethical base.

 

I think you meant Taoism But it can also be spelled Dao (I think - that would make more sense considering the pronunciation) so you were close enough

 

This is a definitive statement: "the Trinity is not present in Genesis." Read closely, please, in Genesis 1:26-27. This is the germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality. Genesis 1:22 follows it up, one more time in Genesis 11:7. The internal unity of the Godhead was not understood until Jesus came.

 

Genesis 1:22? "And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth'"?

 

I've never understood the concept of the Trinity being somehow imbedded in the Hebrew Scriptures. That makes very little sense to me (and contains some level of arrogance as well ). Somehow some Jew thousands of years ago wrote down some stuff about God that contained references to the Trinity which he himself didn't (couldn't) understand? And the Jews have had an incorrect image of God ever since? What was the point? Why didn't God just make it clear to them who He was? Isn't that a little disrespectful to the Jews, telling them that they're misunderstanding their own Scripture?

 

We'll begin with the entire universe as a whole first. Science recognizes one known universe, (there are theories of others, but only one of them is useable in any sense) and it is made up of three distinct parts. If any one of the three is removed from the equation, the universe would cease to exist. They are: space, matter, and time. Though there are three, they are fundamentaly one.

 

Remarkably, each of these are a trinity in themselves, removing any of their three distinct characteristics, it could not exist. For example: Space. Space is defined by width, heighth, and depth. Removing any of these eliminates space. Another example: Matter. Matter is defined by mass, motion, and energy. Remove any of those three would cause matter to cease to exist. And the third: Time. Time can only be defined with its three parts: the past, the present, and the future. Removing any of those three characteristics would eliminate time.

 

I would argue that those are merely labels we stick onto the physical universe, and additionally that there are probably other 'parts' of the universe that we don't know about, so this probably isn't the best way to try to 'prove' the Trinity, but whatever.

 

The claim of Biblical error is more the myth.

 

Interesting.

 

-How did day and night exist before there was a sun? And how did morning exist?

-Genesis 1:6-8 appears to assume a flat Earth with the sky above and the land below.

-Plants certainly did not develop before there was a sun. And if we ignore science completely...even then how did the plants survive without the sun? Without the sun the temperature would be insanely cold, as I'm sure you know, and the plants would not be able to survive...

-Technically, the sun and moon don't 'mark the years' very well, which is why we need a leap year.

-The moon isn't a 'light.' Of course it appeared that way to ancient peoples, but it's not factually accurate.

 

I could go on like this for a while but it's kind of pointless and I'm embarrassed to do it, as I feel it is utterly absurd to do this sort of thing. It's obvious to me that the text is not supposed to be read this literally, and it clearly takes away from the actual meaning of the story. But I'm just kind of sick of hearing you say that there are no errors and no contradictions.

 

What I was originally going to point out was a rather large contradiction that I don't know how you could overlook.

 

Genesis 1:11 has the creation of plants; Genesis 1:26 has the creation of man. Thus man is created when plants have already been created. Yet Genesis 2:4-6 has man created before plants. Furthermore, Genesis 2 has man created first - then the animals - then the woman. Meanwhile, Genesis 1 has just stated that the animals came first, then man and woman together. (Even if they were created at separate times - the animals had already been created, before the man, unlike in Genesis 2.)

 

Even if you argue that the animals had already been created (as Genesis 2:19 is in past tense, at least in the translation I'm reading), that would mean they were created before plants, as plants had not yet been created when man was created in Genesis 2, but in Genesis 1 plants were created before animals.

 

The argument that Adam was not actually the first man, because man had already been created as stated in Genesis 1 (and therefore there is no contradiction), makes little sense as the name Adam comes from a Hebrew word meaning 'mankind.' Mankind can't really be created before mankind's creation.

 

Not to mention the fact that somehow biting an apple brings on an onslaught of knowledge. You're always talking about rationality - does that really make sense to you?

 

Finally, in Genesis 3:24, a flaming sword is placed outside Eden; Eden does not disappear. So what happened to Eden? And that sword and cherubim?

 

And why does our scientific knowledge/evidence/etc. contradict what is stated in Genesis? (i.e. science clearly says that the sun came before plants.)

 

Okay, this is really getting too obnoxious for me. I'll stop now.

[October's Autumn]

This is a definitive statement: "the Trinity is not present in Genesis." Read closely, please, in Genesis 1:26-27. This is the germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality. Genesis 1:22 follows it up, one more time in Genesis 11:7. The internal unity of the Godhead was not understood until Jesus came.

 

I've read it, I've read the argument that it is there. I've studied it. I understand it. I've explored it. As much as Trinitarians would like for Jesus to have been present in the creation story HE WAS NOT. They are reading into the creation story something that is not there. They read it in there because they want it to be there. They have not done anything but take a superficial look at it. That is typical of Conservative and Fundamentalists when it comes to the bible.

 

 

I've been through this nonsense of a Biblical 'Flat earth' discussion before.

Yeah, I know. You were completely wrong in that discussion, too.

 

The Hebrew language of the Old Testament was written to be historical. The Greek New Testament often refers to the Old as having definite historical value, and it treats itself as having definite historical value.

 

No. Not in the sense that we think of historical today.

 

"one cannot, factuallyknow anything." As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

 

Don't take my statement out of context. It makes you look bad. It also illustrates that there is no foundation for your claims.

[October's Autumn]

Okay, this is really getting too obnoxious for me. I'll stop now.

 

 

ROFL. I don't even bother anymore. People don't see the truth until they look for it. If they are only looking for what they want to be true they will "find" that too. It is pointless to try and reason with such.

[McKenna]

No. Not in the sense that we think of historical today.

 

Could you expand on that in terms of the New Testament specifically? What's the evidence for that?

 

Haha sorry, I couldn't help myself, I know you studied the New Testament (I think you said you have a degree in it? Perhaps?), so I couldn't resist the chance to learn more

[McKenna]

Interesting.

 

-How did day and night exist before there was a sun? And how did morning exist?

-Genesis 1:6-8 appears to assume a flat Earth with the sky above and the land below.

-Plants certainly did not develop before there was a sun. And if we ignore science completely...even then how did the plants survive without the sun? Without the sun the temperature would be insanely cold, as I'm sure you know, and the plants would not be able to survive...

-Technically, the sun and moon don't 'mark the years' very well, which is why we need a leap year.

-The moon isn't a 'light.' Of course it appeared that way to ancient peoples, but it's not factually accurate.

 

I could go on like this for a while but it's kind of pointless and I'm embarrassed to do it, as I feel it is utterly absurd to do this sort of thing. It's obvious to me that the text is not supposed to be read this literally, and it clearly takes away from the actual meaning of the story. But I'm just kind of sick of hearing you say that there are no errors and no contradictions.

 

What I was originally going to point out was a rather large contradiction that I don't know how you could overlook.

 

Genesis 1:11 has the creation of plants; Genesis 1:26 has the creation of man. Thus man is created when plants have already been created. Yet Genesis 2:4-6 has man created before plants. Furthermore, Genesis 2 has man created first - then the animals - then the woman. Meanwhile, Genesis 1 has just stated that the animals came first, then man and woman together. (Even if they were created at separate times - the animals had already been created, before the man, unlike in Genesis 2.)

 

Even if you argue that the animals had already been created (as Genesis 2:19 is in past tense, at least in the translation I'm reading), that would mean they were created before plants, as plants had not yet been created when man was created in Genesis 2, but in Genesis 1 plants were created before animals.

 

The argument that Adam was not actually the first man, because man had already been created as stated in Genesis 1 (and therefore there is no contradiction), makes little sense as the name Adam comes from a Hebrew word meaning 'mankind.' Mankind can't really be created before mankind's creation.

 

Not to mention the fact that somehow biting an apple brings on an onslaught of knowledge. You're always talking about rationality - does that really make sense to you?

 

Finally, in Genesis 3:24, a flaming sword is placed outside Eden; Eden does not disappear. So what happened to Eden? And that sword and cherubim?

 

And why does our scientific knowledge/evidence/etc. contradict what is stated in Genesis? (i.e. science clearly says that the sun came before plants.)

 

Okay, this is really getting too obnoxious for me. I'll stop now.

 

*sigh*

 

Okay, I apologize to everyone for this.

 

Davidk, I don't actually want to engage in a discussion about this. It would be entirely fruitless. Even if you could somehow convince me that the Bible does not have any internal contradictions - and I don't think you could manage to do that anytime soon - I would still see a contradiction, in some cases, between a literal reading of the Bible and reality as we know it and as we have evidence for it.

 

Furthermore, I did something I hate by playing along here...trying to force a literal reading onto a text that bears so much more meaning when it is read as a myth. I love the Creation story of Genesis. I have heard so many wonderful interpretations of it. Being a bit of a literature geek - I love that about the story, that there are so many ways to read it. But as I was going through it line by line last night, writing this, I didn't get that feeling. There was no meaning in it for me. It was just straight facts about something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago. I don't think it was supposed to be read that way...and I shouldn't have been hypocritical by reading it that way myself!

 

As you have all probably figured out, I am pretty young, probably at least a decade or two (or more) younger than almost everyone else here, and thus much less mature. I can't help myself from arguing sometimes...I find it hard to walk away. I got frustrated by Davidk's frequent assertion that the Bible is errorless, and sought to correct it. It was an immature thing to do, as I already knew that the discussion would be fruitless, and thus I was just wasting my own and others' time and energy. From now on I will try to be more mature.

 

Davidk, I respect you and I hope you know that. But I don't think I've actually gotten much out of any of our discussions; rather, we just argue with each other until we realize that we'll never convince each other. And, honestly, I'm not really sure why you're still here, since none of these discussions are fruitful - perhaps you're the same as me, can't resist making a point if you feel it needs to be said (which I sort of gather from post #125 on this thread when you explained why you were here).

 

Davidk - I just posted a reply to you on the Israel thread, before I decided to write this (which I did, admittedly, after reading David's post on the 'Ecumentalism' thread, which made me feel a bit foolish and embarrassed for being so immature), so this is going to sound a little dumb, but...from now on I'm going to try to respond only when I feel real results could come of a conversation. (That goes for my responses to everyone, not just you, but I have the feeling it will mean I'll respond the least to you.) I think another reason I've always responded is I feel mean ignoring you. So I'm not trying to be mean...I'm just trying to be realistic and say that I don't want to waste more time and energy when we're clearly not getting anywhere in our discussions. God bless.

 

I apologize again

[David]

No need to apologize to DavidK. No need to apologize to me or anyone on this Board. Even if you were not one of the most gracious persons I have never met there would be no need to apologize. Even if you were not so insightful there would be no need to apologize. Even if you were not so wise beyond your years there would be no need to apologize. God bless you too.

[David]

No need to apologize to DavidK. No need to apologize to me or anyone on this Board. Even if you were not one of the most gracious persons I have never met there would be no need to apologize. Even if you were not so insightful there would be no need to apologize. Even if you were not so wise beyond your years there would be no need to apologize. God bless you too.

[David]

I need to apologize however for posting that twice.

 

This is where the age thing comes in. You can tell I'm a "dinosaur" when it comes to computers. My kids laugh at me.

[October's Autumn]

Could you expand on that in terms of the New Testament specifically? What's the evidence for that?

 

Haha sorry, I couldn't help myself, I know you studied the New Testament (I think you said you have a degree in it? Perhaps?), so I couldn't resist the chance to learn more

 

 

I do have a Master's Degree in New Testament Theology. When we think of history today we think of things that actually happened. We don't try to make a truth out of something and change the "facts" to fit the message, or if we do, it is recognized as being fiction or flat out lying.

 

It was common for a follower of a teacher to write in that teacher's name (several of the letters "signed" by Paul are these letters). In our society that would not be tolerated. Only Michael Crichton can have his name on a book that he wrote. My step-son, who is a big fan, could not write a book and sell it or market it under Michael Crichton's name.

 

Much of the New Testament is midrash. The stories of Jesus are not historical in the sense that they actually happened in the way they are told. They are meant to convey truths that are outside of the realm of historical. Spong's Liberating the Gospels gives a full description.

 

The evidence is in the contradictions in the stories, the similarity with Jewish Midrash (which the gospels are since they are written by Jews and one Jewish convert). Also there is evidence outside the bible where you see the same thing being done at this time.

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, you make an excellent point about the creation myth. The bible has incredible depth to it. The first creation story is in poetic form meant to convey a message -- that message is certainly *not* intended to be a literal telling of how humans came to be.

 

 

It is a shame that so many miss out on it because they aren't willing to take the risk of not taking the bible literally and look at it as it was written to be.

 

I'm a bit jealous of your youth and depth of knowledge and all the time you have to explore!

[Wayseer]

To David, October's Autumn and McKenna you all have qualifications that sort of puts me in the shadows. I enjoy your contributions immensely.

 

I think what Spong and other others have done is liberate me from accepting the literalisation of the Bible. No - that's not quite true. What I mean is that I had always thought of the Bible as 'stories' although I had nothing to hand that hat on - I thought I was the problem. Spong et al handed me the hatstand. The interesting thing is that having accepted this situation I find I can relate a whole lot btter to those timeless stories - they actually make greater sense now.

 

In 1999 I became so disillusioned with the Church, as opposed to God, that I left and joined a Tibetan Buddhist monastry in India for some months. As it turns out this is probably the best thing I could have done. I saw Christianity from a different angle - I had different tools to use and those tools gave me another perspective. I was not alone as I vividly recall three of us 'Western' monks discussing Christianity one day. The consensus was that we all had a greater understanding of where Christiany should have been. Serendipitously, on my return I picked us Spong's book 'Why Christianity Must Die" having no idea of what had been happening in other parts of the world.

 

The last few years has been an imposed exile while I read book after book. This was rather exhilarating. All that remained was for me to dismantle those boundaries I had imposed on myself and take the step towards 'doing church' once more. Over the last feww weeks you have all helped me in that transitition.

[davidk]

McKenna:

Genesis 1:22? Typo! 3:22: Sorry. I Assume you did look at 11:7? My point would have been made more clearly, despite the typo.

 

Passion for what we believe does not need to be apologized for. I took nothing personal.

 

I have no intention on beginning a 'verse by verse' discussion of Genesis here. If you want, I will. But I really don't expect you or anyone else will risk it. I was simply explaining to October's Autumn that the trinity concept was; in Genesis 1:26-27, a "germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality." and in all of creation vividly displayed as declared in the New Testament, Romans 1:20.

 

The mere labels, as you're calling them, of are from Science. The observing and defining what we know of the real physical universe we live in. They are not hypothetical, they are real, they can be observed, and they can be rationally explained. I did not invent them. I realize you believe the Bible and Science are at opposite poles, but I find no such disparity, as evidenced by my preceeding statements. I do not 'demonize' Science, as some do Christianity.

 

"But I'm just kind of sick of hearing you say that there are no errors and no contradictions." I am just as disheartened by claims to the contrary. To me, it just seems to lack intellectual curiosity.

 

OA;

As you said, "There is nothing I can say for sure I know about Jesus because I can not have a relationship with him any more than I can have one with Martin Luther King, Jr. or Christopher Columbus. I can infer some things about Jesus based what I read in the four gospels. But one cannot, factuallyknow anything ." (underline added to indicate quote previously used)

 

As Wayseer said, "...I don't think you find some absolute truth - truth is relative." and "the 'story' of Jesus does not need a Jesus."

 

As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

 

As for the topic of this board, you have said, "I am not interested in identifying "Christ" or "Christian." So how do you debate; 'Is following Christ compatible with Christianity?'

 

note: Midrashic literature is worthwhile not only for its insights into Judaism and the history of Jewish thought, but also for the data it provides to historians, philologists, philosophers, and scholars of historical-critical Bible study. Your calling Scripture "midrash" does not discredt it.

-------

OK. Other than from one's unsubstantiated feelings and an 'unreliable' Bible, where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, with which to define Christian, Christ, and Christianity?

[grampawombat]

I have been an active Protestant (I hesitate to use the term Christian) lay person for most of the last 40-some years. I also studied religion in grad school (part time) for about a decade. My experience is that many pastors and most profs I have known take the Bible very seriously but not at all literally. I find their approach to applying the Bible to life very useful.

 

Regarding the second Genesis story, the comments made by God after A&E's discovery of the truth are etiological. In other words, they answer the question, "why is life so hard?" I think they must have resonated well with the pre-exilic Hebrew folk who were the first to see these words in a written document. But I may be digressing.

[October's Autumn]

The last few years has been an imposed exile while I read book after book. This was rather exhilarating. All that remained was for me to dismantle those boundaries I had imposed on myself and take the step towards 'doing church' once more. Over the last few weeks you have all helped me in that transition.

 

This is good to hear. The transition is much like being born, I think. Even though we don't actually remember it is quite exhausting but all that energy that goes into being born actually is good for us, gets our blood pumping and gets us breathing and gets all the liquid out of our lungs! My process in moving from fundamentalism to conservatism to progressive was much the same. It was a journey that took almost 20 years! (When I went from going to one church by choice to the next church by choice). Of course, the growing is never done, but that is rather beside the point!

[October's Autumn]

OA;

As you said, "There is nothing I can say for sure I know about Jesus because I can not have a relationship with him any more than I can have one with Martin Luther King, Jr. or Christopher Columbus. I can infer some things about Jesus based what I read in the four gospels. But one cannot, factually know anything ." (underline added to indicate quote previously used)

 

The context should have told you that you can not factually know anything about Jesus. I wasn't making a broad statement about know anything at all.

 

 

As for the topic of this board, you have said, "I am not interested in identifying "Christ" or "Christian." So how do you debate; 'Is following Christ compatible with Christianity?'

 

I don't. What's your point?

 

 

note: Midrashic literature is worthwhile not only for its insights into Judaism and the history of Jewish thought, but also for the data it provides to historians, philologists, philosophers, and scholars of historical-critical Bible study. Your calling Scripture "midrash" does not discredt it.

Who said anything about discrediting it? The only one here discrediting the bible is you because you refuse to understand it and insist on taking it literally when it was never intended to be taken that way.

 

 

OK. Other than from one's unsubstantiated feelings and an 'unreliable' Bible, where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, with which to define Christian, Christ, and Christianity?

 

 

Unsubstantiated? I don't think so. What is unsubstantiated is the notion that the bible is historically, scientifically, and literally true. I don't think anyone here but you is much interested in making labels which can be used to include and exclude people. I think that is why you aren't getting a response to your question. I've already told you "Christ" is a title which means "anointed one" in Greek... Have you picked up that book by Gregory Riley? One Jesus, many Christs

[davidk]

Welcome grampawombat!

God bless your courage for jumpin' in here.

My experience is that many pastors and most profs I have known take the Bible very seriously but not at all literally.

That's been mine as well. The academic theorizes and publishes. The results finally trickle through art and culture (taking decades) and lastly to religion; where religion desperately tries to accomodate faith into the new philosophy. Always a losing proposition for faith. The 'new', 'improved', 'modern' philosophies have changed the definition of truth to something relative and uncertain, there are no absolute truths. Christian faith runs counter to these 'modern' philosophies and still rests on classical logic, even though there are pressures to disavow logic for the new uncertainty.

 

What is the 'second' Genesis story and what is A&E's discovery of God's 'etiological' comments?

 

RE: October's Autumn

At the risk of being rude, I must repeat, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything." Your most recent quote was used just as an example to help you identify the problem. By saying you can't factually be sure of anything about Jesus is as pure an evidence of uncertainty as one can find. Adding the remainder of your quote only cements the attitude. ( "But one cannot, factually know anything." )

 

"I don't think anyone here but you is much interested in making labels which can be used to include and exclude people. I think that is why you aren't getting a response to your question.

"Is following Christ compatible with Christianity?" is the subject of this message board. The labels were first used by the original author. You can't be certain what any of them mean and are averse to finding out.

 

"Much of the New Testament is midrash. The stories of Jesus are not historical..." March 27, post #160

It is you who appears to discredit the Biblical account because it is 'midrash'!

 

Unsubstantiated?

Absolutely. So far your position has been completely bereft of evidence.

 

What is unsubstantiated is the notion that the bible is historically, scientifically, and literally true.

The Bible has sufficient scientific and historical evidence of its truth whether it touches History, or the Cosmos. We have both agreed it was never intended to be an exhaustive text in either category, but I insist it is accurate. 'Literal' seems to be where you are confusing the issue.

[minsocal]

I know this is redundant, but I think it is possible to tie together some of the dialogue in this forum. I recently posted this under "process theology", a quote from A. N. Whitehead:

 

"The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly ... There is, however, in the Galilean origin of Christianity yet another suggestion ... it does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells on the tender elements of the world, which slowly and in quietness operate by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a kingdom not of this world." Alfred North Whitehead (1929).

 

[Wayseer]

Thank you OA.

[minsocal]

As much as I dislike using labels like "liberal" or "progressive" (they are different), a new trend is developing that suggests we need to give up many of the traditional categories (assumptions) of philosophy and see what remains. For example, it is an old tradition to dicuss the difference between "subjective reality" and "objective reality". What if we remove the categories and treat individual consciousness as part of the sum total of objective reality? I think this is something like what OA is driving at, but I could be wrong. This trend is also moving away from relativism and framing issues in terms of the convergence of individual and social perspectives rather than emphasizing differences.

 

[grampawombat]

In response to davidk, perhaps I should have emphasized that I endorse a more metaphorical approach to the Bible and appreciate the work of those pastors and profs that I referred to. I think that people come to the TCPC discussions primarily because they feel that way as well.

 

I still participate in Beliefnet, but only in a few boards (science and religion, secular philosophies, progressive Christianity, and Presbyterian--my denomination). I try pretty much to avoid conversations with those who are of a more traditional bent. I respect their right to hold their beliefs, but I have found trying to exchange ideas with them very frustrating. For example, I find Borg's idea of an "emerging paradigm"very appealing, and definitely do not see it as, in any way, "a losing proposition for faith." As it turns out, I do hold to some absolute truths, one of which is that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

As far as Adam and Eve (and the serpent) and the second creation story is concerned, I referred to chapter 3 verses 14 through 19.

[October's Autumn]

Thank you OA.

 

You're welcome!

[davidk]

Grampawombat:

When you told us of the hesitation in calling yourself a Christian, my first reaction was: Presbyterian. Perhaps because I spent much of my adult life as one. My father an elder, myself as deacon, my grandparents members of another.

 

From the Genesis accounts, it would be more reasonable for the pre-exilic Hebrew to have asked a more philosophical: "How and why do we know the difference between good and evil?"; rather than some pre-teen whine, "Why is life so hard?".

 

I am sorry for not understanding what you imply here as the 'second creation'. The only 'second creation' I can think of comes from II Corinthians 5:17.

 

I don't want to appear contrary just for the sake of being contrary, but I do find nothing in 'Borg' very appealing.

When you speak of traditional bent, do you mean those who ask "How can we reasonably explain existence and purpose?", or "How can we explain 'morality'?; or "On what basis do we have any certainty of anything?"? And likewise, those that confess the answers are reasonable philosphic evidence that God exists and in the manner the Bible describes?

 

minsocal:

Sir Whitehead provided an outstanding presupposition for faith, that it would be reasonable.

 

This is a rehash of what has been said before; the 'New' and 'Improved" versions always suggest giving up the 'Traditional'. I would suggest that be the tradition to give up!

 

"What if we remove the categories and treat individual consciousness as part of the sum total of objective reality?

This asks for an entirely subjective positional answer.

This trend is also moving away from relativism and framing issues in terms of the convergence of individual and social perspectives rather than emphasizing differences."

I am having a difficult time trying to comprehend what it means to move from a realtivistic position to a... relativistic position.

 

Autumn:

"Of course, the growing is never done, ...!"

Thank You!

[grampawombat]

davidk:

 

I don't like the quote mode, so I will simply use quotation marks to indicate your comments.

 

"When you told us of the hesitation in calling yourself a Christian, my first reaction was: Presbyterian. Perhaps because I spent much of my adult life as one. My father an elder, myself as deacon, my grandparents members of another."

 

I don't see the point of this comment exactly. I was ordained as an elder in 1966, but can no longer answer the constitutional questions in the affirmative. I don't recall using the word "hesitation," but I may have. Nor do I recall where I used it. Please cite your reference. Your quoted response implies that you belong to some other denomination. Is that correct? If so, what is that denomination and what was your purpose in referring to the Presbyterians?

 

"From the Genesis accounts, it would be more reasonable for the pre-exilic Hebrew to have asked a more philosophical: 'How and why do we know the difference between good and evil?'; rather than some pre-teen whine, 'Why is life so hard?'."

 

Your comment about good and evil is appropriate. Nonetheless, concerns about the nature of life are not simply a "pre-teen whine." That comment is rude. After all, the second of the two creation stories found in Genesis to which I referred is "J" and therefore has its likely origins in a much older folktale. Not distinguishing between the two creation stories strikes me as disingenuous.

 

"I don't want to appear contrary just for the sake of being contrary, but I do find nothing in 'Borg' very appealing."

 

If that is the case, why do you frequent the TCPC forums? What about the 8 points? Are they equally unappealing? And again, if so, why come here?

 

When I speak of a traditional bent, I'm trying to be polite and not refer to such folk in a disparaging manner. All religious folk ask the questions you posed at the end of your post. By posing the questions as you have, you imply that "progressives" are not doing so. Is that your intention? I would appreciate it if you would be a bit more straightforward in your comments.

[minsocal]

Grampawombat:

When you told us of the hesitation in calling yourself a Christian, my first reaction was: Presbyterian. Perhaps because I spent much of my adult life as one. My father an elder, myself as deacon, my grandparents members of another.

 

From the Genesis accounts, it would be more reasonable for the pre-exilic Hebrew to have asked a more philosophical: "How and why do we know the difference between good and evil?"; rather than some pre-teen whine, "Why is life so hard?".

 

I am sorry for not understanding what you imply here as the 'second creation'. The only 'second creation' I can think of comes from II Corinthians 5:17.

 

I don't want to appear contrary just for the sake of being contrary, but I do find nothing in 'Borg' very appealing.

When you speak of traditional bent, do you mean those who ask "How can we reasonably explain existence and purpose?", or "How can we explain 'morality'?; or "On what basis do we have any certainty of anything?"? And likewise, those that confess the answers are reasonable philosphic evidence that God exists and in the manner the Bible describes?

 

minsocal:

Sir Whitehead provided an outstanding presupposition for faith, that it would be reasonable.

 

This is a rehash of what has been said before; the 'New' and 'Improved" versions always suggest giving up the 'Traditional'. I would suggest that be the tradition to give up!

 

"What if we remove the categories and treat individual consciousness as part of the sum total of objective reality?

This asks for an entirely subjective positional answer.

This trend is also moving away from relativism and framing issues in terms of the convergence of individual and social perspectives rather than emphasizing differences."

I am having a difficult time trying to comprehend what it means to move from a realtivistic position to a... relativistic position.

 

Autumn:

"Of course, the growing is never done, ...!"

Thank You!

 

Whitehead did not actually say to "give up the "traditional". He said:

 

"But the two elements must not really be disjoined. It belongs to the goodness of the world, that its settled order should deal tenderly with the faint discordant light of the dawn of another age. Also order, as it sinks into the background before new conditions, has its requirements. The old dominance should be transformed into the firm foundations, upon which new feelings arise, drawing their intensities from delicacies of contrast between system and freshness (Whitehead, 1929, p. 339)."