Religion ?

Irenic indeed

Bill Grover, I like your style. While I primarily tune in to DegreeInfo for DL program information, I also look forward to the next three theological posts you allow yourself.

Dave

 

Re: Irenic indeed

--

Thanks Dave

 

Yes Chris, you're right. I will try to calm down. I am still excited.

< deeeeeep breaths... breath innnnn & out, innn & out, deeeeeply innn & out - stay calm >

 

I second DG1--I always enjoy Bill G.'s contributions to this board. Definitely a guy who knows his Christian theology and biblical studies.

me again, I like your forum idea but am not participating right now primarily for two reasons (this is intended only as constructive criticism):

* It's very Christianity-specific, and while I love to read the contributions of Christian theologians here, I suspect a whole web forum dedicated to that idea probably wouldn't be up my alley at this point. (I'm on several Christianity-specific email listservs, but those are easier to manage.) Additional fora on fringe issues in theology and philosophy of religion--Unitarian, Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu theology, radical and/or apophatic theology, existentialism, agnosticism and atheism, et. al.--would probably attract a wider range of folks.

* When it comes to religion, I don't usually want to argue in the interests of proving my belief system; I want to argue in the interests of learning how other people think, which allows me to refine my belief system and adjust it as necessary. The thing to bear in mind is that, in my philosophy, people who disagree with me stand to lose absolutely nothing--so it stands to reason that if someone is functioning well as an evangelical Christian or atheist, it is usually counterproductive to attempt to convert that person to my particular form of religious liberalism.


Cheers,

 

Thanks for taking your time Tony. I learned one important thing in this thread. That is how to spell "devisive", er , that is, "divisive."

 

Now, Bill. You are just trying to be divisive again!

 

Well, with our diverse (diversive) population here on Degreeinfo, I think that there is room for divergence (deviation) in spelling without fear of derision (delirium).

After all...we've all heard of "invented spelling." Why not inventive spelling?

Tony
Doctor of ad hoc delirium, Honoris Causa

P.S. "Devisive" is what I get for cutting and pasting between threads without spell checking...shame on me

 

Your PM box is now full, so I have to resort to posting this here.

My partner is the techno-junkie. He isn't in right now, but I have asked him the question. Let me see what he says and I'll let you know. I will try to make it happen for you.

Log on at my website and we can finish PMing there.

 

Me again,

Thanks. Will follow up tomorrow.

 

"But for the record, do you believe Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Catholics, or Zoroastrians will be allowed into your Heaven? If not, where do you believe they go when they die? I look forward to you exegetical commentary. " Quote by Gus Sainz

Hi Gus!

Please remember or at least consider that we Christians don't "choose" doctrine or the commands of God. It's not "my" heaven, but God's. It's His choice to make not mine. He sets the rules and the means. I can fight it or follow it. God isn't accountable to me but I to Him. Do I, the creation, have the right to tell the Creator, " you will do it my way"? You may not agree with Christianity or religion in general, but we believe, and we simply state what the Scriptures say. The Scripture's defend themselves. We can quote them, but the ideas were not ours. There are times I wish things weren't the way they were and I, at times, don't see why God chose to do the things He did. Nevertheless, He is God and I am man. I will follow and obey Him. I trust that He knows what He's doing. So please remember that we aren't attacking with our views, but saying what the Scriptures contain. Your gripe isn't with us, but God who's Word it is that we are quoting. I care about people and I know God does as well. It is a strange world we live in though....isn't it?!


Kevin

 

Jesus is the answer!

What's the question?

Who was the third Alou brother?

 

Tom's article recommendation

Tom Head,

I finally got an opportunity to read the article by Orson Scott Card you recommended. Not only was it a good article, it was absolutely perfect for the occasion. I hope more people who viewed or participated in this thread take a look at it.

Dave

 

I am reminded of the old parable from India about five blind men each examining a different part of the elephant's body, and coming up with five completely different notions. The first blind man felt the elephant's leg and came away convinced that elephants are very much like trees. Another, falling against the elephant's side, proclaimed that an elephant must be very much like a wall. Yet another, who was examining the tail, said with conviction in his voice, "An elephant is certainly a long, thin, rope-like animal." The one feeling only the ear, vehemently disagreed. "You are wrong! An elephant is flat, flexible, and resembles a leaf!" Lastly, the blind man examined the trunk and shouted out, "You are all wrong! An elephant, without a doubt, is a long, sinewy animal like a snake!"

It is obvious none of the men were able to realize the true beauty of the elephant. They failed to see the big picture, and as a result, fell to squabbling about what an elephant truly is.

Acquiring an in-depth understanding of God requires, at a minimum, that one realize that God is unfathomable, and that every opinion, text, or description is incapable of providing a clear, concise, comprehensive or authoritative depiction.

 

Hi Gus!

Your logic has merit and I don't wish to get into a debate. God truely is unfathomable, but what if He chose to reveal Himself to humanity? It's not up to us to define God but up to God to define himself. Our opinions are just that... opinion. God cannot contradict himself. He is who he is. If he says he is such in such then we can only say, truth. If God has revealed himself and has chosen to do it a particular way, namely through Jesus, then to say that all text and opinion are correct would be incorrect. Jesus made some big claims. He said that, " he who has seen me has seen the Father; I and the Father are one; Before Abraham was I am; I am the way and the truth and the life, noone comes to the Father but by me; ect..... As C.S. Lewis so aptly said(paraphrased) in his book "Mere Christianity" that a man who claimed the things Jesus said is either a raving lunatic, a demon from hell, or God. You can berate him as a fool, call him the devil himself, or bow down and call him Lord. To call someone who said the things he did a "good moral teacher" would be absurd. He didn't leave that open to us....He never intended to.

So either we Christians are following a crazyman, a devil, or the the true God. It is up to each and every person to make that decision.


Kevin

 

Maybe he didn't leave that option open to you, but people who do believe that Jesus was a "good moral teacher" aren't required to believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. Or even to believe that every statement attributed to Jesus is something he actually said. Just because someone does not believe that Jesus was God does not mean that they can not appreciate (and even try to live by) some of the things he said.

And no, I can't back that up with scripture.

 

Matty, Jesus & Felipe (either Jesus or Felipe would be the third, I suppose). The fourth brother, Poindexter, never made it into the record books

 

Hi Jeff! I knew someone would connect on that angle!
I was out making deliveries and thought of it myself as an answer. You bring up a great point!!! How can we know if Scripture is accurate? If it's not then the Christian position is compromised.

First let me say that the "open to us" part was included in the paraphrased quote of C.S. Lewis' book. They weren't my words so to speak. That said let's see if we can figure out if Scripture is accurate at least in the writing of it if not the truth of it.

What we do know (in archeology and linguistics) is that there are far more copies of manuscripts of the Bible than all other manuscripts of all other writings put together. There are literally tens of thousands of copies or fragments of copies. Homer's Illiad(sp?) has I believe less than one hundred, yet we read it without impunity or distrust in it's accuracy. It's even required reading in many schools! So sheer volume is one factor. Now please remember, that I'm talking about origional languages, not modern translations. Another factor is historical accuracy. This adds credence to it as well. It's historicity is very accurate. There may be minor discreprencies, but nothing major. This was due to minor gramatical errors scribes made. Nothing that changes any cardinal doctrines whatsoever.

Now, even if we can agree on the accuracy of the writings, you may be inclined to ask why this matters. Just because Jesus is quoted as saying such doesn't mean he really did. This is another fair question. There are some interesting observations I have made that may or may not do anything for you.

First is the overall continuity of Scripture. Thoughout the thousands of years covered in the Scriptures there is an overwhelming sense of oneness or unity found in it. We have a saying in Bible school. It goes something like this: " the Old is in the new revealed, the New is in the old concealed." They fit together contextually and doctrinally throughout Scripture. Which as I stated in another thread that they were written by many authors and consisting of sixty-six books.

Secondly, is the prophetic. The accuracy of prophetic Scripture adds to the sense of truthfulness. If you haven't yet already, read the prophetic examples I gave in the thread dealing with the ULC ordinations.

Thirdly, the Bible as a whole has the ring of truth, even in simple areas dealing with common sense issues found in proverbs, as well as describibg the human condition in all of it's squallor found in Romans one, etc... Even the prophets and apostles are seen in a realistic light. If I wanted to sell Christianity I certainly wouldn't want to include King David's adultery, or murder of Uriah the Hittite. Nor would I be too quick to point out Peter's denial, Paul and Peter's quarrel with each other over being hippocrates. Or Paul's quarrel with Barnabas. Nor, Moses sin of striking the rock in anger when told to speak to it. This kept him out of the promised land. Just look at Samson!!!! The Bible has the record of being true to human nature with all of it's warts.

So.... Fourthly, in seeing all this why would the writer's choose to change tactics just concerning Jesus' teachings? It goes against the theme of what they believed, ie thou shalt not lie, as well as the true portrail of human weakness shown throughout the rest of Scripture. I would never have wanted to include the part about Jesus crying out in the garden of Gethsemane. I would've wanted to portray a Jesus who was strong and bold in his death like a hero who lifts his head and mocks it. Yet he was portrayed as weak and lowly, although resolute to do as the Father had prescribed.

Fifthly, The apostles contemporaries would've cried foul had they concocted this thing up. Jesus was a public figure whom was seen by the multitudes. His story would've been verifiable and denounced as a fable if he hadn't existed and done the things he'd done.

Lastly, these people were willing to die for what they believed. If it had been lies or just plain made up do you really thing they would've been willing to be tortured for a known lie? Yet all but one apostle seems to have been tortured and or martyered, as well as countless thousands of believers who were Jesus contemporaries.

In conclusion, I'm not an "expert" but this seems rather compelling to me, at least. You may still not agree with my conclusions, but hopefully you'll at least awknowledge that these are valid points worth considering. Either way, it was a good question and I gave it a whirl!


Take care!!



Kevin

 

Gus, if you ever get a chance, you might enjoy Keiji Nishitani's Religion and Nothingness. He takes this idea (quoting an awful lot of Meister Eckhart), throws in the Zen Buddhist concept of sunyata, and comes up with...well, something awfully profound. I think you'll thank me. Nishitani is the most approachable of the Kyoto School philosophers, but if you do find him enlightening, Kitaro Nishida is a good next step. (I haven't made it that far myself; I'm still chewing on some of Nishitani's ideas, and have not completely grokked them yet.)

While the backdrop of my belief system is the pure apophatic theology you've described above--that God is so far beyond our comprehension that, in a cosmic sense, there is no meaningful distinction among theism, polytheism, and atheism--it is complemented by my religious belief in God as the empathetic, but perhaps not entirely omnipotent, ground of subjective being (Tillich's "god beyond God"). I view God as expression and experience--resonating with the biblical passage that "no one can see the face of God and live"--and so far beyond scientific or purely rational exploration that internally consistent speculative theology, such as the systems of our world's major religious traditions, may all be completely effective inasmuch as they accurately lead to that expression and experience (Kadushin's "normal mysticism"). So whether God actually exists in a concrete sense is marginally relevant to my theology, but not at all relevant to my spirituality; even if there were no God, the symbolic and experiential concept of God would be enough to justify a religious system, provided that it supports the expression of basic human values.


Cheers,

 

I conducted this same poll at a cop-forum and the results were different.

• click here