Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 270 of 1324 (701002)
06-10-2013 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by ringo
06-07-2013 12:20 PM


GDR writes:
IMHO it is very clear that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote.
ringo writes:
Why does their belief have to be literally true? And why isn't it clear that the Old Testament writers believed what they wrote?
I see it this way. In many cases in the OT there what was written was an historical account where there was a specific political agenda at work, such as in Kings. In other cases it was a case of people, who may or may not have believed what they wrote but their understanding of God was through revelation filtered through their personal and cultural biases.
In the case of the NT they were being spoken to through a flesh and blood human being in Jesus who had His message confirmed as being directly from God as confirmed by His resurrection. That again does not mean that they got it all recorded perfectly but when it is read as a whole the message is clear and straight forward, and the one ting that it is clear that it all hangs on is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Faith writes:
It also depends on what "essence" means. The essence of Robinson Crusoe isn't that the character Robinson Crusoe actually existed. Why does the essence of the gospel have to be that Jesus existed? Why can't the essence of Genesis be that the world is 6000 years old?
There was never any claim that Robinson Crusoe was anything but fiction and nobody ever based their understanding of life on it. I would say that the essence of Genesis is that we are created beings and that there is a standard of behaviour that we should adhere to.
ringo writes:
I do accept the possibility of theistic beliefs. I also accept the possibility of nuclear fusion as an economical energy supply. I also accept the possibility of Bigfoot. What I don't accept is the reality of any of those things - beause there is no evidence at this time that any of those things exist. If evidence for any of them is discovered, I'll be glad to accept them.
The problem is that theistic believers tend to define any possible evidence out of existence: "God can not be detected by material means." You're condemning your belief to perpetually be a belief that can never become a fact.
There are any number of historical events that can't be proven as fact. but we believe them. Beliefs can be factual correct even if they can't be proven.
ringo writes:
Resurrection is also verifiable. If it can ignore the laws of nature, so can the flood.
How is resurrection verifiabl?. If a world-wide flood had occurred it could be proven by the geological record, even if the laws of nature had been broken to cause it.
ringo writes:
The flood account had to originate from eyewitness accounts too (unless it was inspired by God directly into Moses' brain). And eyewitness accounts are known to be the least reliable form of evidence.
Why are eyewitness accounts the least reliable. Sure you can have people argue about the details of an accident but they will all agree that an accident happened.
There probably is some basis of truth to the flood stories that as you know is in other ancient writings and it grew from there. We all have our beliefs.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 06-07-2013 12:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by ringo, posted 06-13-2013 12:56 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 271 of 1324 (701006)
06-10-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by onifre
06-08-2013 1:09 PM


onifre writes:
There's also the blatant plagiarism. The story of "Jesus" mimics the same story of a number of other gods.
Out of curiosity can you give me an example of where the resurrection in a new bodily form of Jesus would have been plagiarized from?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by onifre, posted 06-08-2013 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 3:30 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 273 of 1324 (701020)
06-10-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by onifre
06-10-2013 3:30 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
onifre writes:
Resurrections have a long history, especially in Egyptian mythology. The earliest that I've read about (there might be earlier one's) is Osiris pre-dating the story of Jesus by more than 2500 years.
Here is that quote in a broader context. It is clear that what they refer to as resurrection here quite different. From one thing it is essentially an unearthly event involving the gods. Also it is a renewal of life in the same form as before.
In Jesus we see a new kind of resurrection where His life form is similar and yet not so similar to what was before.
quote:
In one version of the myth, she used a spell learned from her father and brought him back to life so he could impregnate her. Afterwards he died again and she hid his body in the desert. Months later, she gave birth to Horus. While she raised Horus, Set was hunting one night and came across the body of Osiris.
Enraged, he tore the body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout the land. Isis gathered up all the parts of the body, less the phallus (which was eaten by a catfish) and bandaged them together for a proper burial. The gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and resurrected Osiris as the god of the underworld. Because of his death and resurrection, Osiris was associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and thus with the crops along the Nile valley.
Diodorus Siculus gives another version of the myth in which Osiris was described as an ancient king who taught the Egyptians the arts of civilization, including agriculture, then travelled the world with his sister Isis, the satyrs, and the nine muses, before finally returning to Egypt. Osiris was then murdered by his evil brother Typhon, who was identified with Set. Typhon divided the body into twenty-six pieces, which he distributed amongst his fellow conspirators in order to implicate them in the murder. Isis and Hercules (Horus) avenged the death of Osiris and slew Typhon. Isis recovered all the parts of Osiris' body, except the phallus, and secretly buried them. She made replicas of them and distributed them to several locations, which then became centres of Osiris worship
onifre writes:
Being that the Hebrews were the slaves of the Egyptians, one can see where the source of resurrections may have come from.
Certainly many but not all of the early Jews had a belief in resurrection but it was going to be for them at the end of time when they would all be resurrected simultaneously.
Here is what N T Wright says about the idea of resurrection at that time.
quote:
Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenets, the resurrection of the dead, was widely recognized as false--except, of course, by Judaism.
Jews believed in resurrection, Greeks believed in immortality. So I was taught many years ago. But like so many generalizations, this one isn’t even half true. There was a spectrum of beliefs about the afterlife in first-century Judaism, just as there was in the Greco-Roman world. The differences between these two sets of views and those that developed among the early Christians are startling. Let’s begin with the Greeks. Some Greeks (and Romans) thought death the complete end; most, however, envisaged a continuing, shadowy existence in Hades. Homer, for example, tells of a murky world full of witless, gibbering shadows that must drink sacrificial blood before they can think straight, let alone talk. For Homer, Hades was no fun[1]. The soul in Homer, though, was not the real person, the immortal element hidden inside a body, but rather the evanescent breath that escaped. The true self remained lifeless on the ground.
But there are happier variations on the theme. For Platonists, death’s release of the soul from its prison was cause for rejoicing. And even within Homer’s scheme, some heroes might conceivably make their way to the Elysian fields, to the Isles of the Blessed, or, in some very rare cases, to the abode of the gods themselves. Hercules, then the Hellenistic rulers and finally the Roman emperors were believed to follow this route. Mystery cults enabled initiates to enjoy a blessed state in the present, which would, it was hoped, continue after death.
All, however, were agreed: There was no resurrection. Death could not be reversed. Homer said it; Aeschylus and Sophocles seconded it. What’s it like down there? asks a man of his departed friend, in a third-century B.C.E. epigram. Very dark, comes the reply. Any way back up? It’s a lie!
In Greek thought, the living could establish contact with the dead through various forms of necromancy; they might even receive ghostly visitations. But neither experience amounts to what pagan writers themselves referred to as resurrection, or the return to life, which they all denied. Thus, Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenets, resurrection, was universally recognized as false.
Except, of course, in Judaism. Resurrection was a late arrival on the scene in classic biblical writing, however. Much of the Hebrew Bible assumes that the dead are in Sheol, which sometimes looks uncomfortably like Hades: The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence (Psalm 115:17). Clear statements of resurrection are extremely rare[2]. Daniel 12 is the most blatant, and remembered as such for centuries afterwards: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Daniel is, however, the latest book of the Hebrew Bible.
In the postbiblical period, the Jewish group known as the Sadducees famously denied the future life altogether. The Sadducees, according to the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, held that the soul perishes along with the body (18.16). Other Jews spoke, platonically, of a disembodied immortality; according to the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, at death the philosopher’s soul would assume a higher existence, immortal and uncreated.[3] Still others appear to display some kind of resurrection belief, as in Josephus and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over people, and the Lord will reign over them for ever (Wisdom of Solomon 3:7-8)[4]. The clearest statements of resurrection after Daniel 12, however, are found in 2 Maccabees, the Mishnah and the later rabbinic writings. In 2 Maccabees, a martyr on the verge of death puts out his tongue, stretches out his arms and declares: I got these from Heaven, and because of his Laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again (2 Maccabees 7:11). According to Mishnah 10.1, All Israelites have a share in the world to come; ... and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.
Remember, resurrection does not mean being raised to heaven or taken up in glory. Neither Elijah nor Enoch had been resurrected in the sense that Daniel, 2 Maccabees and the rabbis meant it; nor, for that matter, had anyone else. Resurrection will happen only to people who are already dead. To speak of the destruction of the body and the continuing existence, however blessed, of something else (call it a soul for the sake of argument) is not to speak of resurrection, but simply of death itself. Resurrection is not simply death from another viewpoint; it is the reversal of death, its cancellation, the destruction of its power. That is what pagans denied, and what Daniel, 2 Maccabees, the Pharisees and arguably most first-century C.E. Jews affirmed, justifying their belief by reference to the creator God and this God’s passion for eventual justice[5].
The doctrine remained, however, quite imprecise and unfocused. Josephus describes it, confusingly, in various incompatible ways. The rabbis discuss what, precisely, it will mean and how God will do it. Furthermore, the idea could be used metaphorically, particularly for the restoration of Israel after the Exile, as in Ezekiel 37, where the revived dry bones represent the House of Israel.
The early Christian hope for bodily resurrection is clearly Jewish in origin, there being no possible pagan antecedent. Here, however, there is no spectrum of opinion: Earliest Christianity simply believed in resurrection, that is, the overcoming of death by the justice bringing power of the creator God.
For early Christians, resurrection was seen to consist of passing death and out the other side into a new sort of bodily life. As Romans 8 shows, Paul clearly believed that God would give new life to the mortal bodies of Christians and indeed to the entire created world: If the Spirit of the God who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who lives in you (Romans 8:11). This is a radical mutation from within Jewish belief.
Resurrection hope (as one would expect from its Jewish roots) turned those who believed it into a counter-empire, an alternative society that knew the worst that tyrants could do and knew that the true God had the answer. But the Christians had an extra reason for this hope, a reason which, they would have said, explained their otherwise extraordinary focus on, and sharpening of, this particular Jewish belief. For the Christians believed that the Messiah had already been raised from the dead.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 3:30 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 4:45 PM GDR has replied
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 4:01 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 283 of 1324 (701043)
06-10-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by onifre
06-10-2013 4:45 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
onifre writes:
Yes, Christian mythology does change the details a bit. But it's a resurrection nonetheless.
They had, what, over 2500 years and loads of other resurrection stories to come up with their own?
Does that some how save it for you or make it unique?
Here is a quote that I used earlier from the book "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright.
quote:
I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things in human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on.
But I don’t think a materialist account of religion’s origin, history, and future — like the one I’m giving here — precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.
It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusionary.
My view is that God reached out to us through our hearts, minds and imaginations. The idea that there had been a foreshadowing of the idea of resurrection in other cultures is what I would expect to be the case.
There is a foreshadowing of Christ in the OT. The OT laws are a foreshadowing of the law of love as we see it in the teachings of Christ. Jesus says that by the God's Spirit we will be led in truth and so it seems to me that as the centuries roll by we should continue to gain a more focused view of God.
People continue to pour over the words of Jesus as we see them in the Gospels and we have individually discern what the truth of it all is. I think that Faith for example twists the Gospel message to fit her specific beliefs, but then she accuses me of exactly the same thing. It doesn't show that either of us is wrong, but if God does exist it is evidence that we do require discernment and my contention that it isn't a discernment applied strictly by reason but more importantly by the heart.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by onifre, posted 06-10-2013 4:45 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 11:05 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 286 of 1324 (701054)
06-10-2013 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
06-10-2013 11:05 PM


Re: Resurrecting History
Faith writes:
Thanks for that quote from Wright. A raving heretic if there ever was one. Yikes.
I really have to wonder if you actually read the quote. What did he say that was heretical ? He gave the historical background to belief about resurrection pre-Jesus and then in the last paragraph essentially stated that the Christian hope came from the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 11:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 1:39 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 290 of 1324 (701063)
06-11-2013 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
06-11-2013 1:39 AM


Re: Resurrecting History
OK. I had earlier quoted N T Wright, (post 273) who is often quoted by Christianity Today and is considered one of the top, if the not the finest Christian scholar and first century historian we have today. I assumed that is who you were referring to.
The quote that you used was Robert Wright (post 283) and I used him as an example of a secular writer, who makes no claim to be a Christian and who showed historically that our understanding of the nature of God continues to become more focused, whether or not God actually exists.
My point was if that is the case and if God does exist we should expect there to be foreshadowing of the resurrection in the mythologies of humans.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 1:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 291 of 1324 (701064)
06-11-2013 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by onifre
06-11-2013 1:56 AM


Re: murder versus justice
onifre writes:
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. What I am saying is that neither of you knows which one is right or wrong - if any of you is even right at all.
You're both placing faith on a group of people who you believe are right. There is no right or wrong.
I know you wrote this to Faith but I'd like to respond. On one level I don't know that I'm right but on another level I am convinced that I have a grasp of of a truth that is more than just what we directly perceive.
I'm sure some of the things I believe are wrong, but just as I don't believe the Bible to be inerrant I don't believe that my own beliefs are inerrant. There is ambiguity which is what we should expect if we are truly creatures with free will in an indeterminate world.
Much of what is fundamental to what I believe is apart from Christianity. Most of us would believe that treating others as you would like to be treated yourself is a good way to live.
The one key issue with Christianity is the basic question which asks whether Jesus is dead or alive. The Christian faith hangs completely on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I can't prove it although I still contend that the best explanation for the rise of the early church is that the resurrection is an historical fact. In the end though it is about faith.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by onifre, posted 06-11-2013 1:56 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 06-11-2013 1:57 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 295 of 1324 (701109)
06-11-2013 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
06-11-2013 4:01 AM


Re: N T Wright
Faith writes:
And, last thought, although what he says about resurrection being unique to Jewish religion and therefore to Christianity, is true, I have to ask what he says about Christ's death for our sins. That's the part you keep refusing to accept so does N T Wright also reject it?
I'm quite happy to agree that Christ died for the sins of the world. It's sorting out just exactly what that means that is not so easy. As far as Wright is concerned here is a web site with numerous lectures and interviews of his.
N T Wright

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 4:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 7:13 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 298 of 1324 (701113)
06-11-2013 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by onifre
06-11-2013 1:57 PM


Resurrection
onifre writes:
I don't doubt that you've found a way to be content with that analysis. Although history has detailed the rise of the RCC at the time, and it was about 200 years after the death of Jesus - if in fact the story of Jesus is real. The church's rise had nothing to do with a supposed miracle that happened two centuries before.
It is well cataloged how it came to power, and it was by the sword not the resurrection.
By early church I meant the first century after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In that period it was spread by anything but the sword. It was later on when Christianity became more mainstream that people perverted the Christian message and used it as a route to power and influence.
Here is the wiki account of Early Christianity.
GDR writes:
In the end though it is about faith.
onifre writes:
But in nothing more than a collection of men who wrote stories - and stories that were not unique and came down from the ages.
To a large degree that is true. In one sense the Bible is one book. It is a narrative of the story of God as understood by individuals at various points of human history. Here is a quote from C S Lewis.
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
I go back to Robert Wright’s book that I quoted earlier to you, written from his secular perspective that our view of the nature of God has continued to evolve over the centuries. I agree that the Bible is both personally and culturally conditioned by each of its many authors. In the Torah we get a largely authoritarian legalistic view of the nature of God. By the time we get to Isaiah we get a more loving God and the view that the one who will be anointed by Him will be a suffering servant.
If we just have the OT I agree that if read as Faith understands it we can understand God to be tyrannical but also woven through the accounts we can get a picture of God that is loving and forgiving. God speaks through the hearts and minds of humans but that view is often out of focus.
Then we come to Jesus who essentially says that He is speaking on God’s behalf. As John puts it in his Gospel, Jesus embodied the Word of God that has existed from the beginning of time. We are again dependent on men to accurately record what Jesus said and did. However if we agree that they didn’t record all of that perfectly we still have a clear picture of God’s nature of being one of love, mercy, forgiveness and justice and that he wants us to reflect His nature to the world.
When we read through the Gospels we can clearly see that this was all fine with His followers except that they still expected that at the end of the day that following Jesus as the messiah would be the route to power and glory. We see that He tried to tell them that this wasn’t how it worked but they had their own ideas of what a messiah would do. A messiah was supposed to rebuild the Temple and rule as King and we can see that His followers thought they were getting in on the ground floor.
Of course when Jesus was crucified that all came crashing down and their chief concern was to avoid suffering the same fate as Jesus had. I think that it is pretty obvious that if they were making the whole thing up they would hardly have put together an account that showed the disciples in such a bad light. However, it is IMHO pretty clear that something noteworthy happened that turned the whole thing around so that rather than being fearful they went out proclaiming that Christ had been resurrected.
In the Epistles we see Paul and others doing their theological best to understand what Jesus’ teaching, as vindicated by His resurrection, meant in light of the Jewish story and specifically for Paul in light of his background as a Pharisee.
So yes, I am largely dependent on the Biblical authors and I am also largely dependent on those who have continued since then to put together a coherent account of what God is doing and where we fit into that narrative. No one does it perfectly but the one thing that seems clear is that the God that I worship is a God who genuinely cares for all mankind and for all of creation for that matter. In addition I believe that we are called to reflect that care into the world. The resurrection of Jesus, which I believe is historical as per the NT accounts, confirms that view of God and at the same time tells us that we are part of a bigger plan that will see the resurrection of all creation at the end of time.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 06-11-2013 1:57 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by onifre, posted 06-12-2013 9:31 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 299 of 1324 (701114)
06-11-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by onifre
06-11-2013 1:57 PM


Re: murder versus justice
onifre writes:
How can you be conviced you have a grasp on the truth?
Sorry I finished that last post and realized that I hadn't answered this question.
I am actually convinced of the fundamental truth of my beliefs while at the same time knowing that there are aspects of what I believe that I'm not going to have right. The problem is of course I don't know which parts of what I believe are wrong.
I don't know that I am right in the same way I know the sky is blue but I do know that what I believe makes sense to me of the world that I experience. It is also more than just that however. The fundamental Christian message rings true in my heart and through my experiences of life.
The truth is always the truth whether there is clear objective evidence or not. We all believe something about why we're here and what if any meaning there is to our lives, and none of us can be sure that we have it right. Neither one of us can be sure about whether I am right or wrong and we are all just searching for that somewhat elusive truth.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 06-11-2013 1:57 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2013 3:44 AM GDR has replied
 Message 315 by onifre, posted 06-12-2013 9:39 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 300 of 1324 (701120)
06-11-2013 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Faith
06-11-2013 7:13 PM


Re: N T Wright
Faith writes:
I'll go bonkers if I have to try to find relevant passages in that morass of theological ponderings by Wright. I already slogged through one section on Justification. PLEASE, if you know what he said or where to find it point me to it. What does he say about Jesus' death to pay for the sins of believers, the blood of Christ, being born again etc.
The trouble is Faith, Wright doesn't speak in short sound bites. The questions you ask aren't just a matter of ticking off the right boxes to determine whether someone is a heretic tor not. The questions are actually complex and require a complex answer as everyone has their own idea of what exactly the questions mean in the first place.
Here is one quote that maybe will help you.
quote:
Our reading from Acts made it quite clear that in the earliest apostolic proclamation about Jesus of Nazareth his death and resurrection were directly linked to two promises, one about the future, and one about the present. These can be simply stated: the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead, and the resurrection demonstrates that he is the one in whose name forgiveness of sins can be had here and now. Now at first sight these two promises may seem somewhat arbitrary, and only somewhat loosely connected to Easter Day itself. But that again only shows how far we are off the mark. Easter Day is the moment when those great Psalms in the middle and late 90s come into their own, all about heaven and earth rejoicing, the sea thundering, the fields and the trees and the animals celebrating for joy, because YHWH is coming to judge the earth, to judge it with true justice and the nations with faithful equity. In other words, Easter is about the whole creation being set right at last, put back on track with the way it was supposed to be, and the way it had been longing to be. According to Paul, echoing Genesis of course, God intended that the created order should be governed by wise human beings reflecting God’s stewardly love into it. With human rebellion, this purpose was thwarted, and the earth brought forth thorns and thistles, not of its own will but because it had been subjected to futility against the day when humankind would be restored. Now, in the person of Jesus Christ, that restoration has happened; there is at last an obedient human being at the helm of the universe; and the heavens and the earth rejoice at the very thought. God’s judgment is the form that his mercy takes, when faced with a world out of joint.
It is from this sermon: Easter Sermon by N T Wright

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 06-11-2013 7:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 06-12-2013 1:57 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 301 of 1324 (701123)
06-11-2013 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
06-10-2013 5:02 PM


Re: murder versus justice
Faith writes:
All of today's evangelicals who haven't gone liberal, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley, all the Puritans such as John Owen, Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter and many others; A W Pink, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill. John MacArthur, R C Sproul, John Piper, Alister Begg, Alistair Grath,....
I was interested in this list of yours. I just finished a book by MacArthur and your views would align with his whereas I have considerable difficulty with his approach. I was interested though that you listed Alister McGrath. I have read several of his books and I wondered why you included him. McGrathe is not a fundamentalist.
Here is a video on Genesis that he is part of which does not hold to your way of understanding the creation story in Genesis.
Science and Genesis

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 06-10-2013 5:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 06-12-2013 1:40 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 316 of 1324 (701153)
06-12-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
06-12-2013 1:57 AM


Re: N T Wright
Faith writes:
Not in my experience. I hear a LOT of sermons, sometimes three or four a day because I usually turn on Christian radio while I'm in the kitchen cooking or eating, also listen to daily and weekly internet radio shows with a Christian worldview, and even sermons on select topics from sites like Sermon Audio.com., and all these sources very often repeat this very very basic teaching of the Protestant faith -- Jesus' death in our place to pay for our sins. All the speakers I appreciate agree quite solidly on that point, there is no question whatever about what it means.
So if it's a "complex" question requiring a "complex" answer to you that can only be because you deny the simple obvious traditional orthodox meaning of it, along with whoever you agree with such as N T Wright I suppose.
But the whole thing of dying for my sins means what? Didn't He die for the sins of the world, including Tangle, Onifre etc?
Also the death and resurrection was about establishing His Kingdom. Remember He told us to pray "the Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven". Wasn't He resurrected when He was as the opening act of the resurrection of all creation? Once again you simply bring Christianity down to be all about "me" and my salvation. Frankly it is such a shallow view of the Christian faith.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 06-12-2013 1:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 06-12-2013 3:52 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 06-12-2013 3:54 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 317 of 1324 (701157)
06-12-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Tangle
06-12-2013 3:44 AM


The meaning of life
Tangle writes:
You've missed a really important difference between the way believers think and the rest of us. We unbelievers do not think that there is a 'why we are here' thing to spend all our Sundays worrying about. We are not searching for an elusive truth - we know that there isn't one.
You may not spend a lot of time thinking about it consciously but everyone does think about it at one level or another. Everyone likes to think that they contribute something to the world that gives their life meaning. It might be through their kids, their job their volunteer work etc. In all of these various ways we look to give our life meaning in a way that has lasting relevance.
Tangle writes:
I just heard a Buddhist on the radio talking a complete pile of absolute twaddle about Karma. Given what you believe, you'd think it twaddle too. But it was written in his damn book so it was true and there's tens of thousands of writers with an opinion and explanation for it that they can quote. Just like you.
I may disagree with what others believe but I wouldn't label it twaddle. When there are large numbers of people who believe something over long periods of time then it is likely based on something real. In the case of Karma one of the aspects of it is that we reap what we sow. If our desires and our actions are based on what is good for others then that goodness will in turn be returned to us. It is essentially saying that a life based on the golden rule will ultimately be positive for the individual which has parallels in Christianity.
Tangle writes:
You have to understand that a God that dies for our sins is as utterly absurd as a force that balances good and evil based on our actions in the past and future. They're simply superstitious beliefs attempting to explain away the fundamental unfarenesses and pain of our lives.
That is the reason I have trouble just simply saying to Faith that Jesus died for my sins which is really just a way of dumbing down a much greater reality into something that we can put into our mental box and say - OK that's taken care of. I also don't believe that it is all based on our actions. IMHO it is based on what it is that motivates in life. Are we generally selfishly or unselfishly motivated?
I don't agree that my faith takes away the pain in life although I would agree that it does help deal with it, but I do believe specifically that it does answer the question of unfairness in this life. I do believe in an ultimate fair and perfect justice.
I've used this example before but I'll use it again. Twenty-two years ago a little boy named Michael Dunahee disappeared from a playground near where I live. There has been no trace of him since.
Whoever abducted him was never found. There has been no justice for the abductor, for Michael or for the family. Everyone would like to see some justice in this case but it is pretty certain that there won't be any in this life time. However even if the perpetrator had been apprehended we still couldn't have brought about perfect justice. Michael would likely have suffered abuse and death, the family would still be living a life-time of grief and the perpetrator would be in prison for life whether or not he had been abused as a child, had some mental illness or whatever.
Most of not all humans yearn for justice in this life and the fact that we have this yearning is an indication that such justice actually exists. Certainly it doesn't prove it but the fact that it is such a deep desire and the fact that we implement justice to the degree that we are able is again an indication that there is something more than just what we can do in this life.
Tangle writes:
It weird that these beliefs still have any hold, now that we know the reality of why our lives are limited in the way that they are; but that is the power of myth and the human desire to find a meaning amongst the meaningless.
The fact that we can differentiate between meaningful and meaningless is again an indication that there actually is meaning to life IMHO.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2013 3:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2013 12:33 PM GDR has replied
 Message 319 by Stile, posted 06-12-2013 1:38 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 320 of 1324 (701163)
06-12-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by onifre
06-12-2013 9:31 AM


Re: Resurrection
onifre writes:
Then you're not talking about a "church"...you speak of the small group that spread it around the poor and lower class, which eventually raised the concern of the government at the time. Communism worked in the same way in Cuba.
The point I was making that Christian belief spread rapidly in spite of having never gained any military or political power. It wasn't just the middle class. There were wealthier patrons and Paul himself wouldn't have been considered poor or lower class in Judean society.
onifre writes:
We can't be sure they understood anything. These accounts of the story of god are all quite similar to the stories the Greeks and Egyptians had. So if anything, it's a retelling of the same old stories with different names and a slight different twist.
Yes, that is my point. Our understanding of the nature of God evolved over time. As God continued to speak through people's hearts, minds and imaginations our understanding of His nature collectively became more focused.
onifre writes:
Then how can you be sure of any of it?
I can't be sure but I am convinced, just as you can't be sure I'm wrong but you seem convinced that I am.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by onifre, posted 06-12-2013 9:31 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by onifre, posted 06-13-2013 11:10 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024