Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Stile wrote I don't see it as much of a mystery.I only meant that in my mind theism is so congruent with my life and the world I live in, it is something of a mystery to me why others do not see it in the same way.However, I get your point and I even agree with it.

Hi PercyMy wife is familiar with Maynard but not DEC. She went to college is Salem. She was atheistic then but fortunately they did not burn her. smiley faceI think that Polkinghorne is referring to scientific study and that rational scientific minds anticipate the rationality of the universe.Percy wrote Yet you accept evolution. Can I assume you believe evolution was guided by God?I am prepared to accept various answers to this and I am ok with any of them.1 God set the evolutionary process in motion either at the time of the BB or at some point subsequent to then using random processes and natural laws that would give at least a high probability that ultimately creatures would evolve capable of sacrificial love. Part of that of course is the question of when consciousness became a reality.2 God began the evolutionary process and intervened at various points in the process in order to bring about a particular result and we may or may not be the end of that process. Maybe even human minds now play into the path of future evolution.3 A combination of 1 and 2 particularly as it concerns consciousness.I just accept evolution as it does not really play any role in my Christian beliefs. It does not matter to me what role God plays in it. It is only a matter of interest.As I have kept on repeating there are 2 aspects of my Christian faith that are fundamental for me. Firstly that God is a god of love, and that my primary vocation is to be a reflector of that love, realizing that although I believe that I am pretty pathetic when it comes to putting that belief into practice. The second is the bodily resurrection of Jesus into a renewed form of life.Percy wrote I have no objection to any faith-based beliefs. I only object to rationalizing that there is evidence for those faith-based beliefs. You've said several times that you accept on faith that there is evidence for your faith-based beliefs, and I can accept that too, but not when it's followed by an irrational leap that therefore there is scientific evidence. If it helps you to believe that the nature of the universe itself is "suggestive" then that's fine, too, but it's a starting point for seeking evidence and is not itself evidence.I think that we might have a different idea of how to understand evidence. I looked at different dictionary definitions. Some indicating that it is as used in a court of law and leads to a firm conclusion. Others talk about it meaning something that is helpful in forming a conclusion.I think the first is closer to what you are talking about in that anything that I would call evidence does not lead to any firm conclusion. The second is closer to what I mean in that it is helpful in forming a conclusion, but any conclusion is subjective and rational people will come to different conclusions.I am glad that we could agree on using suggestive, and I agree completely that it is only a starting point. smiley face

Faith wrote Since I'm here for the time being, I'll chime in that my father grew up on a farm not far from Calgary that his father, who had come from London, had homesteaded. My grandmother's family had come from Scotland to eastern Canada and went across Canada in a covered wagon to Alberta, where she met my grandfather.You come from good stock Faith. My grandfather emigrated from Kent England and homesteaded originally in the Nanton area in the foothills south of Calgary with his brother. He met his brothers wife who came out from Ontario and married her.I lived in Calgary until I was 10 but we moved around a lot in Alberta, and I wound up calling Medicine Hat my home town where I went through high school. It was a great place and time to be young.

Smiley face I meant his brothers wife's sister and married her.The name Medicine Hat came from an old native legend.Edited by GDR, : took twice to get it right

Hi PhatIf you want to get a balanced view from both sides I would recommend this book which is a debate between N T Wright and Marcus Borg.Amazon.comOr here is a you tube debate between Wright and Dom Crossanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEgCLv7i8uQ

Faith wrote Um, what "both sides" could you mean here? Exactly what sort of "balance" is Phat to find between a heretic and a heretic, between the heretic Wright and a revisionist in the case of Crossan or a "progressive" in the case of Borg? Eh? Of course Phat gravitates to the anti-traditional anyway -- I find it very hard to get through any of the writings of the heretics like Bart Ehrman myself -- and Phat's rejection of Bible inerrancy doesn't bode well for his ever choosing the traditional theology anyway... but hm, isn't the debate in question between that traditional view and any of the heretics, revisionists, progressives and etc.?GDR writes We definitely disagree about what a the traditional Christian view is. It is a good thing you were not around at the time of the reformation or we would still be buying indulgences.However, if our faith is so weak that we have to be afraid of reading the views of those who have different opinions then our faith is weak indeed.Borg and Crossan are roughly speaking in the same camp as Ehrman. From my own standpoint I have read them all and IMHO it showed how weak their positions were. Essentially they start from the standpoint that we know that scientific laws are absolutes so we know that resurrections do not happen. As a result any explanation for the accounts around Jesus such as the resurrection, no matter how far fetched, are better explanations than what the compilers of the Gospels wrote.NT or Tom Wright has, more than any one else, brought the historical Jesus into focus with his background as a theologian, as a first century historian and with his fluency in Greek, Latin etc. It seems to me that as Phat seems to be struggling with what to believe right now that he will always struggle until he hears the views of people who hold a variety of views.

OK I read the whole thing. People like yourself, Phil Johnson, Piper and others have taken the Calvin message and twisted it with a specific theology that is primarily held in the US. It is a theology that takes justification and makes it all about personal salvation.The primary focus for Johnson is personal salvation. Who is saved and who is not. Who is in and who is out. It goes further and essentially declares who is in and who is out.It downplays the whole Kingdom message that calls us to do the kingdom work of spreading the love, forgiveness, mercy etc to the world. He then claims that thinking along those lines is salvation by works, thus again not being able to get beyond his primary focus of who is in and who is not. He completely misses the point. We are called to that as a vocation.Personal salvation is a by product of that because when we do take that on as vocation our hearts are changed so that we take on the heart of God and have faith not in a specific doctrine, but faith and trust in the call of God that we should hold to a life that finds joy in sacrificial love.So much of your style of evangelism is about having formulations that provide absolute answers. The whole notion of penal substitution is so misconstrued by Johnson. To simply say that Jesus died for the sins of the world is not enough. Why do we have to worry about who is in and who is out. If it is for the world then it includes everyone. He died as an act of faith in answer to the Hebrew Scriptures, and through prayer, and trusting that the Father that He prayed to would somehow vindicate His life and message. God did that with His resurrection.

Faith wrote Wright is simply a heretic, period.GDR writes That is one of the characteristics of fundamentalism. You have to label people and have absolute answers as to who is in and who is out. A heretic in your books are those who disagree with your rigid theology. If I were to think that way it would be obvious that you are the heretic because you do not believe as I do. Interestingly enough, originally a heretic was someone who disagreed with Roman Catholic doctrine.You knock N T Wright as a heretic. He has written several books about Paul including one I am reading now simply called Paul and is over 1600 pages. I am working my way through and am at page 940. The point is that he just might have put more thought into understanding Paul than either you or Johnson.Faith wrote Justification IS "all about personal salvation," it's the Gospel, the Good News, "the power of God unto salvation to all who believe..." as Paul put it. If we aren't saved we aren't able to do anything of any value to the Kingdom of God.GDR writes Once again you turn Christianity on its ear by making personal salvation the point of it all. You make it a religion of selfishness. It becomes what is in it for me. You turn faith into a work. It is law based in that you have to give intellectual ascent to doctrine as you understand it.It goes back into the ancient Jewish thinking which was how do we get on the right side of Yahweh so that He will bless our nation. How can we get Yahweh to free us from our oppressors and give us dominion over our neighbouring tribes. At least they were thinking of their whole tribe, whereas you make it all about the self.You say that you hold true to reformation thinking. I would disagree but that is not the point. After the resurrection of Jesus the first Christians, and primarily Paul, were the first theologians working out what it all meant. The reformation came about as the Bible began to be translated into other languages and became accessible to a much larger audience and was not simply in the hands of the church. As a result the progressive revelation of God took a large leap forward.Since that time we have had numerous theologians and Christian thinkers continuing to advance our understanding. One of the big gains has occurred in the last century with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the internet there is so much more information available to Christian thinkers and so much more opportunity to hammer things out in debate. Our understanding of the first century Jewish world has grown enormously since the time of the reformation. There have been huge insights into how the Jewish audience that Jesus the Jew was addressing would have understood by what Jesus was saying and doing. The progressive revelation has taken, and is taking, another huge leap forward and you are still stuck in an offshoot of reformation theology scared silly about letting in any new light.

Faith wrote The Old Testament texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are just about exactly identical with our Old Testament text today, not in any way a change from that text.GDR writes You missed the point Faith. The point is that we gained considerable understanding of how to translate the Scriptures by uncovering all of the additional writing that was done in that era and then translating it.Faith wrote Not at all. A huge array of documents was available to the earliest theologians who hammered out the orthodox view and separated the wheat from the chaff, the truth from the heresies. Changes after that wree mostly refinements, nothing new, and anything actually new today really isn't, it's just old heresies recycled for an arrogant new set of "scholars."GDR writes However you accept the changes that came with the reformation. The point of the new perspective that is the reformation today is about going back to the original meanings of what was written and we are now better able to understand what was written and there is much greater ability to share thoughts and ideas.Faith wrote It's more like it nauseates me to see truth undermined. Scripture certainly shows a progressive revelation, but what that means is that more light is shed over time on the same facts and tenets that existed from the beginning. Nothing new in the sense of different from the first revelations is given, it's simply greater exposure of the depths and ramifications of the same truths. Dedicated exegetes may still find new depths, but they will never find anything that contradicts the "faith once given to the saints."GDR writes Frankly, to use your term, it nauseates me how someone like yourself can turn the God of love, forgiveness, mercy and sacrifice that we see embodied by Jesus, into a god that commits and commands genocides and advocates public stonings.That brand of Christianity is the worst heresy I can think of. It boils down to the fundamental sin of calling that which is evil good, and then attributing it to God.

GDR wrote ---- Frankly, to use your term, it nauseates me how someone like yourself can turn the God of love, forgiveness, mercy and sacrifice that we see embodied by Jesus, into a god that commits and commands genocides and advocates public stonings. That brand of Christianity is the worst heresy I can think of. It boils down to the fundamental sin of calling that which is evil good, and then attributing it to God.Faith writes ---- Nope, the God of love, and He really is love, did all those things because He is love, because His severe justice is love. And this is orthodox traditional Christianity while your fleshly wimp stuff is not.It is hard to know what to say to that. What you wrote speaks for itself and there really is not anything to add. It has more in common with ISIS than it does Christianity.

C'mon. We know Gollum was a fictional character. The Gospels were clearly meant to be understood as historical. Two of the compilers of the Gospels even make the statement that they are to be understood that way.You can argue that they made it all up for some unknown reason, or that they got it partly, or all wrong, but they are clearly written to be believed as historical.I don't get the point of simply stirring the pot in frivolous ways.

Any book that is written to represent historical truths can be considered to be evidence. We then judge books based on what ever else we might know about cultures, other written material etc. In the case of the Bible it is a collection of 66 books involving hundreds of authors and numerous translators. We all form our own beliefs of what to accept and what to reject.Religious texts are in a bit of a class of their own though, as they have had, and continue to have, a major impact on the world we live in. Books on the rise and fall of the Roman empire are interesting and might even give us food for thought for our lives today, they don't have the impact of the Quran or the Bible.

I am quite sure that there are historical accounts of the Viet Nam war in both Washington and Hanoi. I have a hunch that they won't be in full agreement even though they both present their view of historical accounts.All historical accounts are prone to human biases and motivations. When read years later we can form our subjective conclusions as to their accuracy. You are twisting the meaning of what I said. My point is simply that religious texts have a greater effect for good or evil today regardless of corroborating evidence.