Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[McKenna]

Well, then you should read more carefully. There are two distinct stories in which the order of creation happens in two different orders. This is factual information. You can't have an "opinion" about it. You can deny the obvious and choose to live in ignorance or you can acknowledge what is obvious. Further, if you've done any studying of any value whatsoever you'd would find that the stories were written quite far apart in history.

 

Out of curiousity, what source did you quote that from?

 

You are the first fundamentalist I've ever met who was ignorant to the fact there were two creation stories. Even *I* knew that as a young teenager!

 

Really? How do they (and how did you) reconcile the two stories?

[McKenna]

McKenna, String theory is an incomplete mathematical approach to theoretical physics. It claims no more than 3 real dimensions anyway. Time has no 4th dimension.

 

I will not claim to know much about string theory, but from what I have read and heard from various physics-oriented people, it does claim more than 3 dimensions. And I meant that time *is* the 4th dimension, as I'm pretty sure you realized. I feel that you purposefully misread my comment about time simply in order to disagree with me. Actually, I feel like you do that a lot.

 

I can't even believe we're still talking about this. I'm done.

[October's Autumn]

Out of curiousity, what source did you quote that from?

 

 

Good question! I can't find it. But if you do a search on "2 creation stories" you'll find tons of sources that basically say the same thing.

 

Really? How do they (and how did you) reconcile the two stories?

 

 

I didn't actually see the differences between the two stories until someone pointed them out, not too long ago! I took them as two separate stories. The first a general overview, the second a more detailed account.

[grampawombat]

davidk:

Humor to the contrary notwithstanding, Gen. 3:14-19 is a story similar to many ancient tales about why things are the way they are, for example some of the Navajo creation or origin stories. That was my point, and your comment avoided dealing with it.

 

You may feel my comments are rash, but I don't intend for them to be. I give a fair amount of thought to my posts. Perhaps my point regarding your comments will become clearer as I proceed with this post.

 

I hope you are not reading into my comment about Jesus all that is in your response. If your point is to "witness," then you have done so, but I think I knew that you held these positions already, so I consider your repeating them unneccessary.

 

Your response to my question about Christianity "differing" seems intended to chide me for not being familiar with the earlier discussion. I'm not. I know the original question is whether or not one can both follow Christ (I prefer to say Jesus) and be a "Christian." Do you mean "does Christianity differ from following Jesus?" Is that what "does Christianity differ" mean to you? If it does, my answer is "not necessarily." I think that those who are more concerned about converting people to their form of Christianity than they are about peace, social justice, and economic justice are missing the point. Is that the answer you are looking for?

 

You must know by this time that the idea of inerrancy is not compatible with progressive Christianity. My observation of those who consider themselves progressive Christians is that the Bible's reliability is based as much on the communities that use it as a means of establishing dialog as on the document itself.

 

One of the most frustrating aspects of trying to communicate with "inerrantists" is their insistance on "reliable knowledge." That is not what religion is about, at least, again, for progressives. You don't have to agree with them, but that is the reality of the situation. Live with it.

 

When I write "I am a Christian because I say I am," I am very serious. I am not toying with you or anyone else. To imply that I am is akin to calling me a liar. Do you understand?

 

If you do admit that your beliefs that are clearly at odds with my own, you don't seem to be willing to allow me to hold those beliefs. We already know you don't thin there are two creation stories. But I think there are and it appears to me that you don't think I have the right to do that.

 

In sum, if you take my comments as seriously as I intend them and respect my right to hold my beliefs, you have not made that clear to me. And I have tried to demonstrate that in this post.

[David]

grampawombat:

David flatters me too much. He wrote only ten sentences here in post #177, and he mentioned me by name 7 times! Go to "Ecumentalism" and read his rant about me in #127. He used my name 12 times in that one. I'm mentioned again in the following #129. 4 more again, here, in #180. The count goes on! All from this man who argues: "...you (davidk) are saying that you base "how you know what you know"...upon "what you know". So my method would differ from yours in that I (David) would... begin thinking about "how I know what I know" and... relate that to "what I know" Now, if you can understand the difference here, please explain it to me.

DavidK,

 

I can understand if you feel that I am attacking you. You probably forgot that our last conversation ended when I said you were valuable as a symbol of the group you represent (see post 72 on this thread). So I have been “using” you as a symbol which means that it is not “personal” at all to me. I think it is great to have a “live” symbol to see how Progressives should respond. I think we need to exclude those who exclude and it is much harder to exclude a “live” person. So you have been useful to show how difficult inclusion/exclusion is for Progressives.

 

One person can be included at times and excluded at other times. I would love to sit down and talk to you about baseball. I can’t talk to you about the Bible. For the most part you have been respectful even though at times you do not hear well. So I suspect you are like many fundamentalists that I know who are “good people”. This is one primary reason why I actually do not mind your continued participation here because the more you are here the more people will have to decide what to do with you. To me that is a great symbol of a primary point that I have been trying to make.

 

Obviously my main point has been that you and I can not really talk religion because we do not share the same epistemology. You came to a similar conclusion when you said (post 76): “Liberal/Progressive Theology and Christianity are two seperate religions with nothing in common except certain terms which they use with totally different meanings.” I could not have said it better except obviously I would say that Christianity and Fundamentalism are two separate religions with nothing in common except certain terms which they use with different meanings.

 

You keep asking the same kinds of questions that are designed to solicit the responses you want based upon your religion that supports both the questions and the answers. You want total objectivity which is meaningless here because there is no claim here to desire the total objectivity that is so important to you. Your epistemology is rejected. Yet you continue to think that the discussion should be about doctrine. I tried to explain to you that epistemology based upon doctrine is not epistemology at all. It remains doctrine. I tried to explain to you that if you consider thinking about your epistemology first then your doctrine may indeed be less objective which may be scary to you as life itself may be scary for you.

 

So stay or go. It makes little difference to either fundamentalism or Christianity. I will continue to exclude you but again this is not personal. It is my understanding of how best to deal with fundamentalism. I’m interested in how other Progressives deal with you. Thanks for being a great symbol.

[davidk]

And I meant that time *is* the 4th dimension, as I'm pretty sure you realized. I feel that you purposefully misread my comment about time simply in order to disagree with me. Actually, I feel like you do that a lot.

Dear McKenna,

When you said "...the 4th dimension of time" I honestly thought you were speaking of time having a fourth dimension. If I misread your posts it is my fault, but I don't try to misread them. We do spend time trying to iron things out. But that is what debate and dialogue is all about, despite some inevitable frustrations. Because you have taken time with me I was surprised you thought I was being dishonest with you.

On String theory; it is so speculative, despite some theoretical successes, it cannot and is not trusted as solid evidence. Despite its fallability, it's study is still confined within the three elements of the universe; space, matter, and time.

-

Dear grampawombat,

I'm fielding these posts as fast as I can with as much attention to detail as I can muster. If I "avoided" a comment, it was either oversight or I didn't know some comment implied that I needed to respond.

" You may feel my comments are rash, but I don't intend for them to be. " Ok. You understand I harbor no 'ill' will toward you?

( It is so difficult to write or read the proper "tone of voice". I am trying to read as if the words are spoken with a computers flatness.)

" I hope you are not reading into my comment about Jesus all that is in your response. " I wanted it to be clear we were talking about the same person. What was I supposed to read into it, if it were not what you declared?

"... seems intended to chide me for not being familiar with the earlier discussion. " I had assumed you had been attracted by the topic:"Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?". I suppose it was a bit of a chide. But the question begs the terms be defined prior to opinions, as your response of uncertainty demontrated; " my answer is "not necessarily."

 

This board has not yet come to terms that can be understood. i.e.; You preferred the term 'Jesus' rather than 'Christ', but the authors question did not allow for that. Therefore, you see the difficulty in the topic at hand. We needed definitions to proceed.

 

" My observation of... the Bible's reliability is based as much on the communities... as on the document itself. " I hope I did not edit out anything that would essentially change the meaning here, but in what is a simplified quote, I wholeheartedly agree! The community who declares its belief in the Scripture should certainly live by it. The Scripture needs, by any reasonable interpretation, to be the most reliable of the two.

 

" One of the most frustrating aspects of trying to communicate with 'inerrantists' their insistance on 'reliable knowledge.' Perhaps it is statements such as this that bother me. How can knowledge be of any value unless it is reliable? Progressive christians rail against reliable knowledge, but cannot live without it.

 

" To imply that I am is akin to calling me a liar. " I believe you may have misunderstood the first question. I'll repeat for some clarification, "What's a Christian?" You'll note I did not ask if you were one. Nor did I accuse you of being one or not. We don't want to get off on the wrong foot again.

 

I do not, nor can I, deny someone else their beliefs. I can only argue my position, and provide such reliable evidence as I have to support it. I would expect you to do the same. If either of our evidences prove unreliable, we will ultimately be held accountable.

-

re: Post #205

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

[Wayseer]

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

 

.... and so is Science - which you must likewise reject because of the uncertainity of not knowing.

 

Yet, the reality is life remains the uncertainity of not knowing. Those who claim to have answers indeed have no answers but their own rhetoric which they love to repeat as if in the repetition their ignorance will remain undisturbed.

 

Davidk, you repetitious and boring questions are just that, boring and repetitious.

[October's Autumn]

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

 

 

Then conservative philosophy is caught in the false assumption that it knows everything. IOW, just because you are certain and think you know doesn't mean you are correct.

[Wayseer]

Davidk's statement is a test for my logic. Here are some of my workings -

 

Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything.

Therefore liberal philosophy does not know anything.

 

Here, even if the premise were true, the conclusion is inferred to the whole of liberal philosophy - that it does not know anything - which is false.

 

or

 

Conservative philosophy knows everything

Liberal philosophy does not know everything

I wish to know everything

Therefore I will follow Conservative philosphy.

 

The conclusion can only true if the premise is true - which is obviously false - no philosopher will claim to know everything.

 

or

 

Uncertainity is to be avoided.

Liberal philospohy is uncertain.

Therefore I will avoid liberal philosophy.

 

Which is an fallacy of ambiguity - the term 'uncertainity' is not defined and is therefore ambiguous.

 

or

 

Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything.

Therefore liberal philosophy is uncertain.

 

This is an amphiboly - the opening statement contains its own ambiguity - the conclusion must likewise be inconclusive.

 

I would be interested if others might see some gaps in my logic.

[davidk]

Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything.

Therefore liberal philosophy does not know anything.

False, "A blind hog roots up an acorn every once in a while! "

 

.... and so is Science - which you must likewise reject because of the uncertainity of not knowing.

I think this may have mistated your point. (double negative) But, if I understand what you intended to say; you do not believe science can be certain of anything. If that is, in fact what you are saying, then Liberal pholosophy, which has made 'science' a cornerstone in its criticism of the Bible and 'conservative' Christianity, by your own admission would have even less reason than I imagined to exist. I can safely say, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."

Your posts, as well as anyone else's posts on this website, claim to provide answers. How do you reconcile this statement you made on your #207 post? " Those who claim to have answers indeed have no answers but their own rhetoric which they love to repeat as if in the repetition their ignorance will remain undisturbed." You condemn yourself as well as every other entry on these boards.

Gaps! There can't be gaps in something that's non-existent.

 

Then conservative philosophy is caught in the false assumption that it knows everything.

This is so lame. I can't believe I even responded to it!

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Conservative Christianity and Liberal Philosophy one tied to the other, as a Christian should not exclude as Liberals often do... Wow! this can go down hill real fast, pulled by forces beyond our existence and who would have an answer for anyone?

 

Let's see? From the beginning there are two creation stories and now a third emerges claiming the first two false.

 

Applied science and physics brings us to a new understanding, but who can grasp the minds sight that takes one from here to there and back again in the bink of an eye

 

Conservatives keep in secret as the Liberals claim to be extravagant in reality the wealth or love is horded and controlled by a few who don't give or care about others.

 

Socialism doesn't require volunteers while Democracy can't run only on a free market system.

 

Both are broke...

 

Where is our world going?

 

Are we on a crash course and who is steering us into a path of destruction?

 

Let's look at all of the facts...

 

Is the Bible true and has the Bible always been true?

 

Is there a need for change?

 

Has there been a need for change in the past?

 

Have you ever helped a victim of crime?

 

Would Jesus the Christ be a Christian?

 

How can you follow the path that proves you are following Christ, and would you want to?

 

Would that mean that GOD is in you and you are in GOD?

 

GOD Bless all; All that Bless GOD,

[October's Autumn]

This is so lame. I can't believe I even responded to it!

 

 

I will take that to mean you have no clue how to respond. Which you don't. You seem to have a need to repeat what you've heard even though you don't truly understand it. I think I've given you too much credit in the past.

[McKenna]

Dear McKenna,

When you said "...the 4th dimension of time" I honestly thought you were speaking of time having a fourth dimension. If I misread your posts it is my fault, but I don't try to misread them. We do spend time trying to iron things out. But that is what debate and dialogue is all about, despite some inevitable frustrations. Because you have taken time with me I was surprised you thought I was being dishonest with you.

On String theory; it is so speculative, despite some theoretical successes, it cannot and is not trusted as solid evidence. Despite its fallability, it's study is still confined within the three elements of the universe; space, matter, and time.

 

If you did indeed misinterpret my comment, I apologize. I realize I was vague. I thought, however, that when someone who knew about string theory saw the words "4th dimension" and "time" together in the same sentence, they would automatically know what I was talking about and choose to interpret my words accordingly; and since you did not, I assumed you purposefully took the other meaning of my words (because they were ambiguous) merely in order to argue with me. I did this in light of the fact that it seems to me that you always must continue an argument, but perhaps this is a reflection on myself as well, as I said I was done and here I am replying again. Yet I do feel that if you had taken two seconds to reread what I'd written (because why on earth would I think time has four dimensions?), you would have known what I meant.

 

Still, I suppose I owe you an apology if I am to give you the benefit of the doubt. I will and so I'm sorry.

[davidk]

McKenna:

We are persistent because we insist on being understood.

When I hear 'time', I hear it as being one of the three dimensions, space, time, and matter. We're using the same words but we have different meanings. Therefore the confusion.

 

 

TGWB:

Great show, isn't it?

[Wayseer]

"A blind hog roots up an acorn every once in a while! "

 

This is an example of the fallacy of 'accident'

 

 

A blind hog roots up an acorn every once in a while.

Liberal theology is blind like the hog.

Therefore, liberal theology will get it right once in a while.

 

This logic falls prey to the fallacy of assumption. While the premis may be true the logic is flawed as it applies that principle to an atypical or different situation.

 

You condemn yourself as well as every other entry on these boards.

 

... and that's another fallacy.

[davidk]

This is deteriorating pretty quickly. Before we all get kicked out, let's settle down to some substantive dialogue.

 

There is a struggle trying to find common ground to define what is Christianity and who is Jesus Christ for the sake of the question at hand.

 

In the effort to define Christianity, it has been said we can be certain of nothing, and there is too much emphasis on reliablily of sources. For example, ".... and so is Science - which you must likewise reject because of the uncertainity of... knowing." And, "...reliable knowledge. That is not what religion is about... for progressives."

 

If science is not certain of anything, and reliable academia is rejected, then the Liberal philosophy, having made 'science' and 'Academia' cornerstones in its 'higher' criticisms of the Bible and biblical Christianity, would have torn away a significant portion of its foundation.

[minsocal]

This is deteriorating pretty quickly. Before we all get kicked out, let's settle down to some substantive dialogue.

 

There is a struggle trying to find common ground to define what is Christianity and who is Jesus Christ for the sake of the question at hand.

 

In the effort to define Christianity, it has been said we can be certain of nothing, and there is too much emphasis on reliablily of sources. For example, ".... and so is Science - which you must likewise reject because of the uncertainity of... knowing." And, "...reliable knowledge. That is not what religion is about... for progressives."

 

If science is not certain of anything, and reliable academia is rejected, then the Liberal philosophy, having made 'science' and 'Academia' cornerstones in its 'higher' criticisms of the Bible and biblical Christianity, would have torn away a significant portion of its foundation.

 

A general comment not directed at anyone in particular:

 

If I say to you "This is who I am, and this is what I believe. I do not expect you to share the same beliefs", I am now in a very different position. I am willing to share with you some very intimate things about myself, and willing to take the risk of being accepted or rejected. In the process, perhaps we will learn more about each other and find a common ground.

[Wayseer]

... let's settle down to some substantive dialogue.

 

 

There has been 'substantive debate' as you call it but you have failed to recognise such debate, or, you have your own agenda which I suspect is closer to the truth than you may care to admit.

 

There is a struggle trying to find common ground to define what is Christianity and who is Jesus Christ for the sake of the question at hand.

It would appear that you have failed to realise that there is no such 'common' ground as you would wish. This have been pointed out a number of times in various way from different contributors. Obviously, for you, this state of affairs offers little satisfaction. Others seem to be able to live with this degree of uncertainity - I wonder what it is about you that you find such uncertainity difficult - if not threatening?

 

 

 

If science is not certain of anything, and reliable academia is rejected, then the Liberal philosophy, having made 'science' and 'Academia' cornerstones in its 'higher' criticisms of the Bible and biblical Christianity, would have torn away a significant portion of its foundation.

 

Which begs the question - if the foundations have been 'torn away' as you suppose, I wonder what is keeping the building standing? If LT is doomed - what is it about you that needs to keep debating? If we are all so wrong I wonder how you can continue to come here?

[October's Autumn]

This is an example of the fallacy of 'accident'

A blind hog roots up an acorn every once in a while.

Liberal theology is blind like the hog.

Therefore, liberal theology will get it right once in a while.

 

This logic falls prey to the fallacy of assumption. While the premis may be true the logic is flawed as it applies that principle to an atypical or different situation.

... and that's another fallacy.

 

 

My husband is good at doing that, too. Whenever he debates in forums he is able to pick up logical fallacies. I've never learned the terms but I have an internal "detector" for them.

[davidk]

... you have your own agenda which I suspect is closer to the truth than you may care to admit.

Of course I have an agenda! Why would I not care to admit it? "What's in your wallet?"

-

I don't understand your grief in my saying "Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything", while you vehemently defend your dedication to 'an uncertainty'. Your argument is in concert with mine.

-

... if the foundations have been 'torn away' as you suppose, I wonder what is keeping the building standing?

That would be a good question for the man living on the sand.

-

minsocal:

I hope I have been transparent. Others certainly seem to think so, but they also tend to make some rather absurd assumptions. I have come away wounded.

Thanks for having a cooler head. Even though there are some disagreements on theology, you understand challenges to theology are not to be considered personal affronts.

-

(Octobers Autumn @ Apr 5 2008, 12:37PM)

Then conservative philosophy is caught in the false assumption that it knows everything.

I'm sorry, Autumn, that is a false assumption.

[Wayseer]

I don't understand your grief in my saying "Liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything", while you vehemently defend your dedication to 'an uncertainty'. Your argument is in concert with mine.

 

No - because you are 'certain' that liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainity of knowing anything. 'Knowing anything' is something different to 'uncertainity' - you conflate two different and independent entities into a common meaning.

 

Liberal philosophy is uncertain.

Anyone following liberal philosophy is likewise uncertain.

Therefore those who are uncertain know nothing.

 

Bad logic Davidk - another fallacious argument.

[October's Autumn]

-

I'm sorry, Autumn, that is a false assumption.

 

It was meant to point out the ridiculousness of your statement.

[davidk]

Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

 

 

they are the same

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

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. The question is what is truly evil? Where do you find true evil?

 

Do you wish to walk any other path? Especially if only one path leads to heaven... All other paths will lead you away from good for good...

 

This makes a great show... Maybe? If you're interested that is...

[davidk]

Turning your back on God is what is truly evil.

 

... Especially if only one path leads to heaven... All other paths will lead you away from good for good...