A Cross for Modern Theology
qbaal
The Cross in Modern Theology
This post is part of a series I put on the Internet in the Spring of
2001 on the Atonement. To date, many of the articles of the series
were, I admit, negative. Meaning they would upset folk possessing a
conservative Christian faith and downright objectionable, to be
rejected out of hand, for those taking the Bible and its many myths
literally.
In any case, I write this article to remind all that modern
Christian theologians, specifically the historical-critical type
exemplified in thewritings of The Jesus Seminar and Bishop John Spong
(retired), do not reject the central role of Jesus' Cross, i.e. his
death, for Christianity. Many of the radical left continue to see the
Cross as the all-important work of God and key revelation of God's
will and nature. Thus, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to
himself.
First, the Cross is sign that God and God's Messiah, despite Psalm 2
and the Book of Revelations au contraire, are not into the slap them,
hack them and wrap them, burn them - churn them destroyer of nations
type Messiah. This Cross, this God is the very antithesis of the
primitive warrior-king God of your usual run-of-the-mill Messianic
expectation. Instead of dealing and dishing out punishment, this God
in love absorbs it and in return deals out love and never failing
acceptance. So the real Messiah Jesus is not your usual human
projection served up with big doses of fear, terror and destruction.
And the victory remains with love and life, with the spiritual forces
that create, and restore wholeness of life and not those that rip it
apart.
I am not sure what Bishop Spong wants to say about the death of Jesus
but I do know that Marcus Borg, a prominent member of The Jesus
Seminar, still sees the Cross as sign that God freely forgives our
sins. And, no, the Cross is NOT an activator of God's forgiveness as
though Jesus had to die in order for God to find the good will or
satisfaction to cancel human sin and guilt. Also, Spong definitely
wants to say any interpretation of Jesus' death as blood, human
sacrifice to appease or propitiate God or God's wrath is supremely
objectionable of 21st century humans and to be rejected, on rational
grounds, out of hand.
Importantly, in modern theology, the Cross is understood only when
connected to the Resurrection. It is not just Jesus dying that makes
the Cross good medicine against sin. It is the reality that Jesus
died AND immediately stepped into eternity and God's presence. And
so, for Christians, God has designated Jesus as pointer to his will
and nature and centered on him his hopes for the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is the same Jesus of Nazareth who in relations with disciples and
enemies, the poor and marinalized, the saint and sinner, clearly
showed God's love is conditional on no human requirement or moral
achievement but rests solely on His good and loving nature - the Our
Father who art in heaven.
Thus, this Risen Jesus represents/mediates God's forgiveness,
wisdom and fulness of life to all, merely for the asking. So the
Cross is still the place we can still bring our sins, our stupid moves
that have grievously hurt others, all our failures, our huge bruised
egos. For there the kindly Jesus still hears us.
On earth Jesus knew what makes human tick. "..knowing what is in
man.." And supported then and now by God's power Jesus listens,
administers sound advice to our distraught souls, and sooths the
wounds of the fallen and downtrodden. In fact, instead of just
viewing Jesus as the Great Physician, maybe we should move beyond that
and see Jesus as the Great Psychiatrist - the One who Listens, knows
us intimately and loves us greatly. (In Canada, you must qualify for
M.D. before you can practice psychiatry) And tells us "go in peace
for your faith has made you whole, your sins are forgiven. Yes, the
Cross is still supreme sign God and Jesus care for the lost sheep, the
wayward prodigal son.
And the Cross is material sign of the flesh and blood righteous Jesus
who long ago imprinted his care and concern upon our history,
especially for the poor and marginalized. And in his quest for
justice mounted fierce dverbal attacks upon those who used their
high religious/political positions to steal the bread out of the
mouths of those half-dead of starvation including their children.
Jesus even went for the graphical display of overturning the tables of
the Temple money changers who had turned God's house into a den of
thieves! All this made the Cross inevitable. And while I highly doubt
Jesus ever saw his death as predetermined on a cross I'm sure he
realized the risk of openly challenging the rich and powerful,
especially in the seething caldron of Palestinian power plays going on
under Roman occupation. Still, the courageous Jesus persisted in his
message to the authorities there was a new Kingdom even now coming on
earth were it would be God's way and not the old "Rome's way or the
high way." Meaning the Roman practice of stringing their crosses along
the roads right out to the horizon.
Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends.
Jesus said it. And Jesus did it.
Marcus Borg recently wrote dealing with the Church's age-old obsession
with sin and forgiveness of same. For many moderns sin is not the
real over-riding problem of modern life, unless you want to reduce
automatically every human challenge and kink in life to sin. Say,
California has another power shortage. And concerned Canadians
wanting to help send them a train load of matches and candles. Thanks
a lot! There are plenty of other devils besides sin - alienation,
lack of meaning (what's the point of life and evolution say the young
folk. You live, sleep, eat and screw and die. Who needs it) and
scarcity of real caring community. (And how about tyranny, disease
and dplain old starvation.) Are not these the things that you think
of when 15 year old high school students start shooting/blowing up
one another?. And when politicians, everywhere, try to deal with
nuclear war and nuclear terrorism, is it just the category of SIN that
will suffice by way of explanation or cure?
Of course, the Cross is celebrated all the time in the Lord's Supper.
It always has meant that faith is not a "pie in the sky" matter.
Rather, a sharing of bread on earth. Even the spiritual gospel,
John's, makes it clear the bread and wine are not just spiritual signs
but proclaim clearly God will always nourish our bodies with real
bread and wine. The Kingdom of God is a material as they come.
Sometimes, the communion bread should be served up green. Just to
remind the slow ones that bread is money. You know dough, give me the
bread you owe me. The Kingdom of God is supremely about sharing the
resources of God's world.
So, modern theologians want to tell the world the Cross is not just
about death, moral failure and an offended teed-off God out there.
It's really about the revelation of a Risen Jesus who values
individuals, as if there was only one to love (Augustine) and wants to
create real community = The Kingdom of God on earth.
The critics will say "This all sounds suspiciously like traditional
orthodox Christian preaching." I know. I've been trying to tell folk
for years the trouble with Christianity is not the experience
being expressed in any particular doctrine or tenet of scripture but
the, often, outdated concepts and ancient, worn world
view used to express it. It is obsolescent Christian concepts that
are unacceptable to moderns..
More Modern Theology
http://ajn11.homestead.com/index.html
Bruce K. Darling
"qbaal" <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ac0c597...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> http://www.geocities.com/xrayca2001/messiah15.html
>
>
> The Cross in Modern Theology
>
>
> This post is part of a series I put on the Internet in the Spring of
> 2001 on the Atonement. To date, many of the articles of the series
> were, I admit, negative. Meaning they would upset folk possessing a
> conservative Christian faith and downright objectionable, to be
> rejected out of hand, for those taking the Bible and its many myths
> literally.
>
Obviously suffering from an inflated opinion of himself, and a tendency to
attack strawmen.
Regards
downampney
> In any case, I write this article to remind all that modern
> Christian theologians, specifically the historical-critical type
> exemplified in thewritings of The Jesus Seminar and Bishop John Spong
> (retired), do not reject the central role of Jesus' Cross, i.e. his
> death, for Christianity. Many of the radical left continue to see the
> Cross as the all-important work of God and key revelation of God's
> will and nature. Thus, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to
> himself.
OK, fine. Oddly enough, there is little or no disagreement over the
meaning of the Cross, through the ages.
now let's get down to the hard part: the Resurrection. This is what the
modernists deny. Yet it is right there in scripture, in St. Paul, the
consequences of whether the resurrection is real or merely a clever
story. And yet I have never gotten a convincing explanation from the
modernists as to why a "literal"-- i.e., actual--- resurrection is such
a problem. If it happened, then the modernists are uninteresting and
irrelevant. If it didn't, then the modernists are still irrelevant,
because Christianity is irrelevant.
C. Wingate
qbaal
Forget argument against the man. And stick to the discussion at hand,
if you have any relevant comments. The opinions expressed are
based on modern historical-critical analysis of the Bible and really
are not mine. The expression is mine. And what strawman are you
talking about? If you don't think the traditional, rigidities of many
Chrsitians don't bear analysis, change and, sometimes outright
rejection, you are not living in the real world. You expect your
doctor to eschew much of ancient medicine and medieval hocus
pocus medical practice. Why would you think God want you
to adhere like super glue to all A.D. first century and early
formulations of faith in Him?
qbaal
wrote:
The resurrection did happen - Jesus died and immediately was raised
to God and eternity. His Presence as felt by ancient and modern
followers in the ritual of breaking bread and sharing wine is proof
back to the world he is resurrected. I believe also individual
Christians know (personally) the Risen Christ in desert or dungeon
or anywhere alone. But would emphasize the community aspect
(The Lord's Supper) of the ongoing revelation of the Risen
Christ.
Two relevant scriptures "Blessed are those who have not seen
and believe." And "Where two or three are gathered in my
name there AM I in their midst."
The early Church materialized, i.e. historicized, the reality of
the Resurrection. This is why the earliest NT writings (Paul's)
do not refer to an empty tomb, nor to physical appearances
in a garden or at a lakeshore(complete with eating of fish).
Surely, a great preacher would have mentioned every detail
known of a physical appearance(s) of Jesus by such
a great preacher as Paul to bolster his chief argument for the faith -
"God has raised Jesus" Paul is silent where the gospels have
a story of the Resurrection to please and tease every fancy.
Why not view the resurrection stories, beyond metaphor, as
sacramental - the "visible and material" sign of an inward and
invisible act of God's grace. (This says, correctly, that I
do not view the elements of Communion as literally bread and
wine but pointers to a spirtual reality - the Presence of Christ.)
The conservative critics will hammer this a my subjective
assessment of doctrine and holy writ imposed on others.
Maybe, but I sincerely believe with many historical-critical
theologians the future of Christianity depends now on a
honest and open acceptance before the whole world that
the Bible is saturated with metaphor - the central stories are
often myth and not historical fact. But like the parables of
Jesus they are the imagination aflame with the presence of
God and point to realities which homo sapiens brain can
only begin to fathom.
Give Jack a big whack
He's in love with a fact.
louis
Well, the Christ of faith is not what we're talking about here. What always
puzzles me is the inability of modernists to swallow that impossibility (ie,
the real spiritual presence of Christ) while needing to reject eyewitness
accounts of the physical resurrection. If one is going to accept miracles
why hold back here? If it's scientifically impossible for God to raise a man
from the dead, why is it possible for this disembodied presence (NOT
metaphor) to be perceived by so many people thoughout history? Seems to me
that science would rule out Christianity except as an ethical movement
started by an executed sage/revolutionary. One might as well claim to be
guided and comforted by the Marx of faith, or the Lenin of faith, or - for
that matter - the Hitler of faith.
r,
Louis
PS-I'm not a right-wing conservative.
qbaal
wrote:
>
>qbaal <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3ac1ecb5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
mucho snipo for brev.
>
louis said:
>Well, the Christ of faith is not what we're talking about here. What always
>puzzles me is the inability of modernists to swallow that impossibility (ie,
>the real spiritual presence of Christ) while needing to reject eyewitness
>accounts of the physical resurrection. If one is going to accept miracles
>why hold back here? If it's scientifically impossible for God to raise a man
>from the dead, why is it possible for this disembodied presence (NOT
>metaphor) to be perceived by so many people thoughout history? Seems to me
>that science would rule out Christianity except as an ethical movement
>started by an executed sage/revolutionary. One might as well claim to be
>guided and comforted by the Marx of faith, or the Lenin of faith, or - for
>that matter - the Hitler of faith.
>r,
>Louis
>
>PS-I'm not a right-wing conservative.
Yes, you are right-wing conservative. What do you think the
term means in the modern Christian context? You want to tie
the Christian faith to a literal understanding of scripture which
modern historical-critical theology (including Robinson, The
Jesus Seminar, Ray Brown, Bishop Spong etc. etc.) reject
to one degree or another.
Two clear examples
God as creator: First Genesis is definitely a myth. The
central message is God is the ground of all physcial
existence. Let's not think about the spiritual/mental
thing right now. God is still experienced as creator
for the left-wing liberal Christians but now in terms
of quantum mechanics, black holes, evolution ....
So the spiritual experience is not tied to any world
view, primitive science or literary talents or lack of
in the author of the myth.
The Virgin Birth: As Uta Ranke-Heinemann states
the Virgin Birth is theology and not biology. It
is a myth (fairy tale says Uta) that conveys the
importance of Jesus in relation to the inaugauration
of the Kingdom of God. It, to me, expresses Jesus
as supreme reference for God's person
and will. The Virgin Birth really is a story that
has had its day. It does not need to be banished
to theology's outer darkness. But, to use it
as meaningful, now, revelation of the essence
and meaning of Jesus of Nazareth is counter-
productive in the extreme. And denigates women
in general. It has set up the false either or situation
where a woman is either a Virgin pure saint like mary
or regular run of the mill whore who indulges in sex.
Something like that. Put the VB myth in a museum
well guarded and contained where it hurts no one!
Rick Seelhoff
ACTS 4:31-35 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were
assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they
spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of
the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among
them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold
them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them
down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man
according as he had need.
I see four 1st century church norms that are no longer normative:
1. Unity
2. Abundant life
3. Potency
4. Spirit's presence
I miss the Spirit, the community, the shared life. Don't you?
Is it gone forever? Have we lost our heritage? I can't believe so.
Even so, now, as then, it begins with our assembling together in prayer.
That is, if anything at all worth happening is going to happen.
D Stephen Heersink
<ex...@harbornet.com> wrote:
>I see four 1st century church norms that are no longer normative:
>
>1. Unity
>2. Abundant life
>3. Potency
>4. Spirit's presence
>
>I miss the Spirit, the community, the shared life. Don't you?
>
>Is it gone forever? Have we lost our heritage? I can't believe so.
Consider the insights of the Ecumenical Communion on the webpage
below. You might find kindred spirits.
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/OBC.html
louis
Well, that's certainly news. I'm sure onthepath, Paul Hubbard and the rest
will be relieved to hear it.
It's also a measure of how far to the left in these matters you are.
What do you think the
> term means in the modern Christian context? You want to tie
> the Christian faith to a literal understanding of scripture which
> modern historical-critical theology (including Robinson, The
> Jesus Seminar, Ray Brown, Bishop Spong etc. etc.) reject
> to one degree or another.
Nope. That I don't. Sorry. I'm just a middle-of-the-road type of Christian
who happens to believe that the physical resurrection is central to the
faith. I'm still puzzled by those like yourself who can swallow this idea of
the Christ of faith (ie, his spirit raised by God, etc) while rejecting a
physical resurrection. If, as you say, God exists and is all-powerful, and
is capable of raising Jesus' spirit, why can't he override the usual
physical laws regarding death? What's the problem? Seems to me that you
merely replace one set of literalisms (ie, fundamentalist) with another
(scientific), and one set of authorities with another (the gents you cite
above). Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with the assertions of the above
named writers (particularly the Jesus Seminar which "decides" historical
"fact" by popular vote!). Typical reductionists.
>
> Two clear examples
>
> God as creator: First Genesis is definitely a myth. The
> central message is God is the ground of all physcial
> existence. Let's not think about the spiritual/mental
> thing right now. God is still experienced as creator
> for the left-wing liberal Christians but now in terms
> of quantum mechanics, black holes, evolution ....
> So the spiritual experience is not tied to any world
> view, primitive science or literary talents or lack of
> in the author of the myth.
>
You do like straw men, don't you? I have never defended Genesis as literal
history (and I don't know of any intelligent conservatives or moderates who
do).
> The Virgin Birth: As Uta Ranke-Heinemann states
> the Virgin Birth is theology and not biology. It
> is a myth (fairy tale says Uta) that conveys the
> importance of Jesus in relation to the inaugauration
> of the Kingdom of God. It, to me, expresses Jesus
> as supreme reference for God's person
> and will. The Virgin Birth really is a story that
> has had its day. It does not need to be banished
> to theology's outer darkness. But, to use it
> as meaningful, now, revelation of the essence
> and meaning of Jesus of Nazareth is counter-
> productive in the extreme. And denigates women
> in general. It has set up the false either or situation
> where a woman is either a Virgin pure saint like mary
> or regular run of the mill whore who indulges in sex.
> Something like that. Put the VB myth in a museum
> well guarded and contained where it hurts no one!
<yawn> This is old stuff. If you want to pillory straw men, do it on
somebody else's dime.
r,
Louis
>
Bruce K. Darling
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:whzx6.14467$aP5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > >Louis
> > >
> > >PS-I'm not a right-wing conservative.
> >
> > Yes, you are right-wing conservative.
>
Oops! It seems that qbaal hasn't read - or digested - many of your posts,
Louis!
> Well, that's certainly news. I'm sure onthepath, Paul Hubbard and the rest
> will be relieved to hear it.
>
Relieved? No. Shocked? Yes.
> It's also a measure of how far to the left in these matters you are.
>
It's also an indication how quickly (and inaccurately) he judges others,
based on his neatly defined prejudices and horrid misconceptions.
Regards
Bruce K. Darling
"qbaal" <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> Forget argument against the man. And stick to the discussion at hand,
> if you have any relevant comments.
It seems that you have a difficult time following your own advice - much
less thinking for yourself. What I see in you, Mr. qbaal, is a tendency to
lump all who are outside of your little circle into one category - that of
the "fundamentalist", with all of its derogatory connotations as defined by
Spong - but to consider you and others who share your convictions as the
"enlightened."
An example of how off-based you are - here and elsewhere - is illustrated by
your response to "Louis" - whom you referred to in this thread - in an
off-the-cuff manner, btw - as a "right wing conservative." (Ostensibly,
this was intended in a derogatory manner? If not, then why the reference?)
Those of us who have taken the time to argue with Louis (openly via usenet
and privately via email) know him as someone utterly unlike your efforts to
dismiss him, based on your apparent propensity to characterize others in
what you perceive as the most unfavorable light possible. That tactic - Mr.
qbaal - is a classic example of the "ad hominem" fallacy - either of the
"abusive" or "circumstantium" form. You would be well-advised to study
elementary logic before accusing others of committing fallacies that are
abundant in your posts.
Regards
louis
Bruce K. Darling <thur...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9a8bks$2v0o$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:whzx6.14467$aP5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > >Louis
> > > >
> > > >PS-I'm not a right-wing conservative.
> > >
> > > Yes, you are right-wing conservative.
> >
>
> Oops! It seems that qbaal hasn't read - or digested - many of your posts,
> Louis!
Yeah. It was kind of refreshing to be called a right-wing conservative,
though. It just tends to prove my contention that I'm more moderate in my
thinking than many here think.
>
> > Well, that's certainly news. I'm sure onthepath, Paul Hubbard and the
rest
> > will be relieved to hear it.
> >
>
> Relieved? No. Shocked? Yes.
Some of my friends would certainly be shocked. Others would be relieved...
>
> > It's also a measure of how far to the left in these matters you are.
> >
>
> It's also an indication how quickly (and inaccurately) he judges others,
> based on his neatly defined prejudices and horrid misconceptions.
Yes. He cites Darwin exactly the way the religious fundamentalist cites
Genesis.
r,
L
>
> Regards
>
>
>
Paul K Hubbard
"louis" <mycr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2l1y6.23325$Uw.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > >PS-I'm not a right-wing conservative.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are right-wing conservative.
> > >
> >
> > Oops! It seems that qbaal hasn't read - or digested - many of your
posts,
> > Louis!
>
> Yeah. It was kind of refreshing to be called a right-wing conservative,
> though. It just tends to prove my contention that I'm more moderate in my
> thinking than many here think.
Whoa, not so fast. This short exchange with Bruce is centered on Qbaal's
diminished powers of observation, if not critical thinking. Therefore, to
build such a proof (that you are a moderate) on the knee-jerk opinion of one
who has already proven himself, by your own observation, to have
reactionary, uncritical tendencies in his thinking - is a a very weak
scaffold. Most thinking folks here have probably all been accused, with
equal vehemence, of being both fundamentalist and liberal at one time or
another. Tho we ourselves remain the same. Could such "accusations" prove
anything about what our true positions were?
> > > Well, that's certainly news. I'm sure onthepath, Paul Hubbard and the
> rest
> > > will be relieved to hear it.
> > >
> >
> > Relieved? No. Shocked? Yes.
> Yes. He cites Darwin exactly the way the religious fundamentalist cites
> Genesis.
Excellent observation. I intend to engage him fully (in the "Which is The
Real God" thread) - both in his claim for superior religious enlightenment
and in his claim that he has transcended the mere catholic world of
non-reason, intolerance, etc. etc. - simply by swiveling his napoleonic hat
180 degrees. Which merely means that the "right" is now the "left."
Unfortunately, as many of us have already noticed, the inexorable corollary
is that the "left" is now...well, the "right."
r,
paul
louis
Paul K Hubbard <paulhu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MW5y6.23975$Uw.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "louis" <mycr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2l1y6.23325$Uw.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Yeah. It was kind of refreshing to be called a right-wing conservative,
> > though. It just tends to prove my contention that I'm more moderate in
my
> > thinking than many here think.
>
> Whoa, not so fast. This short exchange with Bruce is centered on Qbaal's
> diminished powers of observation, if not critical thinking. Therefore, to
> build such a proof (that you are a moderate) on the knee-jerk opinion of
one
> who has already proven himself, by your own observation, to have
> reactionary, uncritical tendencies in his thinking - is a a very weak
> scaffold. Most thinking folks here have probably all been accused, with
> equal vehemence, of being both fundamentalist and liberal at one time or
> another. Tho we ourselves remain the same. Could such "accusations" prove
> anything about what our true positions were?
Perhaps this is a commentary on such labels as "right-wing," "liberal,"
"fundamentalist" etc. More and more, I see them as arbitrary, especially
when coming from others. I see myself as moderate. You see me as liberal. I
see you as right-wing and Qbaal as leftist. Qbaal sees me as right-wing. Are
any of these labels accurate? How can one know? What are the criteria by
which we can objectively judge? I try to interpret ~our~ religion as best I
can based on my studies, my experience and the input I get from others. I
presume you do much the same. My outlook has become more and more fluid:
where I once stood pretty squarely in Qbaal's camp I have moved,
imperceptively, towards yours. For example, I am taking a Lenten small group
which is reading and discussing Thich Nhat Hanh's book, "Living Buddha,
Living Christ." I have found, much to my surprise, that I disagree more with
Buddhism than I agree. I am much more orthodox in my views than I even
thought I would be. Surprised?
I'm aware you consider your views to be objectively provable (ala
Schaeffer). As you know, I think these matters are more difficult to prove.
Where we disagree most profoundly (and most violently) are in matters of
human sexuality. It's a shame, really. Because of my position that gays are
not inhuman, or sick, or disordered, and should be treated equally, I am
labeled "liberal" when that epithet is otherwise pretty much inaccurate. And
it alienates me from people with whom I would otherwise be close.
>
> > Yes. He cites Darwin exactly the way the religious fundamentalist cites
> > Genesis.
>
> Excellent observation. I intend to engage him fully (in the "Which is The
> Real God" thread) - both in his claim for superior religious enlightenment
> and in his claim that he has transcended the mere catholic world of
> non-reason, intolerance, etc. etc. - simply by swiveling his napoleonic
hat
> 180 degrees. Which merely means that the "right" is now the "left."
> Unfortunately, as many of us have already noticed, the inexorable
corollary
> is that the "left" is now...well, the "right."
>
> r,
>
> paul
Good luck. I would like to see a ~real~ discussion involving a capable
advocate of modernist approaches and you.
Louis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
downampney
> Perhaps this is a commentary on such labels as "right-wing," "liberal,"
> "fundamentalist" etc. More and more, I see them as arbitrary, especially
> when coming from others. I see myself as moderate. You see me as liberal. I
> see you as right-wing and Qbaal as leftist. Qbaal sees me as right-wing. Are
> any of these labels accurate?
Well, I think they do make sense, to some degree, within the context of
whatever topic is at hand. And I think they make sense with regard to
the processes we apply. On these basic points of theology, Louis, you
are moderate leaning to conservative; you take classic Anglican
positions. With regard to sexuality and abortion you apply liberal modes
of thought.
One of the biggest problems I have with Qbaalian modernism is the way it
tends to confuse conclusions with process. Because the fundamentalists,
on the basics, tend to come up with the same answers as the
traditionalists, Qbaal argues as if the traditionalists have the same
reasons for these conclusions (which they do not), and therefore instead
of confronting the substantial dissents of the traditionalists, he can
deal with the even-then-characatured fundies instead.
C. Wingate
Paul K Hubbard
> > Whoa, not so fast. This short exchange with Bruce is centered on Qbaal's
> > diminished powers of observation, if not critical thinking. Therefore,
to
> > build such a proof (that you are a moderate) on the knee-jerk opinion of
> one
> > who has already proven himself, by your own observation, to have
> > reactionary, uncritical tendencies in his thinking - is a a very weak
> > scaffold. Most thinking folks here have probably all been accused, with
> > equal vehemence, of being both fundamentalist and liberal at one time or
> > another. Tho we ourselves remain the same. Could such "accusations"
prove
> > anything about what our true positions were?
(louis)
> Perhaps this is a commentary on such labels as "right-wing," "liberal,"
> "fundamentalist" etc. More and more, I see them as arbitrary, especially
> when coming from others. I see myself as moderate. You see me as liberal.
I
> see you as right-wing and Qbaal as leftist. Qbaal sees me as right-wing.
Are
> any of these labels accurate? How can one know? What are the criteria by
> which we can objectively judge? I try to interpret ~our~ religion as best
I
> can based on my studies, my experience and the input I get from others. I
> presume you do much the same. My outlook has become more and more fluid:
> where I once stood pretty squarely in Qbaal's camp I have moved,
> imperceptively, towards yours. For example, I am taking a Lenten small
group
> which is reading and discussing Thich Nhat Hanh's book, "Living Buddha,
> Living Christ." I have found, much to my surprise, that I disagree more
with
> Buddhism than I agree. I am much more orthodox in my views than I even
> thought I would be. Surprised?
The problem with the labels: right left and moderate - is as you say - they
have achieved high levels of arbitrariness. Especially in view of the fact
that a conservative is a Liberal who has been hijacked by reality." And a
'moderate is going to the same place the Liberal is going, except much more
conservatively.' And the principle that we have both observed on this
newsgroup that there is little difference between the "tolerance" of the
Liberals and the "Love" of the Conservatives; they both look very much like
arrogant intellectual bigotry.
In my own studies, the philosophical and existential similarities between
liberal and conservative has become unnerving. Even though there is a core
of "innocence" and truth in each one, they are two heads on the same hydra.
One important difference tho is that while conservatism is sociologically
encumbered with many orthopraxic sins (phariseeism, narrow-mindedness, etc.)
Liberalism has become encumbered with many +orthodoxic+ sins (i.e; they
+begin+ at a heretical position and largely as a result of this are not
tempted with those same orthopraxic sins and so therefore produce a
congeniality for others that is far superior to what can flow out of the
suspicious anger of conservatives.) This is why Liberalism +appears+ to
produce a spirituality in this department that is superior to Conservatism.
But for the purposes of discussion, in which the ideals themselves are the
important matter, I think it is quite safe to say that Liberalism begins
within a matrix of hopeless theological error. And that the principle of
"conservatism" is inherent in catholic orthodoxy simply because truth does
not change (or evolve).
As long as we use these terms in that sense, I think we are safe. I should
want to "conserve" the truth, but show "liberality" in its application. If
we do not do this then "moderate" will mean simply, lukewarm. If not that
then it will mean that we are spiritually kin to the "Vicar of Brey" such
that we give everyone the impression that we agree with them, but in our
heart of hearts we have become spiritual chameleons either to deprive
unwitting widows of their money, or because we are desperate for acceptance.
Which is wicked enough as it is. But the "spiritual" upshot of this will be
that we will have been laboring for so many years, through deceitful
practices, to appear to be all things to all people, that we end by
deceiving ourselves. That is, we no longer have any idea of who we are.
> I'm aware you consider your views to be objectively provable (ala
> Schaeffer). As you know, I think these matters are more difficult to
prove.
> Where we disagree most profoundly (and most violently) are in matters of
> human sexuality. It's a shame, really. Because of my position that gays
are
> not inhuman, or sick, or disordered, and should be treated equally, I am
> labeled "liberal" when that epithet is otherwise pretty much inaccurate.
And
> it alienates me from people with whom I would otherwise be close.
(paul)
No. Schaeffer made a mistake here. The epistemological hubris of the
Reformational ethos (much like the similar epistemological hubris of St.
Thomas' autonomous human reason) has been transmitted to all her
off-spring - including Modern Science. In this discipline, we are constantly
running into people who believe that facts are indisputably "hard" and
"concrete," lying on some universal foundation that cannot be moved, and are
therefore "objectively provable" - all we need do is to pick them up of the
floor and "observe" them with the "scientific" method. And this is called
empiricism.
I do not reason from your views of sexuality to infer an anti-thetical
system. I try to assemble your system from your own statements. I see that
your views on sexuality are merely the tip of the iceberg. The orthopraxic
sin of your sexuality is a relatively unimportant matter compared to the
anti-catholic views which I have heard you espouse which lie massively
beneath the surface which support them.
> > Excellent observation. I intend to engage him fully (in the "Which is
The
> > Real God" thread) - both in his claim for superior religious
enlightenment
> > and in his claim that he has transcended the mere catholic world of
> > non-reason, intolerance, etc. etc. - simply by swiveling his napoleonic
> hat
> > 180 degrees. Which merely means that the "right" is now the "left."
> > Unfortunately, as many of us have already noticed, the inexorable
> corollary
> > is that the "left" is now...well, the "right."
> >
> > r,
> >
> > paul
>
> Good luck. I would like to see a ~real~ discussion involving a capable
> advocate of modernist approaches and you.
Then you will not get it from me. I could not hope to be as critically
enlightened, well informed, and "up with the times" as Qbaal. I am just a
child learning to be a man. But even a child can see droopy drawers on a
King's backside. And can certainly say so.
r,
paul
qbaal
Do you ever notice your responses to my post are full of assessments
of my character. And very seldom speak to the arguments or
news re the historical critical findings I report. All I get, is
"Spong is left wing Christian radical who has abandoned the true
Christian faith, or Qbaal is prejudiced and the victim of horrid
misconceptions." And when I react to his arrogant stuff then
I am assessed as mired in argument against the man.
Solution: never mention the poster's name or "moral failings" (i.e.
prejudice) and lets see where the real argument goes. I can
live with this. Can you?
And the real argument is about whether the Bible and myth. I
contend the Bible, including the New Testment, is full of myth. Myth
is not used in the prejorative sense. Rather as THE communicator
of Truth in the Bible (and many other religions, too). This
Spong and I, and many other Christians, are serving up to the
world. Openly and rationally, too. Course, you want a magic
bullet - one handy phrase like sola scriptura to demonstrate
now and forever that the literal approach to scripture is
untenable to moderns. And yes, such an literal approach is
deluded. Of course, to establish the latter a course in
modern New Testament methodology is recommended. I actually give folk
the findings of this modern methodology but in small doses. And the
findings are expanded and explained at my web site. And the original
sources, by experts such as Bishop Spong, are cited on my web pages.
However, a key point of delusion exposed empirically by science is
the continuing espousal of a literal Genesis 1. Most educated folk
in the world know otherwise and Darwin won this battle long ago.
So I don't mind making an assessment of the conservative Christian's
approach to doctrine/scripture. However, I never question a person's
committment to Christ and his relationship to God, or his final
destiny on the basis of theology. That is reserved for God. Who
seems to be open to any approach to his person even if it is not
particularly rational. In fact some theology, including Christian, is
downright blasphmous, but God is BIG and can take it without
wishing to squash his opponents. Unlike some of his more zealous
followers, past and present.
So, in future lets stick to the arguments. I already know Bishop
Spong is evil, the destroyer of Christianity, the arch enemy of
theism, and, worse yet, a hugger of homos and thus a detractor
of God, good-boy Christianity, and enemy of law and order in
any society. Now on with the arguements. And not just
the circular stuff where we have loaded on us "The Bible says."
I'll consider arguments from the Bible when they are filtered
and assessed in the light of modern cricitial theology, common
sense (like Virgins don't have children) and modern science and
social sciences.
Then, when we have eliminated negative assessments of
radical liberal Christian posts heaped up with invective and
knee-jerk defence of the faith at all cost, we can proceed
to see historical critical theology is here to stay. For, the
solid reasoning, science, archaelogical discoveries, etc. behind
it are light years away from Christianity's long time reliance on
argument from authority.
Now all this will be construed as "arrogant" by some. Meaning
it is not congruent with their idea of Christian doctrine or
scriptural authority.
qbaal
<paulhu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"
>> Yes. He cites Darwin exactly the way the religious fundamentalist cites
>> Genesis.
>
>Excellent observation. I intend to engage him fully (in the "Which is The
>Real God" thread) - both in his claim for superior religious enlightenment
>and in his claim that he has transcended the mere catholic world of
>non-reason, intolerance, etc. etc. - simply by swiveling his napoleonic hat
>180 degrees. Which merely means that the "right" is now the "left."
>Unfortunately, as many of us have already noticed, the inexorable corollary
>is that the "left" is now...well, the "right."
>paul
Stick to the argument and forget the invective.
Perhaps my posts do show "superior" religious enlightment. However,
and this is the reality of the matter, that enlightment is really
the findings of 300 years of historical-critical Bible study in many
of the world's leading universities. And produced by top drawer
theologians. And subjected to world-wide prolonged peer review.
And, as you know, incessant right wing, conservative criticism
and rejection out of hand. So don't give me the credit for
this enlightment, superior as it may be.
qbaal
wrote:
More Modern Theology
http://ajn11.homestead.com/index.html
qbaal
wrote:
>
>One of the biggest problems I have with Qbaalian modernism is the way it
>tends to confuse conclusions with process. Because the fundamentalists,
>on the basics, tend to come up with the same answers as the
>traditionalists, Qbaal argues as if the traditionalists have the same
>reasons for these conclusions (which they do not), and therefore instead
>of confronting the substantial dissents of the traditionalists, he can
>deal with the even-then-characatured fundies instead.
>
>C. Wingate
I'm aware of the problem. But it is not a matter of confusion. It's
reality.
Re the Resurrection
The conservatives would opt for a real appearances of Jesus. Probably
in the sense, a tape recorder might have picked up St. Thomas saying
"My Lord and God" Or it would have been possible to have made
a video of the resurrected Jesus in the garden with Mary and others.
This mean the resurrection stories are literally true.
Traditionalist might opt for a real appearance of Jesus. The
different stories are harmonized one way or other. And we get
the argument the different stories indicate these are basically
real and true because of the differences showing the human
element. The real appearances are not a physically resurrected
Jesus but a spiritual one. And, the later gospel's stories (In John),
such as the meeting of Jesus and St. Thomas the doubter, are just
legends.
Some traditionalists, more on the left wing, might believe in the
Resurrection but don't accept any of the New Testament stories
of risen appearances. However, the core message that Jesus
is present in Christian fellowship and the individual believer's
heart, is accepted.
The you have the left, actually the radical left where Christians like
Bishop Spong and I do believe in and experience every day a Risen
friend Jesus. But simply say the New Testament Resurrection stories
are myth. Special myths in the sense they are framed in the Hebrew
religious mindset and expressed that way. And special in that they
are not delusional since the represent our encounter with Reality
and express a real experience of God through Jesus Christ.
My honest opinion is all these approaches to the resurrection are
valid. In other words salvation, experience of God is mediated
equally well through all these views of the Resurrection. However,
I'm in the camp of the radical left, historical critical and
publicized by Bishop Spong, and I believe it is this informed view.
Not arrogance, just the basic drift of the historical critical school
of theology. And I will never espouse anything that is contrary
to the empirical findings of science or achaeology etc. There is good
reason to thing the modern view of the Resurrection is actually the
view of St. Paul. It's based on a negative - Paul did not mention the
empty tomb in Christianity's earliest writings. In those same
writings Paul assembles his arguments for the great reality of human
history -the Resurrection - but does not mention the empty tomb
which is basic to many Gospel stories Jesus risen appearances.
Why would Paul, reporting the greatest news of history, not put
forth every and all conceivable evidence for the great hope of his
heart Ridiculous. Or criminally negligent by God and Paul.
louis
> >>
Bruce:
> >It's also an indication how quickly (and inaccurately) he judges others,
> >based on his neatly defined prejudices and horrid misconceptions.
> >
>
> Do you ever notice your responses to my post are full of assessments
> of my character. And very seldom speak to the arguments or
> news re the historical critical findings I report. All I get, is
> "Spong is left wing Christian radical who has abandoned the true
> Christian faith, or Qbaal is prejudiced and the victim of horrid
> misconceptions." And when I react to his arrogant stuff then
> I am assessed as mired in argument against the man.
>
> Solution: never mention the poster's name or "moral failings" (i.e.
> prejudice) and lets see where the real argument goes. I can
> live with this. Can you?
A note in passing: Actually Bruce is ~not~ addressing your character at all.
If you will read closely exactly what he is saying, you will note that he is
critiquing your actions (ie, how quickly your judge others) and from this he
deduces the ground upon which you perform these actions (ie, your "neatly
defined prejudices" and "horrid misconceptions"). Nothing there about your
character at all. In fact, you should examine your own writings before
criticizing Bruce's: You dismiss his utterances as "arrogant stuff" instead
of attacking the issues he raises.
>
> And the real argument is about whether the Bible and myth. I
> contend the Bible, including the New Testment, is full of myth. Myth
> is not used in the prejorative sense. Rather as THE communicator
> of Truth in the Bible (and many other religions, too). This
> Spong and I, and many other Christians, are serving up to the
> world. Openly and rationally, too. Course, you want a magic
> bullet - one handy phrase like sola scriptura to demonstrate
> now and forever that the literal approach to scripture is
> untenable to moderns. And yes, such an literal approach is
> deluded. Of course, to establish the latter a course in
> modern New Testament methodology is recommended. I actually give folk
> the findings of this modern methodology but in small doses. And the
> findings are expanded and explained at my web site. And the original
> sources, by experts such as Bishop Spong, are cited on my web pages.
> However, a key point of delusion exposed empirically by science is
> the continuing espousal of a literal Genesis 1. Most educated folk
> in the world know otherwise and Darwin won this battle long ago.
LOL!! Physician heal thyself! You criticize Bruce for exactly the strategy
you take here. Just look at the above: arrogant and contemptuous in tone as
evidenced by diction which dismisses even as it asserts moral and spiritual
superiority -- You presume to define the "real" argument; You redefine the
content of the Bible as full of "myth" which communicates "THE" Truth (a
truth, btw, to which only the privileged modernists are privy and before
which the rest of us must humbly bow). The rest of us are accused of wishing
for a "magic bullet" -- and then are accused of lusting after some
catch-phrase to defend some mythical literal approach (nevermind ~your~
literal approach: scientifically literal-minded, that is). Of course, we are
"deluded," and are advised (so pompously that I almost had to hold my nose!)
to take an elementary course in the mysteries of modern NT methodology so we
can join you in the ranks of the illuminati. And then, of course, that old
chestnut about Darwin and Genesis is exhibited to prove we are not as
educated and spiritually enlightened as yourself.
If you want to establish credibility, both for yourself and your position,
you would be advised to abandon the (unestablished) superiority you covet,
and take your own advice, arguing the issues neutrally. I wonder, if your
show of condescension were to be stripped away, if you would have anything
of substance to say? Could it be that the intelligent, eduated - yea, even
skeptical-minded - could aspire to transcend the limits of both scientific
refuctionism and fundamentalist dogmatism to the Truth which is itself
transcendent?
>
> So I don't mind making an assessment of the conservative Christian's
> approach to doctrine/scripture. However, I never question a person's
> committment to Christ and his relationship to God, or his final
> destiny on the basis of theology. That is reserved for God. Who
> seems to be open to any approach to his person even if it is not
> particularly rational. In fact some theology, including Christian, is
> downright blasphmous, but God is BIG and can take it without
> wishing to squash his opponents. Unlike some of his more zealous
> followers, past and present.
;-) I bow to your superior enlightenment. (See above.)
>
> So, in future lets stick to the arguments. I already know Bishop
> Spong is evil, the destroyer of Christianity, the arch enemy of
> theism, and, worse yet, a hugger of homos and thus a detractor
> of God, good-boy Christianity, and enemy of law and order in
> any society. Now on with the arguements. And not just
> the circular stuff where we have loaded on us "The Bible says."
> I'll consider arguments from the Bible when they are filtered
> and assessed in the light of modern cricitial theology, common
> sense (like Virgins don't have children) and modern science and
> social sciences.
Why not take your radicalism as far as it will go (as I did in your
situation)? Point the laser of scientific skepticism on science itself (and
its rationalistic assumptions). Stop treating it as a new Scripture,
infallible and unquestionable. I think you'd be surprised at what you'd
find.
>
> Then, when we have eliminated negative assessments of
> radical liberal Christian posts heaped up with invective and
> knee-jerk defence of the faith at all cost, we can proceed
> to see historical critical theology is here to stay. For, the
> solid reasoning, science, archaelogical discoveries, etc. behind
> it are light years away from Christianity's long time reliance on
> argument from authority.
Well, to put it simply, you subsitute the authority of the church with the
authority of the scientific establishment. Try freeing yourself of both.
>
> Now all this will be construed as "arrogant" by some. Meaning
> it is not congruent with their idea of Christian doctrine or
> scriptural authority.
<yawn> ...merely a panicked shot over your shoulder as you flee from any
critique of your position. Your utterances are not merely "construed" as
arrogant, they manifestly ~are~.
r,
Louis
FTT
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:34:41 -0400, downampney <whi...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >One of the biggest problems I have with Qbaalian modernism is the way it
> >tends to confuse conclusions with process. Because the fundamentalists,
> >on the basics, tend to come up with the same answers as the
> >traditionalists, Qbaal argues as if the traditionalists have the same
> >reasons for these conclusions (which they do not), and therefore instead
> >of confronting the substantial dissents of the traditionalists, he can
> >deal with the even-then-characatured fundies instead.
> >
> >C. Wingate
>
> I'm aware of the problem. But it is not a matter of confusion. It's
> reality.
>
"its reality..."
FTT
Bruce K. Darling
I'm "on the road" now - and will take time to address your post in detail
when I return. In the meantime, I offer the following:
>
> Do you ever notice your responses to my post are full of assessments
> of my character.
I've not attacked your character, qbaal. I've questioned your
presuppositions and your methods. You must have trouble reading, no?
Regards
louis
The problem I have with this is that you define liberalism as "heresy." I
suppose it depends on what you mean by "Liberalism," but defining it
beforehand as "wrong" seems to me unfair. And when you add to this your
definition of moderation as going to the same place as liberalism (hell?)
but more conservatively, you also define it out of the arena. At what point,
I wonder, do we find the moment when the evolution of "truth" freezes? The
first century? Third? Thirteenth, sixteenth? Or the nineteenth when the
doctrine of papal infallibility was formulated? Are we hopeless moderates
(or, worse, Liberals) because we reject the latter mentioned doctrine? Are
we evil Liberals because we side with sixteenth c. Elizabeth I and the
Anglican church, rejecting the Roman church? What, exactly, is this
conservatism you espouse anyway?
>
> But for the purposes of discussion, in which the ideals themselves are the
> important matter, I think it is quite safe to say that Liberalism begins
> within a matrix of hopeless theological error. And that the principle of
> "conservatism" is inherent in catholic orthodoxy simply because truth does
> not change (or evolve).
I agree with your point about truth. The problem is that our perception (or
understanding) of it does, indeed, seem to evolve. The alternative would be
to return to the RC, and its most radically conservative wing at that.
>
> As long as we use these terms in that sense, I think we are safe. I should
> want to "conserve" the truth, but show "liberality" in its application.
Yes, I'm with you here. Unfortunately, this is seldom applied in real life,
is it? I recall the truly vicious bashing you inflicted upon me: nothing
liberal in the application of what you see as truth. In fact, when you
demonize someone (ie, calling them a "Christ-raper," an "infection," and
liken them to the killers of the saints), I really don't think you're even
serving the conservative vision of the truth. In fact, indulging in the
demonization of your opponets merely alienates them and renders your
evangelizing efforts useless. If this weren't Lent, I would have killfiled
you in a flash.
If
> we do not do this then "moderate" will mean simply, lukewarm. If not that
> then it will mean that we are spiritually kin to the "Vicar of Brey" such
> that we give everyone the impression that we agree with them, but in our
> heart of hearts we have become spiritual chameleons either to deprive
> unwitting widows of their money, or because we are desperate for
acceptance.
> Which is wicked enough as it is. But the "spiritual" upshot of this will
be
> that we will have been laboring for so many years, through deceitful
> practices, to appear to be all things to all people, that we end by
> deceiving ourselves. That is, we no longer have any idea of who we are.
Well, yes, of course. When I say "moderate" I don't mean this deceitful
position, but of one attempting a humility in vision and practice who
believes in the truth, and yet who also is acutely aware of his darkened and
alienated vision -- who cares deeply about preserving (or conserving) the
great truths handed down to us, but who is also aware that error (or lack of
full understanding) may also have been handed down. "Openness" is not the
same as being lukewarm.
>
>
> > I'm aware you consider your views to be objectively provable (ala
> > Schaeffer). As you know, I think these matters are more difficult to
> prove.
> > Where we disagree most profoundly (and most violently) are in matters of
> > human sexuality. It's a shame, really. Because of my position that gays
> are
> > not inhuman, or sick, or disordered, and should be treated equally, I am
> > labeled "liberal" when that epithet is otherwise pretty much inaccurate.
> And
> > it alienates me from people with whom I would otherwise be close.
>
> (paul)
> No. Schaeffer made a mistake here. The epistemological hubris of the
> Reformational ethos (much like the similar epistemological hubris of St.
> Thomas' autonomous human reason) has been transmitted to all her
> off-spring - including Modern Science. In this discipline, we are
constantly
> running into people who believe that facts are indisputably "hard" and
> "concrete," lying on some universal foundation that cannot be moved, and
are
> therefore "objectively provable" - all we need do is to pick them up of
the
> floor and "observe" them with the "scientific" method. And this is called
> empiricism.
Well, empiricism has obvious problems. But I can't help but wonder: weren't
the reformers you cite above reacting to another hubris in the corrupt,
decadent and politically ambitious Roman Church?
>
> I do not reason from your views of sexuality to infer an anti-thetical
> system. I try to assemble your system from your own statements. I see that
> your views on sexuality are merely the tip of the iceberg. The orthopraxic
> sin of your sexuality is a relatively unimportant matter compared to the
> anti-catholic views which I have heard you espouse which lie massively
> beneath the surface which support them.
Yes, it's finally struck me: my problem with your position lies in the term
"anti-catholic." You ~always~ use the word "catholic," don't you? I think of
myself as Christian, a follower of Christ. You think of yourself as
catholic, a follower of...well, of what, exactly? A tradition, a dogma, an
orthodoxy...what is it, exactly? I may be horribly ineffective in my
attempts to follow Him, but at least I'm trying to follow Him when He tells
us He is the "Way." What "Way" are you following?
>
Paul:
> > Then you will not get it from me. I could not hope to be as critically
> enlightened, well informed, and "up with the times" as Qbaal. I am just a
> child learning to be a man. But even a child can see droopy drawers on a
> King's backside. And can certainly say so.
>
Oh, come, Paul: this is rather disingenuous of you. "A child learning to be
a man"? You certainly don't act the part.
;)
Louis
PS - Watch out for icebergs: most of it lies under the surface where you
can't see it. You may guess at its size and area, but you're apt to be
wrong. And it can sink you...
downampney
> The resurrection did happen - Jesus died and immediately was raised
> to God and eternity.
But what does this *mean*? It's mumbo-jumbo!
I mean, your "sacraments-only" resurrection is *ideally* suited to being
attacked as the sheerest of wishful thinking-- He is risen because we
think He is risen. Yes, it's more unitarian Christianity.
> Two relevant scriptures "Blessed are those who have not seen
> and believe." And "Where two or three are gathered in my
> name there AM I in their midst."
Well, the second is not particularly relevant-- as for the first, YOU
ARE PROOF-TEXTING in the most egregious possible way!!!!!! I mean,
puhleeeeeze. This is the closing verse of the whole "doubting Thomas"
episode in which the point is, after all, that Thomas gets to see and
touch Jesus, and worships him as God. It is *precisely* Jesus declaing
the power of faith *in testimony*.
> The early Church materialized, i.e. historicized, the reality of
> the Resurrection. This is why the earliest NT writings (Paul's)
> do not refer to an empty tomb, nor to physical appearances
> in a garden or at a lakeshore(complete with eating of fish).
Well, there are three problems with this. First, Paul *does* refer to an
appearance of Jesus to himself-- he specifically refers to this as to
"one born out of time," i.e., not able to be present with the disciples,
and in the same passage he does speak of other appearances.
The second problem is that this is a particularly tendentious way of
reading a difference between the gospels and the epistles that has to be
there anyway. Paul's epistles are NOT sermons, unlike, say, the letter
to the Hebrews, which IS a sermon. It is not clear that there is much
reason for him to talk about the gospel accounts. This problem is
particularly highlighted when you look at the Gospel of John. It is
clearly about the same stuff as the synoptics, but it clearly takes a
much different perspective. What's the basis for the difference? Well,
it appears to depend on whether you are a modernist, but in the end no
greater origin need be posited then a difference of authorship.
The final problem is that the modernist side is working from an outdated
timeline. While the synoptic hypothesis seems to be holding up, the
recently fashionable view that Thomas is the Q document isn't. Moreover,
the dates keep getting pushed back. Bultmann wrote back when it was
beleived that John was a century younger than the other gospels. That
view is surely wrong; physical evidence continues to drive the date
earlier, and there is one fragment which allows a date for Matthew of
about 56, making it contemporaneous with Paul. And if it is
contemporaneous, then this speculation collapses.
C. Wingate
downampney
> God as creator: First Genesis is definitely a myth.
But Christianity has always be sensitive to the mythological aspects of
the various parts of Genesis.
> The Virgin Birth: As Uta Ranke-Heinemann states
> the Virgin Birth is theology and not biology.
Well, the church has always seen it as theology-- AND biology. To say
that it is NOT biology is simply to be a chronological bigot. What is to
prevent God from having done this thing? This is the straight answer I
can never get from the modernists. Can't you just admit that you are
embarrassed to beleive in a God who can actually DO something?
C. Wingate
downampney
> I'm in the camp of the radical left, historical critical and
> publicized by Bishop Spong, and I believe it is this informed view.
> Not arrogance, just the basic drift of the historical critical school
> of theology. And I will never espouse anything that is contrary
> to the empirical findings of science or achaeology etc.
But you do!
The hist-crit people are stuck back in the last century, in this
Germanic enlightenment view of scripture as historical bunk. Real
archaeology and real texts have not been kind to them. Numerous physical
evidences of the Judaean kingdom have been found. The DSS have given us
a window into the Tenakh that shows, in fact, just how slow the drift in
the Hebrew text has been. Increasingly, dating of the gospels is forcing
earlier and earlier dates.
The fact is that there is a huge world of biblical studies out there,
and while the rest of them seem to communicate, the hist-crit modernists
are holed up in their own little elitist ghetto. Discard the hist-crit
prejudices and be free!
C. Wingate
James
Rick,
The true religion based on the first century teachings, is alive and
well today.
For example, the first century Christian religious leaders did not
have flattering religious titles such as "Father" or "Reverend", etc.
Neither does the "one faith" religion of today. (Eph 4:5) They follow
their Master Jesus, and listened to his words at Mt 23:8-10,
"8 But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master
and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth `father,'
for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be
called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ." (NIV)
The first century Christians also had as their preaching theme, God's
kingdom. Lu 8:1,
"After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to
another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve
were with him," (NIV)
Today, the true religion is actively involved in preaching and
teaching throughout the whole word, the theme of "the kingdom of God".
And according to Jesus, that is exactly what is supposed to happen
before the end comes. Mt 24:14,
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (NIV)
But is it expected that the true religion would copy the first century
Christians IN EVERY DETAIL? Yes and No.
Yes, to copying and following all the religious DOCTRINES and
TEACHINGS that the Bible delivers to us. For instance, to not follow a
political leader and go to war and slaughter fellow humans as many
churches have done and still do, but rather to follow Jesus who said
to "love your enemies". (Mt 5:44)
No, to following every detail of daily 1st century protocol. For
instance, in the first century there was no social security or other
such government backed insurance systems for the common person. Thus
the first century Christians had to rely upon themselves to take care
of themselves.
But today if a Christian comes down with an expensive illness, rather
than have the Christian congregation have to support the expensive
medical bills, the sick person can apply to the government for that
assistance. (Of course, the Christian congregation would help out if
the government did not)
Yes, the true religion today would be the one that followed the Bible;
all of it including loving their enemies and by not blowing their
heads off in war, etc. (Mt 5:44) The true religion would be the one
that is fulfilling Jesus prophecy of the the preaching of God's
kingdom done in THE WHOLE WORLD before the end would come. (Mt 24:14)
Yes, the true religion would be the one who really does follow Jesus'
model prayer at Mt 6:9 "...Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your
name," (NIV) Yes, they call God by a NAME, not just the titles "Lord"
and "God". They call Him by a name that has been in use for hundreds
of years. That name is recorded in the KJV Bible at Ps 83:18 (most
Bibles have removed God's name completely),
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
most
high over all the earth." (KJV)
Sincerely,
James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Paul K Hubbard
"Rick Seelhoff" <ex...@harbornet.com> wrote in message
news:Rnqx6.592$Ks3....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
How so? You have a rare talent for both stepping back to get the big
picture - and even rarer - for honesty, particularly about yourself.
But how in hell did you come up with "it begins with our assembling
together in prayer." (?) So then, ..."if anything at all worth
happening is going to happen" its going to happen in a prayer
movement? Or if anything happens outside these limitations it will not
be "worth it" to you?
And if we lay down apriori requirements for a revival and reformation
that we don't see, is it not a pretty safe bet that we have already
laid down some fairly constrictive (implicit) definitions of what is
normative for:
1) unity
2) abundant life
3) potency
4) Spirit's presence
...for which such a limited vision of revival and reformation is the
supposed antidote for deficiencies, not only in spiritual realities,
but of their very definitions?
Because what we now see going on is that instead of stripping down in
brokenness and contrition to nothing in our vision of things, to see
what is lacking and what its antidote might be, the modern Church has
instead embarked on a considerably advanced program of redefining
items 1-4. Did you happen to catch one of Rowland Croucher's recent
posts about "redefining" evangelism? Here is (or was) an otherwise
well-meaning leader that is beginning to succumb to the pressures of
confronting the impotency of orthodoxy. He ran on for several
sentences about a new kind of evangelism with religious jargon which
came right out of the 'Liberal-Speak Primer for drop out
Fundamentalists. I am sure that it all looks very fine and enlightened
to him now, but he does not (I hope) realize that he is playing with
death in this area.
And so too do we - if we for one moment - relax our vigilance as we
await a consolation from God concerning the "foundations, which have
been broken up." You can get unity by reconciling yourself to a
syncretistic unity which ECUSA now touts, or you can get some sense of
unity by throwing in your lot with Rome (and get some authority and
leadership to boot). Likewise, you can go to the Eastern Orthodox - or
with a "unity" of a continuing church, or even to a Heersinkian
'Prefecture of One'. For that matter, any cultic Protestant unity will
do.
But real unity is a matter entirely out of our control. We cannot act
for others; we can only act as individuals in personal obedience to
Christ. Only his spirit acting through our obedience and the obedience
of others can knit us together in the bonds of unity. And surely that
will be for some specific, spiritual purpose and not in gratification
of our vain need for the +appearance+ of unity before those who would
ridicule the lack of it - which is pride; or to remove our uneasiness
about our own spirituality, which has falsely come to rest on a
concern for unity when there is really no substance to be brought to
the spiritual fires which could be used to forge such a unity! That
specific purpose and that specific unity will be the edification of
the members of Christ's body; that is, the improvement of the overall
health of the Bride of Christ. This kind of thinking stands in compete
opposition to that which would advocate manipulating our
ecclesiastical (or even our liturgical) environments in this pursuit -
such that we create the appearance of unity, but no true spiritual
health - either for us or for the Bride of Christ.
And who will re-define "abundant life" "potency" and "Spirit's
presence" for us? The Charismatics? Indeed, they think that they know
what these things are, and very passionately. And it is not surprising
that ECUSA was making overtures to this quarter in the last Lambeth.
And the explanation is that nothing of any consequence must be paid
out to this influence except a little uncomfortable adaptation of our
liturgy. They can have the same smug sense of superiority, the
immunity from critical evaluation, the subjectivism (one can almost
say relativism here), the illusion of unity when all the crowd is
awash in tears and swaying in the same direction, the illusion of
power, presence and spiritual depth - and no down payment of doctrinal
metamorphosis is required. Which is a deal that Liberals can't resist.
They have already co-opted almost the entire range of christian
jargon, why not this movement too? Because the charismatic impulse is
1) a powerful engine of motivation (and hence money) and it is very
easy to manipulate (once you get the hang of it).
In the event that you are missing the strength of my charge here, let
me put it this way: I believe that if the Holy Spirit's special
pentacostal power was withdrawn from the Church today, the charismatic
movement within it would continue on tomorrow, virtually unchanged. I
say this because the Pentacostal Movement is precisely the thing that
we should be avoiding in an era in which the Spirit is clearly calling
her children to make themselves accountable for content, reason and
reality, and instead this movement gives us very little content,
non-reason and credulousness. I cannot think of a more destructive
force in the modern Church except perhaps for "Liberalism." And much
like Liberalism - wherever the charismatic movement has taken hold, it
has ended in disunity and in the destruction of leadership and the
ruination of personal and corporate spiritual health.
Doesn't this square with your honesty? If it does, then we need to
come with an entirely different modus operandi in "praying" for
reformation and revival. I would allege that we must take a personal
inventory. Are all our thoughts submitted to that tyrant, Christ? Are
all our actions informed by service to him (and in serving his body,
we serve him)? If we take this inventory and put first things first in
submission and obedience, will we not get all those other things which
are not ours to effect - but only to receive?
r,
paul
Rick Seelhoff
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
> But how in hell did you come up with "it begins with our assembling
> together in prayer." (?)
Tthat's the pattern I see from Scripture. The first recorded instance (Acts
2) that the promised Spirit was given to the church came when "they were all
with one accord in one place" there at Jerusalem. The second (Acts 4) is
similar. Am I drawing too literal and specific a conclusion from those two
instances, perhaps?
> So then, ..."if anything at all worth
> happening is going to happen" its going to happen in a prayer
> movement? Or if anything happens outside these limitations it will not
> be "worth it" to you?
I don't know about a movement. My hunch is nothing's going to happen without
God's direct and intimate engagement, of course. But it's also true that
nothing will happen without believers' direct and intimate engagement, as
well. I hear a lot of claims these days coming from various quarters, but to
date they all ring equally as hollow. It's quite possible that I wouldn't
recognize the real McCoy if it dropped in my lap (and there's a possibilty
that it's already done exactly that), but like other things theological its
a lot easier to identify what isn't than what is.
>
> And if we lay down apriori requirements for a revival and reformation
> that we don't see, is it not a pretty safe bet that we have already
> laid down some fairly constrictive (implicit) definitions of what is
> normative for:
>
> 1) unity
> 2) abundant life
> 3) potency
> 4) Spirit's presence
>
> ...for which such a limited vision of revival and reformation is the
> supposed antidote for deficiencies, not only in spiritual realities,
> but of their very definitions?
For sure. Have to start somewhere. I thought I was going by the Scriptural
depiction/definition. What am I missing, here?
And let me point out that I'm all that interested in reformation or revival.
What i hunger and thirst for is the Spirit, period. I want God with us. Full
stop. Whatever happens in that Presence is besides the point. For me. God's
absence makes all my heavens a living hell. And a heaven of every hell when
God is with.
> You can get unity by reconciling yourself to a
> syncretistic unity which ECUSA now touts, or you can get some sense of
> unity by throwing in your lot with Rome (and get some authority and
> leadership to boot). Likewise, you can go to the Eastern Orthodox - or
> with a "unity" of a continuing church, or even to a Heersinkian
> 'Prefecture of One'. For that matter, any cultic Protestant unity will
> do.
Exactly.
> But real unity is a matter entirely out of our control.
Exactly, again.
> We cannot act
> for others; we can only act as individuals in personal obedience to
> Christ. Only his spirit acting through our obedience and the obedience
> of others can knit us together in the bonds of unity. And surely that
> will be for some specific, spiritual purpose and not in gratification
> of our vain need for the +appearance+ of unity before those who would
> ridicule the lack of it - which is pride; or to remove our uneasiness
> about our own spirituality, which has falsely come to rest on a
> concern for unity when there is really no substance to be brought to
> the spiritual fires which could be used to forge such a unity! That
> specific purpose and that specific unity will be the edification of
> the members of Christ's body; that is, the improvement of the overall
> health of the Bride of Christ. This kind of thinking stands in compete
> opposition to that which would advocate manipulating our
> ecclesiastical (or even our liturgical) environments in this pursuit -
> such that we create the appearance of unity, but no true spiritual
> health - either for us or for the Bride of Christ.
Is it pride? A desire for control born of a deep unacknowledged terror?
Perhaps. But I experience it as grief. A deep and abiding grief. A loss of
unspeakably staggering proportion and portent. It's in my bones. My gut
aches. It's an incessant yearning and longing that turns me inside out. I
can't assume or presume anymore. I can't pretend. That's not faith.
> And who will re-define "abundant life" "potency" and "Spirit's
> presence" for us? The Charismatics? Indeed, they think that they know
> what these things are, and very passionately.
Exactly. Some more. Still.
> In the event that you are missing the strength of my charge here, let
> me put it this way: I believe that if the Holy Spirit's special
> pentacostal power was withdrawn from the Church today, the charismatic
> movement within it would continue on tomorrow, virtually unchanged.
I take it further and would say the same for every single sect,
denomination, and cult on the planet.
The Spirit has departed. And we wist not he was gone from us. All of
Christendom is Ichabod. The Glory has long ago departed. The Living Word is
become silent.
> Doesn't this square with your honesty? If it does, then we need to
> come with an entirely different modus operandi in "praying" for
> reformation and revival. I would allege that we must take a personal
> inventory. Are all our thoughts submitted to that tyrant, Christ? Are
> all our actions informed by service to him (and in serving his body,
> we serve him)?
Men and brethren, what shall I do?
> If we take this inventory and put first things first in
> submission and obedience, will we not get all those other things which
> are not ours to effect - but only to receive?
No. We won't. And we haven't. Lets not pretend we have. Our bitter fruits
betray us. We have not obeyed. We have not loved. Who, besides ourselves,
will testify that we have?
But maybe it's just me.
Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.
~Rick
louis
Paul:
> > > In the event that you are missing the strength of my charge here, let
> > me put it this way: I believe that if the Holy Spirit's special
> > pentacostal power was withdrawn from the Church today, the charismatic
> > movement within it would continue on tomorrow, virtually unchanged.
>
> I take it further and would say the same for every single sect,
> denomination, and cult on the planet.
>
> The Spirit has departed. And we wist not he was gone from us. All of
> Christendom is Ichabod. The Glory has long ago departed. The Living Word
is
> become silent.
Louis:
I just have to de-cloak at this amazing pronouncement.
How can you possibly say this with any seriousness? Are you saying that the
entire world (and that includes each and every Christian) has been damned?
That our world is now a living Hell? Just because a few changes have been
made within one sect you conclude this?
Patently absurd.
>
> > Doesn't this square with your honesty? If it does, then we need to
> > come with an entirely different modus operandi in "praying" for
> > reformation and revival. I would allege that we must take a personal
> > inventory. Are all our thoughts submitted to that tyrant, Christ? Are
> > all our actions informed by service to him (and in serving his body,
> > we serve him)?
>
> Men and brethren, what shall I do?
L: Follow Paul's advice.
>
> > If we take this inventory and put first things first in
> > submission and obedience, will we not get all those other things which
> > are not ours to effect - but only to receive?
>
> No. We won't. And we haven't. Lets not pretend we have. Our bitter fruits
> betray us. We have not obeyed. We have not loved. Who, besides ourselves,
> will testify that we have?
>
> But maybe it's just me.
L: I agree.
>
> Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.
L: Seconded.
>
> ~Rick
>
>
>
Rick Seelhoff
> > The Spirit has departed. And we wist not he was gone from us. All of
> > Christendom is Ichabod. The Glory has long ago departed. The Living Word
> > is become silent.
>
> Louis:
>
> I just have to de-cloak at this amazing pronouncement.
>
> How can you possibly say this with any seriousness?
How can you claim otherwise, Louis?
Show me the money. Where is the love? The joy? The peace? Pray tell, where?
> Are you saying that the
> entire world (and that includes each and every Christian) has been damned?
Heavens, no. I'm saying the Master has left the classroom, and we've kept
right on talking above the din. And above the silence. And none of us makes
any sense to anyone but ourselves.
> Just because a few changes have been
> made within one sect you conclude this?
No, they are all gone astray. There in none that does good - not one. Again,
show me one that is faithful. Show me the money.
> Patently absurd.
Not yet, thank God. But it is indeed ironic. As ironic as it was when the
Kingdom passed into Gentile hands in the 1st century.
~Rick
Paul K Hubbard
Rick,
You are right on the money with your honesty. Let me break character for a
moment and say this: louis has no idea of what you are talking about.
Even if no one on the planet seems to understand what you are sensing, you
must pursue it. And my exhortation is much less an encouragement and much
more an acknowledgment that what you sense is irrefutable.
r,
paul
Paul K Hubbard
> And let me point out that I'm all that interested in reformation or
revival.
> What i hunger and thirst for is the Spirit, period. I want God with us.
Full
> stop. Whatever happens in that Presence is besides the point. For me.
God's
> absence makes all my heavens a living hell. And a heaven of every hell
when
> God is with.
ok but what confuses me is that tho this thing is extremely personal, it
comes out corporate in your language ("I want God with us") Am I reading too
much into this? Are you simply acknowledging the divine office of "Emanuel"
(God with us) - which from the existential point of view means God with ME!
(?)
[The rest of the stuff I skipped because we are on the same wavelength.]
> > If we take this inventory and put first things first in
> > submission and obedience, will we not get all those other things which
> > are not ours to effect - but only to receive?
>
> No. We won't. And we haven't. Lets not pretend we have. Our bitter fruits
> betray us. We have not obeyed. We have not loved. Who, besides ourselves,
> will testify that we have?
How the hell do you know? My point was that all this other crap is
corporate. And is of no use to us if we are sunk in Jeremiah's well of
despondency.
I've been struggling with this same thing, Rick. Different stuff. Same
principle. And it all comes down to spiritual reality. That's the thing.
God dammit, there's an answer out there. And there is reality out there.
That's what I feel in +my+ bones. And I +have+ seen the beginning of such an
answer. If I didn't, I would tell you. I'd say the hell with this whole
crapola thing.
We've got to come back to the personal inventory thing. There is a question
out there that benchmarks whether we have fully grappled with that personal
inventory. And the question runs something like this. What would I be
doing/willing differently if I were...
And if the answer to that question is that as far as we can comprehend we
have "left all, and followed thee" then I would say that the answers will
begin to come. I say this for two reasons. One is that that is the promise.
The other is that when everything else is meaningless compared to this, the
answers +do+ begin to come. They don't come overnight. But they do come. And
they will come. And they will come with floods of tears of conviction and
joy and resolution. And peace.
If it didn't, I would tell you.
You know...the stuff you're looking for.
r,
paul
Rick Seelhoff
> > What i hunger and thirst for is the Spirit, period. I want God with us.
> > Full stop. Whatever happens in that Presence is besides the point. For
me.
> > God's absence makes all my heavens a living hell. And a heaven of every
hell
> > when God is with.
>
> ok but what confuses me is that tho this thing is extremely personal, it
> comes out corporate in your language ("I want God with us") Am I reading
too
> much into this? Are you simply acknowledging the divine office of
"Emanuel"
> (God with us) - which from the existential point of view means God with
ME!
> (?)
It's all connected. The cummunity, the untity, the power, the presence -
it's all of a piece, a seamless garment. Same with the silence and the
absence. If one suffers, all suffer. We all do share each other's lives. We
are all of us, each of us, a part of each other. You are IN my life, and my
life is in you. Our shared inheritance is co-inherence. Even now, moment by
moment. We each make and participate in and partake of each others history -
real day-to-day personally real history. And so with God. Praise him.
> > > If we take this inventory and put first things first in
> > > submission and obedience, will we not get all those other things which
> > > are not ours to effect - but only to receive?
> >
> > No. We won't. And we haven't. Lets not pretend we have. Our bitter
fruits
> > betray us. We have not obeyed. We have not loved. Who, besides
ourselves,
> > will testify that we have?
>
> How the hell do you know? My point was that all this other crap is
> corporate. And is of no use to us if we are sunk in Jeremiah's well of
> despondency.
My point is God is sovereign, and holy, and free. God does what God will do.
While God has given himself to each of us wholly and freely in Jesus, we
have utterly no control nor guarantee other than God will be God. Trust is
the issue. And personal responsibility.
> The other is that when everything else is meaningless compared to this,
the
> answers +do+ begin to come. They don't come overnight. But they do come.
And
> they will come. And they will come with floods of tears of conviction and
> joy and resolution. And peace.
>
> If it didn't, I would tell you.
>
> You know...the stuff you're looking for.
Are manly and affectionate slugs on the shoulder appropriate in a public ng?
And also with you.
~Rick
louis
>
> > > The Spirit has departed. And we wist not he was gone from us. All of
> > > Christendom is Ichabod. The Glory has long ago departed. The Living
Word
> > > is become silent.
> >
> > Louis:
> >
> > I just have to de-cloak at this amazing pronouncement.
> >
> > How can you possibly say this with any seriousness?
>
> How can you claim otherwise, Louis?
>
> Show me the money. Where is the love? The joy? The peace? Pray tell,
where?
If what you say is true, then there is no use even trying to follow Christ.
He promised to give us His peace, not as the world gives it, but His own.
Perhaps the peace, the joy, the love you are seeking are as the world
defines them. Can they be found while hanging on the cross. I think that is
precisely what He promised us.
>
>
> > Are you saying that the
> > entire world (and that includes each and every Christian) has been
damned?
>
> Heavens, no. I'm saying the Master has left the classroom, and we've kept
> right on talking above the din. And above the silence. And none of us
makes
> any sense to anyone but ourselves.
I'm sorry, but your message sounds too nihilistic for me. Certainly there is
"din," as there is also that horrible, abyss of silence within. But without
the hope He gave us (and I firmly believe, is still giving us through His
Comforter), then life would not be bearable. And I believe He has not
abandoned us, that He will be with us no matter what.
I cannot follow you into your despair, whatever Paul may say.
>
> > Just because a few changes have been
> > made within one sect you conclude this?
>
> No, they are all gone astray. There in none that does good - not one.
Again,
> show me one that is faithful. Show me the money.
Of course. We are not worthy. And yet He chose to come down among us and die
for us. You find no cause for hope in that fact?
>
> > Patently absurd.
>
> Not yet, thank God. But it is indeed ironic. As ironic as it was when the
> Kingdom passed into Gentile hands in the 1st century.
??
r,
Louis
>
> ~Rick
>
>
>
>
Paul K Hubbard
Am I reading
> too
> > much into this? Are you simply acknowledging the divine office of
> "Emanuel"
> > (God with us) - which from the existential point of view means God with
> ME!
> > (?)
> It's all connected. The cummunity, the untity, the power, the presence -
> it's all of a piece, a seamless garment. Same with the silence and the
> absence. If one suffers, all suffer. We all do share each other's lives.
We
> are all of us, each of us, a part of each other. You are IN my life, and
my
> life is in you. Our shared inheritance is co-inherence. Even now, moment
by
> moment. We each make and participate in and partake of each others
history -
> real day-to-day personally real history. And so with God. Praise him.
ok. We're on the same piece of music...I had to be very precise about
this...each man's unfaith +is+ somehow connected to my own unfaith; my sin,
my despair. It +is+ all of a piece, which intuitively resolves the dilemma
of how I can be so damn guilty for the sins of my father, Adam.
The corrollary is also this: when true joy (sansucht) and boldness and
confidence and peace appear in my soul, it will of necessity illuminate the
entire world. Nothing will stop its leavening or salting effect.
> Are manly and affectionate slugs on the shoulder appropriate in a public
ng?
When we get done with the world, Rick - such things will be appropriate in
public...period!
But for now, stay on target. We are entirely IFR (on instruments) and have
no visual contact with silver linings, mystical Christs, or
self-authenticating human loves.
In the midst of this:
Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new
moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is
iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And
when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when
ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (Isaiah
1: 13-15)
...we must let the HS do the intercessory praying (as promised). But like
Josiah, we +must+ study this rediscovered book... We must drink it deeply
every day. It is a hard discipline. But there is no other way out of our
despair.
r,
paul
qbaal
Forget the character, please. I will.
What presuppostions, specifically, are you talking about
Actually, any one will suffice.
As far as methods go, I suggest you not talk about my methods.
Rather go to Beliefnet.com and look up some of the work of
Marcus Borg or many other critical folk there and see how they
arrive at their conclusion. Of course, you might take a course
in New Testament Theology and then start a series why you
find the Harvard or Oxford, or Cambridge left wing theologians
are saying what you agree with or don't agree with. Or,
read some of Harpurs short but seminal books. Or better
yet go to The Jesus Seminar site where you can probably
get specific NT study methology including material
re the Q hypothesis, upon which many NT findings are these
days based, in part anyway. And give us your critical assessment one
way or other. By the way it is this Q hypothetical document that
inspired my pen name Qbaal. The latter part of the name
is mainly to avoid qball websites dedicated to porn, pool
halls etc. The baal represents a big enemy of God in the
Old TEstament, or at least the prophets of Yahweh thought so.
I happen to think all the enemies of God boil down to
nada, nothingness in the final anlysis so I am not afraid to
incorporate Baals name into my internet ID.
I await the specifics required. Not to criticise so much as
to see where you et al. are really coming from.
regards qbaal.
qbaal
wrote:
>qbaal wrote:
>
>> God as creator: First Genesis is definitely a myth.
>
>But Christianity has always be sensitive to the mythological aspects of
>the various parts of Genesis.
Yes, indeed. I believe St. Augustine thought so. But in the US in
the last century and still a large number of conservative Christians
don't think so. Or at least deny evolution as the way our
biodiversity came about. And certainly don't go for naturalistic
explanations of the origin of life in t he first place on earth,
Mars... See Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God.
And adjustments are awaited in Christianity's doctrine of
salvation in line with evolutionary reality. Ie. the evil
in the world and moral torpidity of humans does and
thus God's fine - death - does not orignate in any
act of Adam or Eve.
>> The Virgin Birth: As Uta Ranke-Heinemann states
>> the Virgin Birth is theology and not biology.
>
>Well, the church has always seen it as theology-- AND biology. To say
>that it is NOT biology is simply to be a chronological bigot. What is to
>prevent God from having done this thing? This is the straight answer I
>can never get from the modernists. Can't you just admit that you are
>embarrassed to beleive in a God who can actually DO something?
>
>C. Wingate
Many modern theologians, I am not looking for a fight, would simply
say it is myth, the Virgin Birth. And not, realistically, biology at
all.
Yes the doing God is a big problem. I accept God interfaces actively
with our spiritual depths, psyche, soul or whatever. However, to
postulate a God who pushes around atoms and splits the Red Sea
is problematic to my mind and many other liberal Christians. In fact,
in the last century some German theologicans were opting for a
God entirely no grata or unwelcome in his creation. Not my position.
And unfaithful to the Judaic-Christian tradition. Of course, I
could be wrong on this. Mainly because I don't want to suggest what
God can and cannot do. Yet, stories like the Virgin Birth and
Jesus walking on water, subjected to intense study by the
historical critical scholars, comes up wanting in terms of historicity
and basic credibility.
Even as re the miracles of Jesus, I have an "agnostic" position.
I can't bother denying them. I just say they are not worth
arguing over. And strongly affirm my relationship with God through
Jesus despite my agnosticism.
Rick Seelhoff
> Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new
> moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is
> iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed
feasts
> my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And
> when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when
> ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
(Isaiah
> 1: 13-15)
Funny you should mention it.
The following is from "Christ the Tiger", by Thomas Howard.
The Christian vision affirms mythic and mimetic imagery. It sees here the
heroic attestation by human consciousness to perfection and worth in the
face of our experience of fragmentation and havoc. It sees here the human
suspicion that there is an order which is unconditionally significant, and
which is not necessarily or immediately apparent to technological inquiry.
But Christian vision steps beyond aesthetics when it affirms that at a
point in history the mythology was actualized. Perfection and beauty became
visible. Glory and truth appeared. The epiphany was, to be sure, a
disappointing one. The terms were not auspicious. Nevertheless, the
Christian understanding is that in the figure of Immanuel the human eye sees
the final and the perfect actualization of the myth.
What then? Was this the announcement of pie in the sky by and by? Was it
the offer of escape from the actualities of existence into a euphoric Eden
where honeysuckle vines cut off the view of horror and terror? Was it the
invitation to join a small illuminati who would be exempted from dread and
risk and anguish? Was it a guarantee of safety and warmth and certitude and
predictability?
I could not think so.
But I could think that in the figure of Jesus we saw Immanuel, that is,
God, that is, Love. It was a figure who, appearing so inauspiciously among
us, broke up our secularist and our religious categories, and beckoned us
and judged us and damned us and saved us, and exhibited to us a kind of life
that participates in the indestructible. And it was a figure who announced
the validity of our eternal effort to discover significance and beauty
beyond inanition and horror by announcing to us the unthinkable: redemption.
It was a figure we could neither own nor manage. We claimed it as our
special possession, and exacted tribute and built shrines and established
forms in which to incarcerate it, only to discover that it had fled. It
would not be enshrined. It was the figure of a man, and a man must live and
walk with other men or die, and this man was alive. He scorned our scruple
to shelter him and to prop up his doctrine. What he spoke, he spoke loudly
and freely, and his words were their own defense. When we tried to help
things by urging sweetness and light, or by interdicting what looked
threatening, or by tithing mint, anise, and cummin, or by devising rituals
and nonrituals, we found him towering above us, scorching our efforts into
clinkers, and recalling us to wildness and risk and humility and love. Just
at the moment when we thought we had guaranteed our own standing in his good
favor by organizing an airtight doctrine or a flawless liturgy or an
unassailable morality, he escaped us, and returned with his hammer to
demolish things. Try as we might, we could not own him. We could not protect
him. We could not incarcerate him. For he always emerged as our judge,
exposing our cynicism and fright by the candor and boldness of his love. He
tore our secularist schemes to ribbons by announcing doom and our religious
schemes to tatters by announcing love.
He appeared as a man and demonstrated a kind of life wholly foreign to all
of our inclinations. For he showed us what a man's life is like when it is
energized by caritas, and in doing this, he became our judge, because we
knew too well that it is that other love, cupiditas, that energizes us. He
told us of a city, the City of God, in which caritas rules. He told us that
all who participate in this are citizens of that city.
We experienced this announcement as both death-dealing and life-giving. It
was death-dealing because we knew our own incorrigible cupidity -the energy
that makes us shriek for the shovel in the sandbox, cut into the ticket
line, rush for the subway seat, display our prowess, parade our clothes, and
pursue delights regardless of prior considerations.
We remembered our own torrid yearning, for instance, for other bodies, and
our insistence that we must seek satisfaction at all costs because this was
such an ecstatic bliss. And he said to us, yes, yes, yes, you are quite
right, another body is the most beautiful thing in the world. This kind of
congress is ecstatic bliss, but your unexamined pursuit of this will, irony
of ironies, dehumanize you, for it is a failure to ask the questions that
must be asked -questions about the imago Dei in you and your partner,
questions about sex as a form of knowledge that requires a high warrant,
questions about sex as a metaphor of realities that lie at the heart of
everything, and questions about the undying notion in all of us of sex as
significant and binding and most holy.
And what is true here is true in all regions of experience. Your mad
pursuit is for freedom and intensity and bliss. It is natural. But, by a wry
irony at work in the world, the pursuit leads you into a prison where your
agony is to become more and more insistent that things shall be as you wish,
and less and less able to cope with denial.
But I show you a different way. It is an alien and a frightening one. It is
called Love. It asks that you forswear your busy effort to collect the bits
of bliss and novelty that lie about. It asks that you disavow your attempt
to enlarge your own identity by diminishing that of others. It asks that you
cease your effort to safeguard your own claim to well-being by assuming the
inferiority of others' claims. It asks, actually, that you die.
For, paradoxically, it offers to you your own best being beyond this
apparent immolation of yourself. It says that the cupidity energizing all
your efforts is the principle that governs wherever hell is found, and that
the dwellers in that realm are a withered host of wraiths, doomed to an
eternal hunt for solidity and fulfillment among the shards that lie
underfoot. This is not your best being. You were meant to find your home in
the City of God, which is among you. Here duty is ecstasy. For that is what
is meant by caritas: it is the freedom which follows upon the capacity to
experience as joy what you are given to do.
But the City is not reached in a moment. It is as remote as the Towers of
Trebizond, and as near as your neighbor.
And we experienced his announcement as death dealing again, because it
knocked over all the little pickets and wickets that we had tapped carefully
into place to guarantee the safety of our religion. He saw our masses and
rosaries and prayer meetings and study groups and devotions, and he said
yes, yes, yes, you are quite right to think that goodness demands rigor and
vigilance and observance, but your new moons and sabbaths and bullocks and
altars and vestments and Gospel teams and taboos and Bible studies are
trumpery, and they nauseate me because you have elevated them, and I alone
am the Host. Your incense is foetid, and your annotated Bibles are rubbish
paper. Your meetings are a bore and your myopic exegesis is suffocating.
Return, return, and think again what I have asked of you: to follow
justice, and love mercy, and do your job of work, and love one another, and
give me the worship of your heart-your heart-and be merry and thankful and
lowly and not pompous and gaunt and sere.
But we experienced the announcement as lifegiving because it was an
announcement, appearing in a dirty barn, and heard among the dry provincial
hills and then in the forum of Rome and in the halls of royal princes and in
the kitchens and streets of Paris and Calcutta and Harlem and Darien, that
Joy and not Havoc is the last word. It announced to us what we could not
hope. It saw limitation and contingency and disparity and irrevocability and
mutability and decay and death, and it said yes, yes, yes, you are quite
right: terror and horror and despair are the only eventually realistic
responses . . . if this is all there is to it. But it is not.
You have thought of a world free from such conditions. In all your
imaginings, and in your myths and your mime and your songs and dances and
epics-in your quest for form and significance and beauty beyond
fragmentation and inanition and chaos-you have bespoken such a vision. I
announce it to you. Here, from this stable, here, from this Nazareth, this
stony beach, this Jerusalem, this market place, this garden, this
praetorium, this Cross, this mountain, I announce it to you.
I announce to you what is guessed at in all the phenomena of your world.
You see the corn of wheat shrivel and break open and die, but you expect a
crop. I tell you of the Springtime of which all springtimes speak. I tell
you of the world for which this world groans and toward which it strains. I
tell you that beyond the awful borders imposed by time and space and
contingency, there lies what you seek. I announce to you life instead of
mere existence, freedom instead of frustration, justice instead of
compensation. For I announce to you redemption. Behold I make all things
new. Behold I do what cannot be done. I restore the years that the locusts
and worms have eaten. I restore the years which you have drooped away upon
your crutches and in your wheel-chair. I restore the symphonies and operas
which your deaf ears have never heard, and the snowy massif your blind eyes
have never seen, and the freedom lost to you through plunder, and the
identity lost to you because of calumny and the failure of justice; and I
restore the good which your own foolish mistakes have cheated you of. And I
bring you to the Love of which all other loves speak, the Love which is joy
and beauty, and which you have sought in a thousand streets and for which
you have wept and clawed your pillow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
So there is this, I thought, as an alternative to despair. At least it is
not meliorism or optimism. But the peril of staking everything on this kind
of vision . . . Incarnation. Redemption. These are far from verifiable, and
this is ridiculous in an age that insists on verification.
And caritas. This is impossible. How is a man to opt for a kind of life in
which he stands to lose everything? I mean, if you want to get a seat on the
subway you have to push for it. Tant pis for the one who has to stand. And
if you want the ecstasies, you have to go flat out to accumulate them. How
can a man be expected to opt out of everything that looks important on the
chance that there is more to it all than meets the eye? It is too great a
risk.
Perhaps that is what is asked, I thought. Perhaps there is no escape from
risk. Perhaps there is no explanation offered for the staggering
ambiguities, nor any answer given to the agonizing questions. Perhaps a man
is asked to opt with all his might for authenticity. Perhaps the great thing
is to respond, with as much integrity as he can summon, to the cues. There
are some-in his own consciousness, in his art, in his world. And there is
this great light that has appeared in the murk, like a morning star. It is
there, silent and glorious. An odd road marker. But perhaps one is asked to
go that way on the supposition that it is not all a ghastly cheat.
Yes. Perhaps that is what is asked.
qbaal
wrote:
>qbaal wrote:
>
>> The resurrection did happen - Jesus died and immediately was raised
>> to God and eternity.
>
>But what does this *mean*? It's mumbo-jumbo!
>
>I mean, your "sacraments-only" resurrection is *ideally* suited to being
>attacked as the sheerest of wishful thinking-- He is risen because we
>think He is risen. Yes, it's more unitarian Christianity.
>
Yes, the first Christians were accused of being atheists. And my
position is easy to criticize as sheerest of wishful thinking. And so
is the crucial point adhered to by 99% Christians, God exists and
impinges on human hearts. And Freud wrote up this position very
well. But nothing was ultimately proved one way or other. For even
Freud's position on this matter can be criticised as his own
projection of subjective wishful thinking on reality. So what's new.
>> Two relevant scriptures "Blessed are those who have not seen
>> and believe." And "Where two or three are gathered in my
>> name there AM I in their midst."
>
>Well, the second is not particularly relevant-- as for the first, YOU
>ARE PROOF-TEXTING in the most egregious possible way!!!!!! I mean,
>puhleeeeeze. This is the closing verse of the whole "doubting Thomas"
>episode in which the point is, after all, that Thomas gets to see and
>touch Jesus, and worships him as God. It is *precisely* Jesus declaing
>the power of faith *in testimony*.
>
A worthwhile opinion but certainly not mine. I am certain, whatever
the context, the "proof-text" does want to convey the important
but negative truth, faith in the Resurrection is really doctrine of
God and not what we see. Certainly like the doctrine of God in that
one does not have to have empirical evidence to relate to or to know
God. Actually, I would argue, that Christians believe in the
Resurrection because it follows logically from the empirical
revelation of the divine nature we find in the life, teachings and
deeds of Jesus Christ. In other words the love of God for us is an
eternal love. So, the Resurrection I believe, not because of
any factual appearances stories of the resurrected Lord. Rather,
because of his nature and intimate relationship with God. This
is empirical. But the resurrection, itself, is not.
Well, Bultmann is another Einstein. He made his mistakes. Even BIG
ones. And also
an enduring and maybe eternal contribution to the field of New
Testament studies. I happen to still buy his assessment of much
Gospel material as mythological - i.e. the form and content of the
gospels material, stories was shaped by the early Christian community
and the needs of the moment. I rarely if ever find any New TEstament
scholar today who dates the Gospel of John any distance into the
second century. More like 80's or 90's of the first century.
>C. Wingate
Rick Seelhoff
Christendom is Ichabod. The Glory has long ago departed. The Living Word is
become silent.
Louis: Patently absurd.
Rick: Not yet, thank God. But it is indeed ironic. As ironic as it was when
the Kingdom passed into Gentile hands in the 1st century.
Louis: ??
When I put side by side the notions of irony (incongruity between what might
be expected and what actually occurs; poignantly contrary to what was
expected or intended) and absurdity (of, relating to, or manifesting the
view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe),
faith shows herself in the cross-fire.
"Did ye never read in the scriptures, 'The stone which the builders
rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's
doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore say I unto you, The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a people bringing forth
the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken:
but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard this, they perceived that
he spake of them. (MT 21:42-46)"
louis
Louis
>
>
>
Bruce K. Darling
> <thur...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
Back from my trip - for a few days, at least - so I have some time to
address your post, qbaal. Having sorted through your whiney response - I've
concluded that the only points worth addressing are the following:
(1) >I actually give folk the findings of this modern methodology but in
small doses. And the
> findings are expanded and explained at my web site. And the original
> sources, by experts such as Bishop Spong, are cited on my web pages.
> However, a key point of delusion exposed empirically by science is
> the continuing espousal of a literal Genesis 1.
What you do, qbaal, is post what others write, with little effort on your
own part to argue the case. I've lost count of the number of times you've
quoted Spong effusively and touted his "scholarship" (?) with great flair -
without once demonstrating that you are capable of standing your ground
against any challenge to his authority. Ipse dixit. He has said it!
Therefore, it is true. And that, to be blunt, sums up your approach to the
issues at hand. When questioned, even moderately, you quickly resort to the
argument that others are attacking your character. Sad. Very sad.
(2) > Most educated folk in the world know otherwise and Darwin won this
battle long ago.
This is a ploy used by someone who is unsure of his grasp of the issues.
Having encountered this tactic many times, I'm often amused at how glibly
people who have little or no understanding of what Darwin did or wrote refer
to him either as an authority - either in an attempt to establish
credibility for their arguments against religion - or to prove that he was
as a misguided "scientist" in their denunciations of evolution (ignoring the
fact, of course, that much of what has been attributed to Darwin has come
from the mouths of others.) It has been my experience that the more often
and vociferously that one alludes to "Darwin" - either as a bulwark of
support for the case of evolution-vs-religion, or as a whipping-boy to
bolster the case of religion-vs-science - is a direct indicator of the
degree to which the person making the argument understands little or nothing
about Darwin's accomplishments. Darwin - in case you haven't noticed,
qbaal - neither wrote, thought, nor said much of what the
pseudo-science-as-religion-crowd attributes to him. And to be brutally
honest - a good many scientists who regard him as a "savior" haven't taken
the time to wade through anything that he wrote. I've known a good many ...
from both sides. And you, frankly, seem to fit neatly into the category of
the enlightented modernist who is quick to dismiss others with the flippant
claim that "Darwin won this battle." I'll wager my Ph.D. in geology against
whatever degree you have, qbaal, that you don't have more than a novice's
idea what Darwin wrote about the matters that you think shape - or ought to
shape - modern theology - or their significance for modern "theories" of
evolution. So - I challenge you here - to lay these points out, one-by-one,
rather than expect others to accept your arm-waving as fact. You might
begin by explaining to us what - specifically - in any of Darwin's works, is
proof that God is as you portray Him to be.
Regards
>
http://ajn11.homestead.com/index.html
Bruce K. Darling
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:14:24 -0500, "Bruce K. Darling"
> <thur...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> What presuppostions, specifically, are you talking about
> Actually, any one will suffice.
>
Oh, my! Louis certainly picked up one or two. I'm sure others have, as
well. Shouldn't you take a closer look, before denying your unitarian bias?
At the least, refer to my reply to your paean to Darwin (below). You can do
that, can't you?
Regards
downampney
> >> God as creator: First Genesis is definitely a myth.
> >But Christianity has always be sensitive to the mythological aspects of
> >the various parts of Genesis.
> Yes, indeed. I believe St. Augustine thought so. But in the US in
> the last century and still a large number of conservative Christians
> don't think so. Or at least deny evolution as the way our
> biodiversity came about. And certainly don't go for naturalistic
> explanations of the origin of life in t he first place on earth,
> Mars... See Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God.
Origin of life theories are too speculative to be science. The
Urey-Miller experiment is suggestive, but it is, at best, a potential
starting point.
As for Darwin: two points. First, it is clear that the theory is in some
degree of trouble. It is already quite clear that the engine of
evolutionary change varied widely in its performance. There is a lot of
doubt floating about that mere dice-rolling can account for this. A lot
of us are beginning to suspect that evolution needs the Hand of God to
direct it.
Second, Darwin and the fundies. You keep bringing this up, but since we
aren't in a fundie church, WHO CARES?????????? There are a LOT of other
approaches to take that are neither fundamentalist nor modernist. To
take an example, Robert Farrar Capon argues at one point (I think in
_Hunting the Divine Fox_) that a literal Adam and Eve *are* necessary to
the scheme of salvation-- even in an evolutionary world. There is a
certain ongoing dishonesty in the way that you, like Spong, keep trying
to reduce this to a battle between the Righteous Modernists and the Evil
Fundies. There is a huge range of opinion beyond this, and it has been
brought to your attention every time you start in on this.
> >> The Virgin Birth: As Uta Ranke-Heinemann states
> >> the Virgin Birth is theology and not biology.
> >
> >Well, the church has always seen it as theology-- AND biology. To say
> >that it is NOT biology is simply to be a chronological bigot. What is to
> >prevent God from having done this thing? This is the straight answer I
> >can never get from the modernists. Can't you just admit that you are
> >embarrassed to beleive in a God who can actually DO something?
> Many modern theologians, I am not looking for a fight, would simply
> say it is myth, the Virgin Birth. And not, realistically, biology at
> all.
"Realistically"? What kind of a word is THAT???
> Yes the doing God is a big problem. I accept God interfaces actively
> with our spiritual depths, psyche, soul or whatever. However, to
> postulate a God who pushes around atoms and splits the Red Sea
> is problematic to my mind and many other liberal Christians. In fact,
> in the last century some German theologicans were opting for a
> God entirely no grata or unwelcome in his creation. Not my position.
> And unfaithful to the Judaic-Christian tradition. Of course, I
> could be wrong on this. Mainly because I don't want to suggest what
> God can and cannot do. Yet, stories like the Virgin Birth and
> Jesus walking on water, subjected to intense study by the
> historical critical scholars, comes up wanting in terms of historicity
> and basic credibility.
HOW? GIVE CONCRETE REASONS!!!! YOUR GUT FEELINGS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!
IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO APPEAL TO HOW IT IS "PROBLEMATIC" TO YOUR MIND--
*I* *WANT* *REASONS*!!!!!
[catching breath]
I can give you a counter-reason. This is classic "man is the measure of
all things" enlightenment thought. And as soon as you hit a God who runs
off the end of your humanistic measuring tape, what do you do?
Traditionalist metaphysics has *never* had a problem dealing with the
problem of the El-Shaddai, God whose "thoughts are not your thoughts".
The fact that modernists do-- that, in fact, failure to be able to deal
with this problem is not only a hallmark but almost a starting point of
modernism-- is a serious mark against them. If you cannot justify the
doubt that is the foundation of modernism, then you cannot justify
modernism. And its doubt simply because your doubt, your faithlessness.
C. Wingate
downampney
> >I mean, your "sacraments-only" resurrection is *ideally* suited to being
> >attacked as the sheerest of wishful thinking-- He is risen because we
> >think He is risen. Yes, it's more unitarian Christianity.
> Yes, the first Christians were accused of being atheists.
Please, qbaal, if you are going to display you superior learning and/or
intellect, you must give up on these glaring anachronisms. They were
acused of being atheists not because they were thought to not believe in
*any* god, but because they denied any acknowledgement of the state
gods.
> >> Two relevant scriptures "Blessed are those who have not seen
> >> and believe." And "Where two or three are gathered in my
> >> name there AM I in their midst."
> >Well, the second is not particularly relevant-- as for the first, YOU
> >ARE PROOF-TEXTING in the most egregious possible way!!!!!! I mean,
> >puhleeeeeze. This is the closing verse of the whole "doubting Thomas"
> >episode in which the point is, after all, that Thomas gets to see and
> >touch Jesus, and worships him as God. It is *precisely* Jesus declaing
> >the power of faith *in testimony*.
> A worthwhile opinion but certainly not mine.
So what? That simply means your opinion isn't as good as that of others.
After all, you have to suppress a chunk of the text to hold your
opinion-- I don't.
> Well, Bultmann is another Einstein.
I would classify Bultmann as more like the "discoverer" of N-rays. He
discovered what he wanted to see.
> I happen to still buy his assessment of much
> Gospel material as mythological - i.e. the form and content of the
> gospels material, stories was shaped by the early Christian community
> and the needs of the moment.
But the problem is that you can't prove that this is true, because any
evidence that would show this doesn't exist. As I said before, the
pitting of Paul against the Gospels doesn't fly, because it requires
circular assumptions.
C. Wingate
qbaal
wrote:
>qbaal wrote:
>
>> >I mean, your "sacraments-only" resurrection is *ideally* suited to being
>> >
>
>> I happen to still buy his assessment of much
>> Gospel material as mythological - i.e. the form and content of the
>> gospels material, stories was shaped by the early Christian community
>> and the needs of the moment.
>
>But the problem is that you can't prove that this is true, because any
>evidence that would show this doesn't exist. As I said before, the
>pitting of Paul against the Gospels doesn't fly, because it requires
>circular assumptions.
>
>C. Wingate
I would be the last to pit Paul against the gospels. Paul knew Jesus,
maybe not the historical Jesus, but certainly the Resurrected Jesus.
And so did the gospel writer. And, the gospels do incorporate
eye witness accounts of the words and deeds of the historical
Jesus. And, too, like Paul are inspired by the Spirit of Jesus.
All proclaim the salvation and knowledge of God poured out on
humanity in and through Jesus Christ.
NsOhS...@lightlink.com
>Yes the doing God is a big problem. I accept God interfaces actively
>with our spiritual depths, psyche, soul or whatever. However, to
>postulate a God who pushes around atoms and splits the Red Sea
>is problematic to my mind and many other liberal Christians.
Leaving the Red Sea out of this, why is a God pushing around atoms
problematic but a God interfacing with our psyche not? I'm sure you
are aware that the scientific community rejects dualism - in other
words, the mind must eventually be reduceable to brain states. Therefore,
for God to actively interface with us, God has to somehow influence
synapses, neurotransmitters. So, even though this is at the micro/quantum
level, this would still mean that God does something in the physical world.
The way out of this dilemma of course is to be a dualist, but this puts
you at odds with the modern scientists and philosophers. And you end up
accepting a mystery on some spiritual plane while not in the physical world.
This strikes me as incoherent - it's more logical to continue down the
reductionist path and relegate God to nothing more than an idea in the
minds of believers. Or if you think such things as the religious
experiences of Christians trumps reductionism, on what basis do you
exclude God from interacting with the physical?
What are the reasons for you position? Does this solve the philosophical
problem of evil for you? Do you view divine intervention as being
inherently unjust? Other reasons?
Sincerely curious,
Steve
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
qbaal
>Qbaal wrote:
>
>>Yes the doing God is a big problem. I accept God interfaces actively
>>with our spiritual depths, psyche, soul or whatever. However, to
>>postulate a God who pushes around atoms and splits the Red Sea
>>is problematic to my mind and many other liberal Christians.
>
>Leaving the Red Sea out of this, why is a God pushing around atoms
>problematic but a God interfacing with our psyche not? I'm sure you
>are aware that the scientific community rejects dualism - in other
>words, the mind must eventually be reduceable to brain states. Therefore,
>for God to actively interface with us, God has to somehow influence
>synapses, neurotransmitters. So, even though this is at the micro/quantum
>level, this would still mean that God does something in the physical world.
I don't deny God can push around atoms, if he wants. I do deny he
pushes them around according to Biblical descriptions - per the Red
Sea division, Jesus walking on water, Virgin's conceiving etc.
I happen to also think Jesus was in intimate union with God for the
duration of his ministry, at least. But I would hardly reduce that
belief to God pushed around atoms marvelously in the heart of Jesus
Christ.
Now if God interfacing with humas boils down to pushing round
atoms then why are not all folks Christians or at least believers in
God. And surely even if human decision is involved then that too is
simply pushing around more atoms. And all should be believers. Maybe
God should take a course in how to effectively push around atoms.
So, God interfacing with our souls is more than just an empirical
thing. For one thing we are talking about a spiritual eternal Reality
interfacing with humans. Even the human side may have its more-
than - simple- material aspects. I don't know. And if anyone could
give the definitive answer here one way or other we would likely all
be atheists OR theists.
I actually believe God does exist but I don't think there is any
philosophical or empirical way of demostrating that existence in
a final, absolute way.
I know it sounds like a cop out to you, but any personal knowledge
of God is iniatiated and effected by God himself. Simply because
I can't prove it or even adequatly describe it does really prove
the experience or knowledge is groundless or vacuous. Of course,
for the atheist it is vacous and groundless in his own heart of
hearts. But, for Christians empirical reality is not God and this is
why St. Paul says the things that are unseen bring
to nought the things that are seen.
>The way out of this dilemma of course is to be a dualist, but this puts
>you at odds with the modern scientists and philosophers. And you end up
>accepting a mystery on some spiritual plane while not in the physical world.
>This strikes me as incoherent - it's more logical to continue down the
>reductionist path and relegate God to nothing more than an idea in the
>minds of believers. Or if you think such things as the religious
>experiences of Christians trumps reductionism, on what basis do you
>exclude God from interacting with the physical?
>
>What are the reasons for you position? Does this solve the philosophical
>problem of evil for you? Do you view divine intervention as being
>inherently unjust? Other reasons?
>
Some reasons for my position
1. The work of the Church in Christian education when a child.
2. The Christian lives of friends and family members.
3. The change in my life re respect for others and a purpose in life
when I came to intimately know God in my life.
4 Fifty years of Bible and theological study.
5. There is no denying God is often a hidden God. And often has
not been well served by the Church re the real nature of revelation
and what actually happen in ancient Israel and among the early
Christians as they wrote the gospels. Basically, I with many
others ask why there should be ANYTHING and not just nothing?
The answer for me is God exists. And has been truly experienced
by millions. Part of the experience is fear and dread at one's sin,
sometimes weak finitude, in the presence of God. Sometimes joy
at seeing folks lives turned around when they "obey" the gospel
and embark on the life of faith. And sometimes just good old
confidence in having lived many years productively with purpose
centered on t he Kindgom of God. Productive compared to the
years of angst, and emptiness before becoming a believer.
I could be deluded but on the other hand, so could the atheist
and skeptics.
>Sincerely curious,
>
>Steve
>
>
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
>made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
More Modern Theology
http://ajn11.homestead.com/index.html
Paul K Hubbard
news:9aof30$ado$1...@news.netmar.com...
> Qbaal wrote:
>
> >Yes the doing God is a big problem. I accept God interfaces actively
> >with our spiritual depths, psyche, soul or whatever. However, to
> >postulate a God who pushes around atoms and splits the Red Sea
> >is problematic to my mind and many other liberal Christians.
>
> Leaving the Red Sea out of this, why is a God pushing around atoms
> problematic but a God interfacing with our psyche not? I'm sure you
> are aware that the scientific community rejects dualism - in other
> for God to actively interface with us, God has to somehow influence
> synapses, neurotransmitters. So, even though this is at the micro/quantum
> level, this would still mean that God does something in the physical
world.
>
> The way out of this dilemma of course is to be a dualist, but this puts
> you at odds with the modern scientists and philosophers. And you end up
> accepting a mystery on some spiritual plane while not in the physical
world.
> This strikes me as incoherent - it's more logical to continue down the
> reductionist path and relegate God to nothing more than an idea in the
> minds of believers. Or if you think such things as the religious
> experiences of Christians trumps reductionism, on what basis do you
> exclude God from interacting with the physical?
>
> What are the reasons for you position? Does this solve the philosophical
> problem of evil for you? Do you view divine intervention as being
> inherently unjust? Other reasons?
>
> Sincerely curious,
>
> Steve
Steve,
Well asked. I see that you have had the same question I have had of Qbaal in
another post:
(paul)
Having proved that the righteous god and the merciful god are typologies
which are firmly embedded in both testaments, what criteria are you using to
assign the righteous typology to the projections of the dark side of the
human soul, and then to uncritically dismiss this dark side as "stupid"
"bloodthirsty" "folly" "greed" "blood lust" and 'idleness'? The reality of
these things is precisely the +thing+ which we must rationally account for -
and not to dismiss them, in apriori fashion, as things which you "tend" not
to like.
If the OT/NT provides no basis for reconciling these two typologies, where
is yours coming from? Why couldn't anyone who had the "tendency" toward
certain thoughts or the tendency to think (whichever you meant) of a
Nietsche, or a Ghengis Kahn or a Hitler, or a Nero, or a Marquis de Sade,
challenge this sky-hook thesis as a mere vapid, weak fear of the irreducible
reality of darkness and evil?
Likewise, why couldn't someone who had an even stronger, fastidious
predilection for thinking, object that the logic of this dilemma, as you
pose it, drives one much more naturally to dualism; to some form of
Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism, if not to some Cartesian one?
To which he responded:
OK. God, then is angry, unreasonable, evil and bloodthirsty. And the
central revelation in the real historical Jesus of Nazareth is
seriously flawed. For it seems to me even all the historical and
theological erroneous projections upon the Christ to not hide the
non-vindictive, forgiving, all-acception (persons not deeds) nature
of Jesus of Nazareth. Do you think that nationalistic warrior God
of Psalm 2 is the real God? Thus, my view of God is grounded in
the historical Jesus, admittedly a hard critter to find under all the
messianic trappings heaped on Jesus by the gospel authors and
the early church.
Which merely moves the dilemma of dualism out of the area of the Biblical
witness, through the secret "gnosis" of Liberal scholars which have
"discovered" (discerned) a jesus behind christ, and mystically places a
supposedly unifying resolution upon his shoulders. In practical terms,
though, the problem of dualism has simply been brushed aside by a subjective
religious existentialism. But even if the weight of the entire edifice of
human experience could so easily be brushed aside - that God is somehow both
Holy and Tender-hearted - the descent into dualism remains. One must still
account for the fact that the offspring of this god are full of "greed",
"lust", "hate", "racial arrogance" "stupidity" "blood-thirsty" "wrath"
"vengeance" "folly" "greed" and "blood lust". And that one possible logical
inference from this - which escapes dualism - is that god +is+ like this.
Furthermore, to admit (as Qbaal does) that "At bottom, the only thing that
[is] not for sale is my personal relationship with God through Jesus" merely
leaves one open to the charge that if the world is half as naturally bad as
Qbaal says it is, then we must resort to 1) the historic Christian answer
(of free moral agency, the fall, judgment,etc.- which Qbaal has
categorically rejected) 2) a dualism in which god is intrinsically good;
creation is intrinsically bad or 3) that god +is+ the devil.
If Qbaal has no underlying dualistic solution (like manachaeism,
zorastrianism, gnosticism etc, as an alternative to Christianity), then why
have a relationship with such a god?
r,
paul
qbaal
<paulhu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><NsOhS...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>news:9aof30$ado$1...@news.netmar.com...
>> Qbaal wrote:
>>
>> >Yes the doing God is a big problem. I accept God interfaces actively
>> >with our spiritual depths, psyche, soul or whatever. However, to
>> >postulate a God who pushes around atoms and splits the Red Sea
>If Qbaal has no underlying dualistic solution (like manachaeism,
>zorastrianism, gnosticism etc, as an alternative to Christianity), then why
>have a relationship with such a god?
>
>r,
>
>paul
>
Why have a relationship with such a god? I assess traditional
theology as inadequate to deal with the true nature and
acts of God. Doctrines like the Virgin Birth and Hell, taken
literally, diminish the honor of God and the dignity of humans.
I believe Spong has said so not only re these two doctrines
but a lot of other traditional scriptural truth and also of
orthodoxy. For, God is much much greater than our
scripture, doctrine and even modern historical - critical
descriptions of his person and will.
Yes, I know, if you can't take scripture at face value and
believe that which t he Church has, for many many centuries,
is the truth and only the truth as to how God worked and effected
our salvation, then this God loses face and our trust shifts
to another level or totally evaporates. Tough, but that is exactly
what is happening in the modern world. In fact over a century
ago many were declaring the Christian God and only God was
dead.
Spong and I continue to believe in a wonderful loving God, as revealed
by the historical Jesus. However, Spongs writings to date have
been mightily negative re doctrine and scriptural support for
Christian faith. I believe the negative work is necessary for
Chrisitan doctrine to be reformulated in modern terms. Also for
Christianity to survive in the 21st century.
Yes Christianity will survive. And God is not slain by honest,
realistic theology. Nor by bad as the influence of the Church
even today shows. In fact, as usual, our sin and stupidity can
be used mightily for the glory of God even if the processs is
very painful for all concerned.
Why worry? Surely a God who can be killed deserves to
be killed.
The point is: there is much theological work to be done in order to
present a realistic and honest gospel to the modern world. And
Virgin Births, Adam and Eve Falls, creation without Darwin evolution,
Jesus walking of water, physical resurrection appearances are not
on the modern historiccal critical menu. Praise the Lord!
Bottom line let's all stop trying to corral God in some
straight-jacket obsolete theological view. For that matter, even
historical critical theologians, I highly doubt, will ever have the
final and complete word on God or how he relates to humans,
nature and history. I other words to break the traditional bond
between God and much Christian theology and understanding of God in
scripture will be surely service to God and man. In a word, a God
I would love to associate with.
downampney
> Doctrines like the Virgin Birth and Hell, taken
> literally, diminish the honor of God and the dignity of humans.
You keep saying things like this, but without any justification.
Let's address the Virgin Birth specifically. This, of many miracles, is
pretty important to the traditional posture. It's also one of the less
implausible miracles (unlike, for instance, Joshua making the the day
twice as long)-- it's easy enough to work out a Divine Mechanism.
So what gives? Exactly why do you have such a problem with it? NOT a
problem with it because you don't like the theological implications--
that is backwards. NOT vague chronological snobbery-- you know what I
will say if you try that. Give me concrete reasons.
C. Wingate
downampney
> Bottom line let's all stop trying to corral God in some
> straight-jacket obsolete theological view.
But it is *your* view which is precisely this obsolete straitjacket. I
mean, how is hist-crit any less a historical relic, for starters?
And more to the point-- the traditionalist view takes the texts at face
value and expands from there; hist-crit, on the other hand, insists on a
particular perspective being applied to the texts and will abide no
competing view. How is this anything but the straitjacket you deplore?
C. Wingate
Steve
I don't mean to enter this discussion midway, but . . .The Virgin Birth is
undoubtedly important traditionally and historically. But I think it's a fair
question whether it should remain so. If we're studying history, then perhaps
it wouldn't matter. But what's important is the faith of people today and to
come. They should seek to have an understanding of the Virgin Birth that is
just as important to them as the traditional understanding was to our
predecessors. And the Virgin Birth is darn implausible with our current
understanding of biology. Whose DNA and male chromosomes did Jesus have? If
God's then he was truly a hybrid, half human and half God.
The Steel Wolf
scripsit:
>Whose DNA and male chromosomes did Jesus have? If
>God's then he was truly a hybrid, half human and half God.
I don't think it could have been God's. In order for this to have
happened, it would require that God have DNA, and thus that God be a
biological life form--which would be highly limiting to our concept of
God, to say the least. There's no reason why Christ's DNA couldn't
have been manufactured solely for him without any genetic contribution
from either God or Mary--after all, we are talking about miracles
here.
Steve
If Jesus was indeed fully human, he would be biologically like you and I,
including DNA and Y chromosomes which are passed down from generation to
generation. And to the extent his biological makeup was different from ours,
he wasn't as fully human as we are.
downampney
> I don't mean to enter this discussion midway, but . . .The Virgin Birth is
> undoubtedly important traditionally and historically. But I think it's a fair
> question whether it should remain so. If we're studying history, then perhaps
> it wouldn't matter. But what's important is the faith of people today and to
> come. They should seek to have an understanding of the Virgin Birth that is
> just as important to them as the traditional understanding was to our
> predecessors.
But the begged question is, why shouldn't that understanding BE that of
their anscestors?
> And the Virgin Birth is darn implausible with our current
> understanding of biology. Whose DNA and male chromosomes did Jesus have? If
> God's then he was truly a hybrid, half human and half God.
His own, of course. Presumably half was supplied by Mary and half,
somehow, by the Holy Spirit. To call this latter "God's" is,
traditionally, a heretical statement because it implies that The Godhead
has DNA. This DNA, even though it comes from God, is part of Jesus'
humanity. It is perfectly normal human DNA-- no magic God-genes.
It seems to me that we are about to fight the battle of Chalcedon all
over again. I would suggest reading the statement of the council (it's
in the BCP, in the back) before we continue.
C. Wingate
The Steel Wolf
scripsit:
>If Jesus was indeed fully human, he would be biologically like you and I,
>including DNA and Y chromosomes which are passed down from generation to
>generation.
Yet in order for him to inherit DNA from his father, we would have to
accept that God (the Father) has one particular set of DNA. From
there, we would have to conclude that the Father is and always has
been fully human (in addition to being fully divine); that he has one
race, one hair and eye color, and one sex. I personally think this
diminishes the concept of a perfect God.
>And to the extent his biological makeup was different from ours,
>he wasn't as fully human as we are.
Explain, please. In what way was Jesus biologically different from
the rest of humanity? What implications might this have for the
doctrine that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine?
--
"Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil
on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad
evil. Bad, BAD evil.'"
- The Tick
The Steel Wolf
<whi...@erols.com> scripsit:
>Presumably half was supplied by Mary and half,
>somehow, by the Holy Spirit. To call this latter "God's" is,
>traditionally, a heretical statement because it implies that The Godhead
>has DNA.
Yet the Holy Spirit *is* God--or at least a hypostasis thereof. From
what I understand, this as always been the prevailing doctrine of the
church. Moreover, how would Jesus inherit DNA from a non-biological
spirit? And why, as I've asked before, would it be necessary for Mary
to contribute her DNA to the mix? Is it not equally possible that all
of Christ's DNA was created by God exclusively for him, and that Mary
was simply the human vessel who facilitated his birth into this world?
Isn't this all just blind speculation on our part anyway?
>It seems to me that we are about to fight the battle of Chalcedon all
>over again.
Yes, but that's what makes these discussions fun.
louis
The Steel Wolf <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:3ad4e21d.16001995@news-server...
> Isn't this all just blind speculation on our part anyway?
Finally, someone who understands what's going on here. I would add
"irrelevant" to "blind" in modifying your description of this speculation.
r,
Louis
Steve
I don't at all want to, or am able to refight the battle of Chalcedon. I just
pose some thoughts for consideration and discussion. We've learned a lot over
many centuries, and our understanding of many things has changed. Or more
correctly, improved. It's for that reason that our forefathers understanding
of things may be inadequate for us. Conception is a good example. It wasn't
until, I dunno, maybe 1100 CE or later that we found out that human embryos
were the product of female eggs and male sperm. Previously it was thought that
the male provided all that was needed, the woman's role was merely as the oven.
So to the point, every human individual as far as we know throughout history
was composed of 100% human DNA, chromosones, etc. And those we inheirit from
our human ancestors. If Jesus was fully like us, the same would apply to him,
would it not? It appears that we face two perhaps uncomfortable choices,
either that Jesus was not fully like us, or that he was by virtue of being the
product of two humans, one male, one female. If that's the two choices, I
prefer the latter. It's more consistent with what we know of nature and
biology. It also preserves Jesus' unquestioned genuine humanity.
Alternatively, if Jesus does have God/Holy Spirit components, he would be part
"superman", drastically diminishing his accomplishments.
Steve
No it doesn't necessarily mean that if Jesus, like normal people, had a typical
DNA composition that God has DNA. The other option is that Jesus is the
product of human parents, a man and a woman. That would preserve him as 100%
human, but address your rightful concern about preserving the divinity of God.
And indeed, the nature of Christ is not only complicated, it has been the
subject of intense debate since the early days. The conclusion that Jesus was
both fully human and fully divine is neat, and maybe that's all the better we
can describe it. Marcus Borg proposes that the pre-Easter Jesus was fully
human, and the post-Easter Jesus fully divine. Interesting, no?
Nathan Hubbard
Appearances often are deceiving, especially in the cases where loose logic
is a contributor. I mean to disagree with a few of your analyses.
On your first point: While it seems to be true that more and more words are
being printed these days under the guise of "knowledge", and that a greater
and greater emphasis is being put on the idea that we are
actually -advancing- (or moving from a position of inferiority to a position
of superiority) as a race, the position that the understanding of our
forefather's is inadequate for us is simply silly. Before I get ahead of
myself and satirically say to my own biological father "Your understanding
is inadequate for me, as I have learned more things", let me attempt to
explain myself.
When you say that "we" have learned a lot more over the many centuries, and
that our understanding of things has "improved", I am assuming that you mean
only a tiny percentage of the actual billions of souls that have made the
Earth their temporary home. I am assuming this because that is what seems
to be true about the knowledge that is usually cited. Quantum physics,
astrophysics, cellular studies, and a host of other scientific thingies
where we have supposedly made enormous breakthroughs are generally only
interesting to and well known by very few. When was the last time you
constructed a model of a human cell, complete with cytoplasm and ribonucleic
acids, and diagramed all of the specific workings of the different
components, and then sat back and marveled at how much you
actually -understood- biology? When was the last time any common man off
the street has done this? Or another example - I challenge you to explain
to me the specifics of how the sperm reacts with the egg inside a female
body in the process called "fertilization". I challenge you to do this from
your common knowledge, and not quoting from an encyclopedia (or any similar
method).
Although I'm not sure about this idea that it was previously thought that
women were "merely" ovens for babies, I am sure that -understanding-
child-bearing and the responsibilities of child-bearing is in no great
extent improved with time. I'm also not sure that a certain understanding
hasn't been lost. Unless abortion is considered to be advancement of
understanding. Or, "improved" understanding. This example seems more of a
pander to modern day feminist thought - erroneously implying that the
further you go back into history, the more "grievously injured" females
you'll find.
This may be another naive question, but it springs to mind immediately:
Where did Adam and Eve's genetic makeup come from? They were fully human,
as common-sense teaches us, and therefore they must have had DNA of some
sort. Or, by your logic, were they unlike us in that they had no DNA
"inherit(ed) from (their) human ancestors"?
But here is my most important question, and if any of this other impertinent
post is ignored I beg that you take it seriously: Where is the difficulty
in believing that the God of the Universe and the creator of all things can
set in motion from the very beginning of time a chain reaction that will
eventually lead to a woman giving birth without the aid of sexual
intercourse? We call it a "miracle" simply because we have never seen it
before. But God is the father of all things, including the first man, and
therefore the first seeds of human life and DNA. Were we not created in His
image? The question is not "was Jesus fully human", because Jesus was the
ultimate human. He was the perfection of humanity. The question is are
*we* not fully as human as we ought to be. The last part of your message is
indecipherable to me. What do you mean? Humanity means not being imbued
with a spirit as well as genetics?
Nathan Hubbard
Steve
>
Hello Nathan;
I'm not sure of the proper way to do this, but it seems that it would be
efficient to insert my comments in the midst of yours. By the way, I have no
agenda, just thinking out loud.
***STEVE: No, I actually mean that as a whole, knowledge has increased vastly,
and continues to do so. For instance you and I both knew that pregnancy
required both male and female contributions, something the brightest minds of
the 10th century didn't know. You can't make any kind of serious arguement
that humankind's knowledge hasn't advanced, can you? That would be just
silly.***
>
>Although I'm not sure about this idea that it was previously thought that
>women were "merely" ovens for babies, I am sure that -understanding-
>child-bearing and the responsibilities of child-bearing is in no great
>extent improved with time. I'm also not sure that a certain understanding
>hasn't been lost. Unless abortion is considered to be advancement of
>understanding. Or, "improved" understanding. This example seems more of a
>pander to modern day feminist thought - erroneously implying that the
>further you go back into history, the more "grievously injured" females
>you'll find.
***STEVE: No, no pandering, just an observation of our advance in knowledge
over the years. I have no idea what feminism or abortion has to do with the
topic either.***
>
>This may be another naive question, but it springs to mind immediately:
>Where did Adam and Eve's genetic makeup come from? They were fully human,
>as common-sense teaches us, and therefore they must have had DNA of some
>sort. Or, by your logic, were they unlike us in that they had no DNA
>"inherit(ed) from (their) human ancestors"?
***STEVE: Adam & Eve's genetic makeup is a very good question in line with what
we're talking about. But it helps support my belief that evolution is how
humankind came about. It seems more likely than the notion that God waived a
magic wand and voila! here's Adam and Eve in a Garden. The Genesis stories are
metaphorical, not literal.***
>
>But here is my most important question, and if any of this other impertinent
>post is ignored I beg that you take it seriously: Where is the difficulty
>in believing that the God of the Universe and the creator of all things can
>set in motion from the very beginning of time a chain reaction that will
>eventually lead to a woman giving birth without the aid of sexual
>intercourse? We call it a "miracle" simply because we have never seen it
>before. But God is the father of all things, including the first man, and
>therefore the first seeds of human life and DNA. Were we not created in His
>image? The question is not "was Jesus fully human", because Jesus was the
>ultimate human. He was the perfection of humanity. The question is are
>*we* not fully as human as we ought to be. The last part of your message is
>indecipherable to me. What do you mean? Humanity means not being imbued
>with a spirit as well as genetics?
>
>Nathan Hubbard
***STEVE: I fully believe that God created everything, and frankly I believe
nearly anything is possible. But it's how God does things that I think we're
discussing. I believe it's most likely that Jesus was the biological product
of two human beings, probably Joseph and Mary. Jesus was God's son, unique in
all the world to date, but in a way I admit to not understanding.***
Paul K Hubbard
Qbaal,
My objections to your position fall into two broad categories:
1) The faith which you have built up upon one particular global assessment
of the Historical Critical school of thinking is not logically or rationally
supported by that very same global assessment. The final assessment of the
Bultmannian school, taking John MacQuarrie as an excellent representative,
is that the jesus of history has simply 'dropped off the horizon of
legitimate historical inquiry.' You yourself admit that the jesus of history
is "a hard critter to find." With this objection in view, the level of
confidence wherewith you (negatively) dispense with the catholic assessment
of the historical Christ, as well as the level of confidence with which you
(positively) create an alternative faith in a loving god with whom we should
"love to associate with" does not seem to rest on anything in particular
except an apriori faith in such a god. For example, whether the results of
critical inquiry of "doctrines like the Virgin Birth and Hell...diminish the
honor of God and the dignity of humans" is of no concern to the project of
critical inquiry itself.
2) You suggest that the results of the historical-critical school of
thinking, as well as the inexorable conclusions which follow, are virtually
monolithic, yet when the same genre of historical-critical criteria is
brought to bear on the sociological - historical phenomena of the
"historical critical" movement itself, no such theory of consensus is
warranted.
I would assert that your position is fundamentally unconnected to the global
historical critical process. And that the sub-school of theologians which
you follow represent just one strand of thinking which has attempted to
appropriate the results of historical-critical scholarship. For brevity,
let's call this subschool the "Seminarists" (to refer to the Jesus Seminar
and Bishop Spong) who completely reject the possibility of any supernatural
or miraculous element in the historical person of jesus (along classical
lines of thinking. I add this last caveat because I am well aware that this
same Seminarist movement, after it has "de-mythologized" the classical
Christ, has not left him there. It has 're-mythologized' him with various
theological forms of twentieth century religious existentialism.)
That there has been a vast historical evolution of what has been nebulously
defined as the historical-critical school of research, no thinking person
can deny. And the various discrepancies of Seminarist scholarship over the
last 200 years is that the quest for the historical jesus has been a
catastrophic failure in terms of producing historical consensus. A failure
so complete that mere sociologists and historians can easily detect three
separate quests. And when once it took an extraordinarily gifted scholar to
break with the "mainstream" movement to point out this phenomena
(Schweitzer: "The Quest for the Historical Jesus"), now it takes a mere
journalist to do the same (Charlotte Allen: "The Human Christ").
I would further allege that the personal relationship that you claim that
you are having with the Seminarist' jesus is of necessity a shadowy affair,
since there has been a plethora of "historical" jesuses generated,
particularly by the pre-critical forays into historical research of the last
200 years - which cannot be compared to the legitimate science of the
historical-critical method - the former contradicting each other in
fundamental ways. And that the only "consensus" evident in the sociological
phenomena of jesus "research" over the last 200 hundred years has been that
they all agree on only one substantive thing: that the historical jesus
cannot fundamentally resemble the supernatural christology of the catholic
church, the Gospels and of the Pauline corpus. In the final analysis, the
only element upon which the various "liberal lives" of Christ have been
built upon have been the theological presuppositions which have been brought
into the fray to begin with.
The relatively modern science of historical criticism is changing. The
rational ridicule rightly heaped upon its proto-scientific predecessor is no
longer justified. But it is also unjustified to hold up the Seminarist
School as something which is particularly representative of this science.
This is the salient point which so many here in this ng have already
attempted to point out. We have agreed that there is a very strong
fundamentalistic - almost +anti-intellectual+ appropriation of the modern
science of historical criticism by this school to support an essentially
apriori naturalistic assumption about the Gospel tradition specifically, and
physical reality, generally. This is evident in Bp Spong's work and of the
work of the Jesus Seminarist themselves (for example, Crossan)
There is a virtual flood of material which supports this hypothesis (that
the h-c science has produced a) a working consensus which fundamentally
undermines the classic christology and b) that such a consensus is
representative in the Seminarist School). Beyond the two historical studies
already mentioned there are such works as Blomberg's "The Historical
Reliability of the Gospels" "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up" - which is
primarily a transcript of a debate by William Lane Craig and John Dominic
Crossan, narrated by William F. Buckley Jr., which includes written
responses from Robert J. Miller, Craig L. Blomberg, Marcus Borg, and Ben
Witherington III. More directly, for those with sufficient intrepidity there
are works such as Fr. Raymond E. Brown's "An Introduction to New Testament
Christology". And for the scholar, there is J. P. Meier's massive three
volume work: "A Marginal Jew."
Finally, it does not matter how many "top drawer" "scholars" support a
particular view. Even if there were the sort of consensus of inexorable
conclusions which the Seminarist School intimates, in scholarship and in
scientific research, the consensus of the majority has meant precisely
nothing. Since the truth is as likely to emerge from an obscure clerk in a
patent office or an humble Augustinian monk as it is from the scientific and
theological establishment. (Probably +less+ likely if Tom Kuhn's theory is
correct in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") But that's a fairly
gratuitous "defensive" reaction to the Seminarist School. A more offensive
one would charge that the shenanigans of the Jesus Seminar in particular
have brought discredit upon the legitimate science of historical criticism.
What sort of vulgar criteria of truth does +voting+ on the historicity of
each "saying" pericope send to the masses of uneducated? The concept is
absurd on the face of it! This sort of thing is an +embarrassment+ to
science and to scholarship. So too is the brazen attempt to garner popular
support for such views by writing populist propaganda and is a disgrace to
scholarly dialogue. If this is scholarship, then it has brought shame upon
itself as merely a new form of cultic fundamentalism by pandering to the
masses, granting interviews, making PBS propaganda flicks...making money.
The whole process reeks of apriori, philosophical, anti-intellectual
fundamentalism.
r,
paul
Paul K Hubbard
"There is a virtual flood of material which supports this hypothesis..."
change "supports" to "contradicts"
r,
paul
downampney
neater characteristics of traditionalist theology (NOT the fundies, but
the traditional orthodox system) is its intellectual extensibility. Or
to put it another way, it gave you only as much answers as you needed;
if you came back for more answers they would be provided for you, up to
a point. So for instance, if you weren't concerned about the natures of
Jesus, that was OK, but if the issue arose for you, you could go to the
Council of Chalcedon for a framework to deal with the issue.
What Paul has called the Seminarist school turns this completely on its
head. It's strictly a theology for intellectuals, leaving nothing but
disbelief available for those who aren't intellectuals. Or rather,
nothing but the aesthetick of church, bound up in the deepest
contradiction. In this we find a theology to drive away the humble and
meek, and set up the Sadducee in its place.
C. Wingate
The Steel Wolf
<ow...@swva.net> scripsit:
>Although I'm not sure about this idea that it was previously thought
>that women were "merely" ovens for babies, I am sure that
>-understanding- child-bearing and the responsibilities of
>child-bearing is in no great extent improved with time. I'm also
>not sure that a certain understanding hasn't been lost. Unless
>abortion is considered to be advancement of understanding.
Abortion is nothing new; it's been around for a number of centuries
now. Only the methods have changed.
>This may be another naive question, but it springs to mind
>immediately: Where did Adam and Eve's genetic makeup come from?
I don't personally hold to the literal creation, but if I were to
speculate for the sake of argument I'd say that God manufactured their
DNA for them upon their creation. The DNA would almost have to be
specifically tailored to avoid the expression of harmful recessive
traits that would otherwise be spawned by the heavy inbreeding that
would have gone on in the early days.
>They were fully human, as common-sense teaches us, and therefore
>they must have had DNA of some sort.
Presumably so, if they were biological organisms.
>Or, by your logic, were they unlike us in that they had no DNA
>"inherit(ed) from (their) human ancestors"?
When you're talking about the origin of the human genus, it is
impossible to speak of DNA inherited from specifically human
ancestors. Either the DNA would have to come from non-human ancestors
or (in the case of the story of Adam & Eve) be manufactured.
>Where is the difficulty in believing that the God of the Universe
>and the creator of all things can set in motion from the very
>beginning of time a chain reaction that will eventually lead to a
>woman giving birth without the aid of sexual intercourse?
There's no difficulty in believing that God *can* do this. An
omnipotent God can by definition do anything that isn't logically
self-contradictory. As to whether God actually *did* do it, that's
another matter entirely.
>We call it a "miracle" simply because we have never seen it before.
We call it a miracle because it goes against everything we know about
the reproductive processes of complex organisms.
>But God is the father of all things, including the first man, and
>therefore the first seeds of human life and DNA. Were we not
>created in His image?
We're created in God's spiritual image, not his physical image.
>The question is not "was Jesus fully human", because Jesus was the
>ultimate human. He was the perfection of humanity.
Yet would you not agree that part of being human is being fallible?
Could Jesus possibly have been fully human if he were a perfect and
inerrant being? It seems to me that the whole point of God's
incarnation into a human body was that he wished to relate to his
human followers. Was this goal truly accomplished if he was unable to
make mistakes or to sin?
>The question is are *we* not fully as human as we ought to be.
This is illogical. Humanity is the property of being human. As human
beings, we are necessarily fully human; we could not be otherwise.
>The last part of your message is indecipherable to me. What do you
>mean? Humanity means not being imbued with a spirit as well as
>genetics?
I believe he was working from the assumption that if God contributed
DNA to Christ's genetic makeup there would necessarily be present a
sort of "God gene" that would make him genetically divine. This
doesn't make sense, however, because God is not a biological entity
but rather a spiritual one; therefore, there can logically be no such
genetic trait.
qbaal
wrote:
That's the point - the historico-critical says the traditionalist view
is tied to a particular world view. Say the triple decker universe
in which the creation story(s) of Genesis 1 is projected. Now both
views can be expanded and related to ones particular situation
in the modern world. That the beauty of myth - never happened
historically but happens every day in someone's life. The
historico-critical approach does not say the traditionalist view is
without meaning or conducive now and in the past to salvation.
But it does say the traditionalist doctrines are outdated which
means they are not framed according a modern worldview.
For instance, when talking about God creating forget a six
day, evolution denying, version and talk about God creating
the Big Bang, and bout four or five billion years ago the
earth formed where relatively soon life began (DNA or RNA)
and evolution was underway whereby you and i were created.
The Virgin Birth is supportative of the divinity of Christ.
The Virgin Birth does not have to be literal truth for Jesus
to be our reference for God. In fact it is not and still I believe
Jesus is Lord. And, of course, I think its ridiculous, after
much study by experts in doctrine, and historical studies,
to say the Virgin Birth is meaningful modern presentation
of important Christian truth. This denial of the Virgin Birth
as historical may be some sort of straight jacket in that
you are not allowed further adherence to this outmoded
and woman down putter "truth". However, it is liberatiing
at the same time because it allows the reality of Christ's
divinity to be communicayted in more meaningful terms
to moderen man -say psychological categoires and evolutionary
ones too, or whatever smart Christian thinkers may come up
with in the future - the story is far from over. There
is no straigh jacket being imposed by historico-critical
theology.
qbaal
<paulhu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yes, some smart informed theologians of the last 100 years and more
have seen the difficulty, sometimes impossibility, of finding the
historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Still, the quest continues. There are several fellows of The Jesus
Seminar who think the continuing quest is valid. With a great deal
of emphasis on secular historical methodology being applied to
contruct the nature of Jesus mission and prophetic stance in
occupied Palestine of 20 - 30 A.D. For instance there is John
Dominic Crossan"s The Birth of Christianity.
The same Jesus Seminar actively pursues the historical Jesus
by its severe evaluation and sifting of NT gospel writings.
All of the Gospel of John is assessed as not one word said by
Jesus. And the other gospels are severely pruned in terms of
what Jesus really actually said. Thus very little of what
the historical Jesus is left (and printed red). Most verses are
assigned to the categories 1 Jesus said something like this..
or 2. a verse is incompatible with the mind of Jesus.
All this represents a search for the real Jesus. But as I said it
is difficult. Many verses can't be taken at face value.
And the verses we take as authentic are not that plentiful
compared to what the early church said Jesus said. And
we know that the early church put words into the mouth of
Jesus and often changed the stories about Jesus in accordance
with the early Christian community's needs in the face of bloody
hate-filled challenge from Jews and the Roman Empire.
>2) You suggest that the results of the historical-critical school of
>thinking, as well as the inexorable conclusions which follow, are virtually
>monolithic, yet when the same genre of historical-critical criteria is
>brought to bear on the sociological - historical phenomena of the
>"historical critical" movement itself, no such theory of consensus is
>warranted.
I never, in my right mind, would suggest the historico critical
movement is anywhere monolithic. The lack of consensus has
always plagued/blessed the Church from the beginning. The
RCC is monolithic in theory today if you take curia/papal
pronouncements as your criterion but beyond that there is plenty
of discussion and dissension on a number of matters - from
the status of the Virgin Birth through to birth control and
priestly celebacy.
>
>I would assert that your position is fundamentally unconnected to the global
>historical critical process. And that the sub-school of theologians which
>you follow represent just one strand of thinking which has attempted to
>appropriate the results of historical-critical scholarship.
This could be true. I am not interested in categorizing my theology
or that or Bishop Spongs or the Jesus Seminar's. However, I would
be pretty stupid not to see the historical-critical theology of the
last three centuries has not strongly influenced the work of these
folk and many other modern schools of theology including the
conservative Karl Barth. Also, grouping such modern Christian
thinking as historico-critical or an logical development of historico-
critical thinking I do highlight one truth - My mentioned modern
theologies are not in the same camp as those conseratives who
want to take Genesis 1 creation, the Virgin Birth, the Ascension,
legends of the Chist such as the Rsing of Lazarus and walking on
water, changin water into wine etc.
Hmmmmmmmm......... Seems I have to agree with much of this paragraph.
And thank God, whatever Jesus we have or will have cannot
fundamentally be the same as supernatural christiology you mention.
However, the historical-critico school, for all its disagreements,
does proclaim that the faith of the traditionalists is an icon, is
highly interpretative (divorced from the historical facts)
and, as regards the "phycical resurrection", Virgin Birth
and Ascension is pure myth. Meaningful myth that points to
God's action in history but still myth and not just historical
fact.
Thus it's clear that not only the liberal Christ is built upon
theological presuppositions but so is the traditionalist one.
So, yes there are pesuppositioons. We admit it. The
conservatives should admit it. Some do.
The historicacl critico are, in my view, seaching for a new
Chrsit. Actually a new expression of the same Christ
of God and his Church. Now the presuppositions are
informed by a modern world view, severe critical pruning
theology, all aided by the living Christi as always.
More Modern Theology
http://ajn11.homestead.com/index.html
downampney
> That's the point - the historico-critical says the traditionalist view
> is tied to a particular world view.
But the hist-crit claim thereto is false, empirically inaccurate. I
mean, there are after all plenty of 20th/21st century orthodox writers
who can hardly be accused of holding to (say) a medieval Thomian
worldview, much less something older. It is the hist-crit approach which
is so tied.
> Say the triple decker universe in which the creation story(s) of Genesis 1 is projected.
But the problem is, of course, that the view of the physical cosmos
changes throughout this period, yet the orthodox view has no problem
adapting to the change. Even the change from a Ptolemaic to a Copernican
solar system did little to disturb this.
And the thing is, it is no great leap of the imagination to maintain the
"three stories".
> For instance, when talking about God creating forget a six
> day, evolution denying, version and talk about God creating
> the Big Bang, and bout four or five billion years ago the
> earth formed where relatively soon life began (DNA or RNA)
> and evolution was underway whereby you and i were created.
Again, this is the voice of ignorance. It is true that the orthodox
position is suspicious of the use of evolution as a excuse to erase God
from the picture. On the other hand, it takes the poetic sense of a
brick not to catch on to the fact that Genesis 1 describes the current
scientific picture pretty accurately, in a poetic way.
> And, of course, I think its ridiculous, after
> much study by experts in doctrine, and historical studies,
> to say the Virgin Birth is meaningful modern presentation
> of important Christian truth.
Reasons, man. Give me reasons. Not arguments from the authority of those
whose authority I do not recognize.
> However, it is liberatiing
> at the same time because it allows the reality of Christ's
> divinity to be communicayted in more meaningful terms
> to moderen man -say psychological categoires and evolutionary
> ones too, or whatever smart Christian thinkers may come up
> with in the future - the story is far from over. There
> is no straigh jacket being imposed by historico-critical
> theology.
The problem is, as I said in another line, that most men are not
theologians. The effect of this line of talk is not in fact to give them
something new, but instead to take away what they had and give in return
something which doesn't work for them.
And again, the fact is that there is more to theology than the hist-crit
crew. It's a big theological world out there, and the hist-crit guys are
just one little ghetto.
C. Wingate
qbaal
wrote:
>qbaal wrote:
>
>> That's the point - the historico-critical says the traditionalist view
>> is tied to a particular world view.
>
>But the hist-crit claim thereto is false, empirically inaccurate. I
>mean, there are after all plenty of 20th/21st century orthodox writers
>who can hardly be accused of holding to (say) a medieval Thomian
>worldview, much less something older. It is the hist-crit approach which
>is so tied.
>
Forget world view. You say the hist-crit claim is false,...... The
reality is -relative to your subjective opinion, the claim of
hist-crit is false and unacceptable. A medieval Thomian worldview
is alive and very well in many quarters. Including Protestant
conservative ones. This applies in theological matters particularly.
Many many American and Canadian Christians think Genesis
one is a factual story of God creating the world. This is
unacceptable to a modern worldview. Although many conservatives
are spun up on Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics and sometimes
some form of evolution although they still cling to God as creating
the first DNA or RNA (which is a betrayal of the latest of
evolutionary thinking, consensus -wise and thus a betrayal of the
modernn world view) So we have mentally conflicted Christians
who function in science/teaching as modern but still are
religiously bogged down in ancient ideas like 1 Genesis, Virgin Birth
and Ascension. They also give too much authority to Church officials
and scriptures when the modern historical critical research
has, with integrity, shown these ideas to be extremely passee. False.
Also, many historical-critical folk would classify the Trinity as a
betrayal of the main tenet of the Judeo-Christian tradition - God is
the One and He is Lord. This doctrine is not supported by authentic
gospel writings and is certainly alien to the mindset and authentic
words of Jesus Christ. And an advanced statement of the doctrine
is an example of political power bending the ecclesiastical to its
agenda. I'm talking about Constantine. If you want the reasons,
and volumes can and have been written on this with plenty
of facts, docuuments and reason, read a few of The Jesus
Seminar Books or read the books of Rudolph Bultmann.
I do not deny the Trinity in terms of supreme reference for God
for the Christian. And I say Amen to Paul's "Jesus Christ is the
image of God" and God was in Christ reconciling....... and
I affirm the ancient first creed of Christianity "Jesus is Lord."
But I see no reason, like the elevation of Mary in some quarters,
to identify Jesus with God. Why bother?
Of course you declare anathema all this. For you will not
admit to the enhancement, as with the story of Exodus in
the Old Testament, of the status of Christ with accentuated
miraculous elements, in full bloom in latest gospel, John,
and continuing on to the Nicean Creed in 325 AD.. This
really is not a matter of world view specifically. In fact
I would declare the Church guilty of foisting fairy tales
on mankind for many centuries and mastering the art
of deceit in order to enhance revenue and power. To
be very politcallly, as per Jesus Christ, incorrect. And many
of the historical-critical people, for example subset - The
Jesus Seminar and Bishop Spong would say so. And the
good bishop would add the unforgivable crap of major
putdown of women and gays to the unforgiveable sins
of Mother Church over many centuries and hardly completely
repented of, to this very day. You will know them by
their deeds. You don't harvest grapes from cacti.
That said, I must say, like Winston Church on democracy,
the Church is not perfect but she's the best we've got.
>But the problem is, of course, that the view of the physical cosmos
>changes throughout this period, yet the orthodox view has no problem
>adapting to the change. Even the change from a Ptolemaic to a Copernican
>solar system did little to disturb this.
>
>And the thing is, it is no great leap of the imagination to maintain the
>"three stories".
>
>> For instance, when talking about God creating forget a six
>> day, evolution denying, version and talk about God creating
>> the Big Bang, and bout four or five billion years ago the
>> earth formed where relatively soon life began (DNA or RNA)
>> and evolution was underway whereby you and i were created.
>
>Again, this is the voice of ignorance. It is true that the orthodox
>position is suspicious of the use of evolution as a excuse to erase God
>from the picture. On the other hand, it takes the poetic sense of a
>brick not to catch on to the fact that Genesis 1 describes the current
>scientific picture pretty accurately, in a poetic way.
This is not the voice of ignorance. For you mean 'ignorance' in the
perjorative sense. Your problem is you betray love which involves
openess - ie. listening to others. I would be the first to admit
ignorance in the face of ultimate questions. Say, on how God
created the universe. However, I do believe he is the ground of
all physical existence. And without Him nothing that exists would
exist. And I do believe in evolution as the way life was created.
Now, although I have my own ideas on the subject, I would not
pontificate on how God actually brought about existence out of
nothingness/the quantum void. And why bother saying Genesis
1 describes the current scientific picture.... Just say its a
ancient mythical story created by human imagination in the face
of the mystery of existence and communicated in terms of an
ancient worldview. Let's move on.
You will have to learn that which is not congruent with your
theological stance is not automatically the "voice of ignorance."
And stick to the facts without making judgements on other
Christians who don't agree with you. Christians who, I admit,
may be ultimately right or ultimately wrong. Openess is the
name of the game. Not name calling which undercuts the
whole openess operation.
>> And, of course, I think its ridiculous, after
>> much study by experts in doctrine, and historical studies,
>> to say the Virgin Birth is meaningful modern presentation
>> of important Christian truth.
>
>Reasons, man. Give me reasons. Not arguments from the authority of those
>whose authority I do not recognize.
>
There are millions of reasons. But I can't give them all everytime
that I express a well established finding of the hist-crit school.
What I am planning to do is to write up some methodology of
the hist-crit school and the basic importance of the hypothetical
'Q' document. And post same to web, for quick handy
reference for those who can't get beyond 'why, why, why.'
And demonstrate that the methodology couples
with modern science and historical studies and probably basic
psychological studies to give us the position of Bishop Spong,etc.,
who calls for a fundamental rethinking of the whole structure of
Christian belief. Doctrine, scripture, and ritual included.
>> However, it is liberatiing
>> at the same time because it allows the reality of Christ's
>> divinity to be communicayted in more meaningful terms
>> to moderen man -say psychological categoires and evolutionary
>> ones too, or whatever smart Christian thinkers may come up
>> with in the future - the story is far from over. There
>> is no straigh jacket being imposed by historico-critical
>> theology.
>
>The problem is, as I said in another line, that most men are not
>theologians. The effect of this line of talk is not in fact to give them
>something new, but instead to take away what they had and give in return
>something which doesn't work for them.
Sure, we can put plans for an Atom or Hydrogen bomb on the internet
but common folk have no appreciation or brain power to catch on
to the essentials of solid modern doctrine. And can't see the
inconsistencies, murderous anti-semitism, women putdown, gay
bashing support, and simple deceitful exaggeration of New Testament
stories. I see American pragmatism is alive and well. The
historical - critical folk do not posit "what works for most" as
worthy of inclusion in the methodology of the search for what was
actually said and done by the real Jesus of Nazareth.
However, that said, everyone realizes their in no need to upset
98 year old granny with the latest findings of Bishop Spong
or John Dominic Crossan re what Jesus did not say or did
not do. On the other hand, some grannies and grammpas, too,
don't want the old good old religion foisted on them - no more.
>And again, the fact is that there is more to theology than the hist-crit
>crew. It's a big theological world out there, and the hist-crit guys are
>just one little ghetto.
>
Yes, indeed. I can live with that reality. And maybe I should
prize that reality more than the truth coming down the
hist-crit pipe to the world.
Blessed Easter to all
>C. Wingate
FTT
FTT
Bruce K. Darling
news:3AD5A3C8...@erols.com...
> What Paul has called the Seminarist school turns this completely on its
> head. It's strictly a theology for intellectuals, leaving nothing but
> disbelief available for those who aren't intellectuals. Or rather,
> nothing but the aesthetick of church, bound up in the deepest
> contradiction. In this we find a theology to drive away the humble and
> meek, and set up the Sadducee in its place.>
This can be taken a step further . if I may . from the perspective of the
man in the pew: the "Seminarist" approach to theology, IMHO, leads not to a
greater sense of spirituality - but to forlornness and despair. The
Seminarists (and I'll lump the entire Hist-Crit school into this category)
seek to replace God as known and experienced by those of orthodox faith with
an intellectualized (they like to think) and impersonal deity - much as God
is described by Spinoza and often embraced by Unitarians ... when, that is,
you can get them to acknowledge the existence of God. In fact, after
sifting through the bits and pieces of what those of the Hist-Crit school
suggest that Christianity ought to be, I am left with the impression that
the drama and the promise of the New Testament are reduced to little more
than either a great misunderstanding of History or perhaps the most
pervasive and damaging lie of the last 2000 years. There is, in other
words, no promise of anything beyond the grave. Either way - the
Seminarists have failed to frame a compelling argument to abandon orthodoxy.
If I were to buy their advice, I might find as much comfort in Sartre's
"Being and Nothingness" or "Nauseau" or Camus' "Myth of Sysephus" or "L"
Etranger."
Regards
Nathan Hubbard
vastly,
> and continues to do so. For instance you and I both knew that pregnancy
> required both male and female contributions, something the brightest minds
of
> the 10th century didn't know. You can't make any kind of serious
arguement
> that humankind's knowledge hasn't advanced, can you? That would be just
> silly.***
Perhaps we're both dabbling in silliness. Human thought seems plagued with
the phenomenon. Before you were saying that females were thought to be
"merely" "ovens" for babies in the old days. Now you seem to be saying that
the people of the old days were oblivious even to this idea. When you say
that the *brightest* minded citizens of the 10th century (and presumably
every century beforehand) did not know that females had some significant
contribution in the procreation of the race you are effectively negating
your previous statement. I will assume, now, that you mean to say that the
people of the 10th century were not aware that DNA from both mother and
father are used in the genetic makeup of the offspring. But I hardly see
the point. I mean if you are thinking aloud, as you say you are, then what
is it exactly you are thinking about? To me, this seems to be a simple
summary of the appearance of your thoughts on this newsgroup (and forgive me
if it is poorly worded):
Once upon a time there was a theory that Mary, engaged to be wed to Joseph,
became pregnant without the aid of what is generally referred to as "sexual
intercourse". This theory, or "belief" as it were, has been an assumed fact
(for the most part) in the Christian doctrine for a couple thousand years
now. But now, in the modern day world, where "knowledge" has "increased" to
a vast degree, including in such fields as biology, DNA, and physics, we can
modify our opinion of the actual reality and say that Joseph, or some other
human man, was the biological father of Jesus.
Does this about sum it up? I want to be sure that we are talking about the
same thing and there is no confusion. Or else I will bring non-relevant
ideas onto the table in my ignorance, like abortion. Thinking back on the
topic at hand, which is pregnancy and the understanding of pregnancy, I can
quite agree that abortion has nothing to do with it. Err...
> ***STEVE: Adam & Eve's genetic makeup is a very good question in line with
what
> we're talking about. But it helps support my belief that evolution is how
> humankind came about. It seems more likely than the notion that God
waived a
> magic wand and voila! here's Adam and Eve in a Garden. The Genesis
stories are
> metaphorical, not literal.***
How does it help your belief?
> ***STEVE: I fully believe that God created everything, and frankly I
believe
> nearly anything is possible. But it's how God does things that I think
we're
> discussing. I believe it's most likely that Jesus was the biological
product
> of two human beings, probably Joseph and Mary. Jesus was God's son,
unique in
> all the world to date, but in a way I admit to not understanding.***
If I were a sunday school student, and you were offering this as lesson, my
first serious question would be:
If God (who, as we recall, can do "nearly" anything) were putting His own
son into the world, and the virgin birth has been documented in the Bible as
truth, and accepted by virtually all Christian souls, why would there be a
question on this matter at all? Is it seriously a matter of the
"likelihood" of God's modus operandi? If so, then what inspiration are you
calling upon to judge the likelihood of God's M.O.? Surely not the Bible.
You would, no doubt, go on to explain the superior intellect of the day, and
bring "DNA" once more into the discussion. But still, I would ask, "Was God
somehow unaware of this "DNA" thing when Christ was born, and we are just
now in recent days bringing it to his attention?"
Nathan Hubbard
qbaal
Please remember, the hist-crit folk are not really questioning the
essence of the Judeo-Chrisitan tradition as much as the expression
of same. Spong wants to move off theism and onto some other
conceptualization of God. Marcus Borg of the Jesus Semiinar believes
God resurrected Jesus to eternity. Tom Harpur sure does not buy
the Old Testament God - as ancient mideastern tyrannanous despot.
And simply speaks of the mystery we call God which is what the
famous classical theologicans, like St. Augustine, have always said..
The hist-crit, in one way or other, affirm Jesus as the
great, supreme for the Christian, revelation of God. No one denies
God is the ground of all being - the great creator of the universe.
But most want to give Charles Darwin credit for explaining one aspect
of the method used by God to give rise to life and humans, eventually.
Far from denying the Resurrection and the life of t he world to come,
many hist-crit writers point out the great tuth of the gospels, St.
Paul's writings and what Jesus actually said - the Kingdom of God
is even now among us and he who believes will never die for he
has in truth through faith in Jesus Christ already while on earth
begun the life of eternity.
And, on top of this, the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ is
ours. And is experienced in knowing Jesus, in prayer and in the
community meal whereby Jesus comes to us and assures us the
burden has been dealt with by God's renewing power.
This is a trillion, zillion light years from the gospel of Camus and
Satre who made it clear we are made by our decisions but
didn't give us anything really ultimate to decide for. Jesus sure
does.
I believe, also, that when some radical liberals get together to
evalutate the gospels they switch from the faith mode to
a secular methodology of historical investigation applied to
the gospels and extra canonical sources for the words and
deeds of Jesus. Of course in this secular mode their words
definitely seem not words of encouragement as per traditional
preaching to encourage faith and committment. However,
God is big and He and his Kingdom can well survive critical
and even negative analysis. And, yes, some hist-crit folk
can easily switch back over to the faith mode of gospel
interpretation.
Thus, Marcu Borg speaks of Jesus not actually saying, as
historical fact at a given time and place, 'I AM the bread of Life.'
However, as the first century dragged on the early Christians
meeting to break bread in their communities experienced the
Living Lord as the one who fed their souls and was also the
great eternal prophet calling kings and secular leaders to
respect God's demand for the poor and marginalized and
thus Christianity from the beginning was interested in material
nourishment (justice) as well as spiritual. Thus, Jesus is truly
the Bread of Life in the here and now as well as the world
to come.
Finally, many hist-crit folk are fed up with aspects of the
faith once delivered .... Of course, the central beliefs
stand firm. But many beliefs - Virgin Birth, the Second
Coming and Christain vindictive apocalyptic teaching,
Adam and Eve type creation, the Fall, and Jesus walking
on water or miraculously feeding thousands can go by
and the cause of Jesus would only be enhanced for
many moderns.
And above all - the historical-critical theologians are reminding
us there is a world of difference between what Jesus actually
said and what the Church said he said. Specifically, Jesus,
if you take Mark's gospel as earliest, Jesus did not spout
words of Hell fire and damnation at every turn. That was
Matthew who was living in a Palestine with intense conflict
and hatred between Jew and Christian Jews and the latter
were putting the heat to the followers of the crucified Messiah.
Suddenly, Jesus was issuing words of hell fire punishment
upon the Jewisih authorities, if not every Jew on earth forever.
So the hist-crit folk are not just interested in Darwin and
anti-semitic verses of the NT. They are intensely interested
in projecting the real Jesus Christ and thereby serving the
honor and glory of God.
louis
this. How does the "ground of being" comfort me when I am in pain, despair,
or grief?
I don't know about you, but I want a real living being for my God, not some
philosopher's abstraction.
louis
"qbaal" <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3adb73cd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
louis
"Bruce K. Darling" <thur...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9bdg9t$5ips$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> This can be taken a step further . if I may . from the perspective of the
> man in the pew: the "Seminarist" approach to theology, IMHO, leads not to
a
> greater sense of spirituality - but to forlornness and despair. The
> Seminarists (and I'll lump the entire Hist-Crit school into this category)
> seek to replace God as known and experienced by those of orthodox faith
with
> an intellectualized (they like to think) and impersonal deity - much as
God
> is described by Spinoza and often embraced by Unitarians ... when, that
is,
> you can get them to acknowledge the existence of God. In fact, after
> sifting through the bits and pieces of what those of the Hist-Crit school
> suggest that Christianity ought to be, I am left with the impression that
> the drama and the promise of the New Testament are reduced to little more
> than either a great misunderstanding of History or perhaps the most
> pervasive and damaging lie of the last 2000 years. There is, in other
> words, no promise of anything beyond the grave. Either way - the
> Seminarists have failed to frame a compelling argument to abandon
orthodoxy.
> If I were to buy their advice, I might find as much comfort in Sartre's
> "Being and Nothingness" or "Nauseau" or Camus' "Myth of Sysephus" or "L"
> Etranger."
>
> Regards
Greetings Bruce,
I hope you had a good Easter.
Mine was generally fine. However, I was dismayed at some of the preachings
of our priests. While generally unoffensive (even occasionally uplifting), I
was troubled by the general drift. For instance, one of our priests (female)
spoke during one of the Good Friday meditations about the "imperialisms"
which crucified Christ and which continue to crucify today. She spoke
vehemently about rejecting the doctrine that Christ died to remove the sins
of the world to appease some "bloodthirsty tribal god." Our "petty" concerns
with our "petty" sins where duly excoriated. Only the liberal social agenda,
it seems, was worthy to be the true result of the crucifixion (pleasing, I
guess, to the "ground of being"). The usual liberal bogey-men were invoked.
Part of the story, I suppose, but hardly the main point.
Also, nothing was said at all about sin, or forgiveness, or resurrection
from the dead (I mean, personal issues). It's all about the social agenda
(preferably leftist). I do think that part of the Christian message ~is~
about seeking justice in the world. However, the main thrust is not about
being a liberal, ethical society (or arm of the Democratic party).
'Course, if I attend a more traditional church, I will be judged and
condemned (and excluded) for the crime of being openly gay, so what can I
do? How can a theologically traditional gay person find a home but in a
liberal/leftist parish? The conservatives have no answer for this one.
r,
Louis
>
>
>
>
>
downampney
> Mine was generally fine. However, I was dismayed at some of the preachings
> of our priests. While generally unoffensive (even occasionally uplifting), I
> was troubled by the general drift. For instance, one of our priests (female)
> spoke during one of the Good Friday meditations about the "imperialisms"
> which crucified Christ and which continue to crucify today. She spoke
> vehemently about rejecting the doctrine that Christ died to remove the sins
> of the world to appease some "bloodthirsty tribal god." Our "petty" concerns
> with our "petty" sins where duly excoriated. Only the liberal social agenda,
> it seems, was worthy to be the true result of the crucifixion (pleasing, I
> guess, to the "ground of being"). The usual liberal bogey-men were invoked.
> Part of the story, I suppose, but hardly the main point.
> Also, nothing was said at all about sin, or forgiveness, or resurrection
> from the dead (I mean, personal issues). It's all about the social agenda
> (preferably leftist). I do think that part of the Christian message ~is~
> about seeking justice in the world. However, the main thrust is not about
> being a liberal, ethical society (or arm of the Democratic party).
Years ago, back when I was frsh out of college, I made it my custom to
do my Good Friday devotions at the National Cathedral, where they would
have a series of half-hour services over the course of the afternoon,
followed by some appropriate choral work. I distinctly remember one of
the first times I did this that Carol Crumley, who was a canon at the
time, preached a homily which argued (don't ask me how) that the story
of Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross meant that we had to oppose
nuclear weapons. Reading the resolutions at GC is depressing in somewhat
the same way, in that it seems the church is supposed to punch its
liberal ticket on as many issues as possible.
It *is* possible to find more conservative, or at least less
liberal-politcally-obsessed, parishes in this area. And call these
people on the preaching excesses. You don't have to be a Reverend to be
a theologian.
C. Wingate (still dazed from 3 hours of sleep followed by the Vigil and
two main Easter services)
(and who once survived an entire year of sermons on stewardship)
downampney
> What exactly is the "ground of being" anyway. I've always wondered about
> this. How does the "ground of being" comfort me when I am in pain, despair,
> or grief?
> I don't know about you, but I want a real living being for my God, not some
> philosopher's abstraction.
This is Tillich's thing. It's his version of panentheism (God is in
everything), which is in itself a orthodox idea. But it's also an
extremem overreaction to transcendence, so instead of the image of God
glorious in the heavens, he has God as the ground that holds us up. Or
perhaps as the ground of a painting, the substance upon which the paint
is lain.
I've never felt it a particularly compelling image. Its worst problem is
that it is passive; it is an image of a God who doesn't do anything and
who makes no demands upon us. As it is, we spend fifty-one weeks of the
year remembering the actions of GOd and most especially the closeness to
us of our God through the Incarnation. The supposedly offensive
transcendence shows up once, on Trinity Sunday.
C. Wingate
qbaal
>What exactly is the "ground of being" anyway. I've always wondered about
>this. How does the "ground of being" comfort me when I am in pain, despair,
>or grief?
>
>I don't know about you, but I want a real living being for my God, not some
>philosopher's abstraction.
>
>louis
Personally, I try to avoid the term 'ground of being' as much as
possible. But I was discussing The fellows of The Jesus Seminar
and others of the hist-crit school and many of them use the term.
It's just a modern philosophical-theological term for God. Originally
penned, i think by Paul Tillich. Anyway, its still a term pointing
to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
downampney
> Please remember, the hist-crit folk are not really questioning the
> essence of the Judeo-Christian tradition as much as the expression
> of same.
And this raises immediately the issue of whether this change of
expression necessitates a change of essence. The alleged success in
doing so seems to be to be little more than a lot of word games that
fail the slightest confrontation.
> Spong wants to move off theism and onto some other
> conceptualization of God.
The problem, of course, is that "theism"=="God". The inevitable course
of following this is either atheism or something subtheistic, like
pantheism, calling upon a God who lacks a person.
This fails on two counts. First, Mr. "I love my Bible" Spong cannot fail
to see that the one thing the Bible is quite definite about is the
Person of God. The LORD is not passive, but willful. Second, it is a
tenet of the orthodox system that the Person of God is alien,
incomprehensible; the analogy wsith human personhood is not perfect and
ultimately fails.
> Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar believes
> God resurrected Jesus to eternity.
But what does this mean? It is nothing more than a word game. After all,
within the orthodox dogma is the same statement-- only it contains the
offensive element of the corporeal Jesus, walking, being touched,
breaking bread, eating fish.
> Tom Harpur sure does not buy
> the Old Testament God - as ancient mideastern tyrannanous despot.
But of what value is HIS opinion? Surely it is the will of this
"tyrannous despot" which is that which matters! Again, we have a failure
of concept-- in the orthodox view, the moral schema which makes this
sort of judgement possible is *no different* from the will of God.
> The hist-crit, in one way or other, affirm Jesus as the
> great, supreme for the Christian, revelation of God. No one denies
> God is the ground of all being - the great creator of the universe.
> But most want to give Charles Darwin credit for explaining one aspect
> of the method used by God to give rise to life and humans, eventually.
So what? There is nothing in the orthdox formula which denies this. The
problem with Darwinism (besides the real failure to demonstrate it in
action, which is not an insurmountable problem) is that its true value
as a means of natural historical understanding has *always*, from the
beginning, been overlaid with an additional, unscientific, religious
claim that it is sufficient to explain not only the means of
development, but the motivating and directing force. In other words, it
has specifically enshrined atheism.
> Far from denying the Resurrection and the life of t he world to come,
> many hist-crit writers point out the great truth of the gospels, St.
> Paul's writings and what Jesus actually said - the Kingdom of God
> is even now among us and he who believes will never die for he
> has in truth through faith in Jesus Christ already while on earth
> begun the life of eternity.
But that is NOT the great truth the gospel proclaim! It is "Christ has
been raised from the dead; the first fruist of those who have fallen
asleep." THe gospels and Paul are *emphatic* about the reality of the
ressurection, not merely as a metaphor, nor as a spiritual truth, but as
a physical fact.
> Thus, Marcu Borg speaks of Jesus not actually saying, as
> historical fact at a given time and place, 'I AM the bread of Life.'
THe problem with this, of course, is that the text says otherwise. It is
only the prejudices of secularized moderns that we have as
counterevidence.
C. WIngate
qbaal
One thing the hists-crit theologians harp on - the need to preach the
whole gospel. Dominic Crossan shows Jesus surely died as a
mouth prophet, in the classic mode (Amos, Hosea) putting down
God demand for social justice on the religious and secular leaders
of Palestine c AD 33. No one crucifies the Mother Teresa's of this
world for showing compassion. Its the social prophets saying there
is no worship/knowledge of God without justice and God scorns
to Hell any religion talking bout sacrifice without love of neighbor.
So it's the Romero's of this world that, like Jesus, get wiped with
extreme prejudice even at the altar or in the shadow of the Temple.
The bread of the communion service is eternal pointer to this
bedrock of Christian life - Jesus nourishes us both in body and
soul within social context. And he does forgive sins.
And preachers are seriously remiss if they continue any length
in preaching without giving folk both barrels of the gospel
shotgun.
Nathan Hubbard
> now. Only the methods have changed.
But only recently has there been a steep curve upward in the
population/approval ratio in regards to abortion. And never before has the
(medical) means of aborting been so easily obtained. So, you can say that
more than methods have changed. Approval and availability have also
changed, and in dramatic fashion.
> I don't personally hold to the literal creation, but if I were to
> speculate for the sake of argument I'd say that God manufactured their
> DNA for them upon their creation. The DNA would almost have to be
> specifically tailored to avoid the expression of harmful recessive
> traits that would otherwise be spawned by the heavy inbreeding that
> would have gone on in the early days.
Ok.
> When you're talking about the origin of the human genus, it is
> impossible to speak of DNA inherited from specifically human
> ancestors. Either the DNA would have to come from non-human ancestors
> or (in the case of the story of Adam & Eve) be manufactured.
Thus, having DNA "inherit(ed) from our human ancestors" is not a requirement
for being fully human. I am responding to Steve's apparent assertions, as
you recall.
> There's no difficulty in believing that God *can* do this. An
> omnipotent God can by definition do anything that isn't logically
> self-contradictory. As to whether God actually *did* do it, that's
> another matter entirely.
Ok.
> >But God is the father of all things, including the first man, and
> >therefore the first seeds of human life and DNA. Were we not
> >created in His image?
> We're created in God's spiritual image, not his physical image.
You have missed my point, most likely due to an error of communication on my
side.
> >The question is not "was Jesus fully human", because Jesus was the
> >ultimate human. He was the perfection of humanity.
> Yet would you not agree that part of being human is being fallible?
> Could Jesus possibly have been fully human if he were a perfect and
> inerrant being? It seems to me that the whole point of God's
> incarnation into a human body was that he wished to relate to his
> human followers. Was this goal truly accomplished if he was unable to
> make mistakes or to sin?
> >The question is are *we* not fully as human as we ought to be.
> This is illogical. Humanity is the property of being human. As human
> beings, we are necessarily fully human; we could not be otherwise.
I am working under the idea that we never really were fully "human" in the
sense that God meant us to be human. After the event which we call "the
fall", we became something "aspiring" to perfect humanity. Jesus was an
image of that perfect humanity - a humanity in which DNA is perhaps
irrelevant to one's personality. That is what I mean when I say that he was
more human than we are. Because he was what humanity was intended to be.
And we are aspiring to it. We have the potential only.
> I believe he was working from the assumption that if God contributed
> DNA to Christ's genetic makeup there would necessarily be present a
> sort of "God gene" that would make him genetically divine. This
> doesn't make sense, however, because God is not a biological entity
> but rather a spiritual one; therefore, there can logically be no such
> genetic trait.
You are very close to your belief that God is not a biological entity. I
wonder if it can be a discussion on another thread entirely so that we can
explore it in more detail, or perhaps we'd better leave it alone?
The Steel Wolf
<ow...@swva.net> scripsit:
>Thus, having DNA "inherit(ed) from our human ancestors" is not a
>requirement for being fully human.
Not at all. Even if you're looking at a purely biological definition
of the quality of being human, you're talking about a particular
pattern of DNA. It so happens that this DNA is received from our
parents via sexual reproduction, but the process IMHO doesn't play a
part in whether a person is human or not.
>> I believe he was working from the assumption that if God contributed
>> DNA to Christ's genetic makeup there would necessarily be present a
>> sort of "God gene" that would make him genetically divine. This
>> doesn't make sense, however, because God is not a biological entity
>> but rather a spiritual one; therefore, there can logically be no such
>> genetic trait.
>You are very close to your belief that God is not a biological
>entity. I wonder if it can be a discussion on another thread
>entirely so that we can explore it in more detail, or perhaps we'd
>better leave it alone?
I'd be happy to discuss it, although I'm not sure that there would be
enough to talk about that it would warrant a separate thread. You're
right about me being pretty attached to my concept of God as
non-biological. The problem to me is that the only things that
possess DNA are plants and animals; in other words, that which is
bound to this plane of existence and a fixed point in
three-dimensional space.
Certainly, I believe that God could make himself manifest in a living
body should he choose to do so. However, in order to believe that God
has a particular set of DNA we must believe that he is *always*
manifest in one particular living body. If his animating force were
to entirely leave that body, he would no longer have DNA. Yet if God
must have DNA, we are forced to conclude that he cannot leave his
body. This restriction, to me, diminishes the concept of an
omnipotent God.
Also, we run into a logical problem with the creation of the universe.
If God must have a particular set of DNA and must therefore reside in
a particular body within the universe, it stands to reason that he
could not possibly have created the universe, because he could not
have existed before its creation.
louis
Yep. It also bypasses the troublesome God revealed in the Bible - the one
who insists in meddling in human affairs, who demands a personal
relationship with individual humans, who refuses to conform to our
expectations and desires. In short, a nice safe abstraction, sort of like
the "ether."
L
>
Jay Withee
Seven Stanzas At Easter
------------------------
Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.
It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.
The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that--pierced--died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.
Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.
The stone is rolled back, not papier-mach,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.
And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.
Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.
--John Updike
Now I'll relax into the shadows with the rest of the lurkers...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, downampney wrote:
> qbaal wrote:
>
> > Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar believes
> > God resurrected Jesus to eternity.
>
> But what does this mean? It is nothing more than a word game. After all,
> within the orthodox dogma is the same statement-- only it contains the
> offensive element of the corporeal Jesus, walking, being touched,
> breaking bread, eating fish.
>
louis
r,
louis
Jay Withee <mal...@cwnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101041...@arena.cwnet.com...
Jay Withee
find in a hard copy, as an Amazon search only turned up a single ZShops
entry (for $82.00!) I did a Google search of the poem's title and found it
entire in a few listings.
Jay Withee
find in a hard copy, as an Amazon search only turned up a single ZShops
entry (for $82.00!) I did a Google search of the poem's title and found it
entire in a few listings.
louis
r,
Louis
downampney
> In a collection titled "Telephone Poles and Other Poems." Might be hard to
> find in a hard copy, as an Amazon search only turned up a single ZShops
> entry (for $82.00!) I did a Google search of the poem's title and found it
> entire in a few listings.
Actually, it's quite common-- Amazon's search is just not very
comprehensive. Try from here:
(And I agree with Louie-- a great poem)
C. Wingate
Paul K Hubbard
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:bHQC6.1255$M51....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> How can a theologically traditional gay person find a home but in a
> liberal/leftist parish? The conservatives have no answer for this one.
The same way a catholic evangelical does. Don't ask; don't tell. No one
confronts me about my catholic evangelicalism and I don't advertise it.
Sometimes some broad-minded person engages me and if he wins my trust, I let
a few hints slip out.
r,
paul
louis
"Paul K Hubbard" <paulhu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TM6D6.1376$7a7.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
You already know the answer to this one: I'm tired of the closet. I don't
make a big deal about, but I don't hide it either. It just is, that's all.
louis
PS- What's a "catholic evangelical"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
louis
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 05:28:08 GMT, "louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >What exactly is the "ground of being" anyway. I've always wondered about
> >this. How does the "ground of being" comfort me when I am in pain,
despair,
> >or grief?
> >
> >I don't know about you, but I want a real living being for my God, not
some
> >philosopher's abstraction.
> >
> >louis
>
> Personally, I try to avoid the term 'ground of being' as much as
> possible. But I was discussing The fellows of The Jesus Seminar
> and others of the hist-crit school and many of them use the term.
> It's just a modern philosophical-theological term for God. Originally
> penned, i think by Paul Tillich. Anyway, its still a term pointing
> to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
>
I wonder why they use this term so much. Could it be a part of their program
to avoid the personal God of traditional understanding?
L
louis
My above answer deals with the "don't tell" half of your formula. However,
the first part - "don't ask" - also presents a problem. As we see in the
military, "don't ask" doesn't work either because people are curious about
one (esp when it comes to something as sensitive as this issue). In fact,
they will try to ferrit out information about you outright. People want
info about your personal life in a church, especially if you aren't married.
Women become attracted, and so on. I suppose I could attend services and
leave without saying a word, but I want to become part of the life of the
church, and this means letting people into ~my~ life. Sooner or later the
pressure becomes intense enough that one has to lie outright to keep this a
secret. It's not really like a philosophical position at all.
Perhaps you can understand, even a little, why I am so strongly opinionated
about this issue. Living a lie is a disgusting and impious way to exist. I'm
sick of it.
r,
Louis
Bruce K. Darling
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:bHQC6.1255$M51....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Sorry to have taken several days to reply. I've been working at break-neck
speed since before Easter to put together a HUGE proposal - which must go
out tonight, otherwise, I'll have to catch an early flight tomorrow to
deliver it myself. The way things are going, I'm sure I'll be on a
westbound flight tomorrow morning. Will write when I have a few minutes to
breathe.
Hope all is well with you.
Regards,
Bruce
Paul K Hubbard
Somewhat more enigmatic than a "theologically traditional gay person." If I
told you, I would have to come out of the closet myself. As a consolation,
the NT is big on performing our piety in closets.
r,
paul