Hello, and welcome to the Mr. Renaissance discussion forum. You can interact with others here and express your thoughts freely. If you came here in search of older entries prior to February 2006, they are archived here.
| Post New Topic Post A Reply | |
Jesus and the Ruckus about Other Religions |
printer friendly version next newest post | next oldest post |
| Author | Messages |
|
Nirethil
Private
Gender: Male
Location: Springfield Registered: Apr 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1 |
     
 Posted Thursday, July 13, 2006 @ 00:38 AM 
Eric, I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed this most recent post. Being a fellow philosophy student, I have also deeply struggled with the tendency (especially in American and British philosophy) to reduce every argument to the perfect logical formula and systematically “prove” with all “certainty” that one position indefatigably bests another. Of course, I wouldn’t be interested in philosophy if I did not see any value in logic; nevertheless, the point you make about the world not revolving around logic seems apropos. Interestingly enough, I was having a conversation with my mom recently about being open to new ways of thinking that do not exactly qualify as linear (she has begun to read Caputo’s book a little bit) when she made a great point: I was telling her that one of my biggest objections to the Western conception of God (for example, God as omnipotent and omniscient) is the problem of evil… not so much as it is expressed in the so called “logical” problem, but in the evidential problem. I can reconcile some level of suffering in this world with the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God, but the sheer amount of senseless suffering in the world (esp. in the 20th century) makes me rather uncomfortable with the Western (or should I say Greco-Roman?) vision of God, even more so when I read the stories of the victims of said atrocities (i.e. Elie Wiesel’s Night or Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning). Anyway, her point was this: If you’re so open to impossible and unexpected developments and solutions yet to come - even some which might be considered contradictory (logicians, please don’t kill me!) - why do you seem so sure of this position? Her point was well taken; even though I didn’t claim certainty in the issue of theodicy, I still seemed a little too sure (for my comfort) that no answer would reconcile with my humanity. All that to say, in matters of faith and philosophy, of religion and the history of ideas, I can only stand rationalism and logo-centrism for so long; it is possible to suck the life out of everything via argument… Personally, I eternally waver between faith of the likes of Kierkegaard (“life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"  ; the form of fundamentalism which casts all “intellectual” cares to the wind and really believes their brand of religion - manifesting their deep spirituality in dance and song; and the road of the post-modern agnostic (like Caputo in some ways) who, disinclined to believe in any religious system, stills finds value in religion (specifically Christianity of the inclusive variety) and, at the end of the day, even hopes - against all hope - that it is true.Needless to say, I appreciate what you say about Jesus. The enigmatic and indescribable Jesus is the one I have fallen in love with: the Jesus whose teachings have changed my life and continue to change it… even though I have myriad doubts and questions and prejudices (and the fact that I am not so crazy about many factions of his “church" ; the Jesus whose message welcomes such human conditions and uncertainties; the Jesus who - whether or not he even existed in the way recorded in the Gospels - has touched the hearts of millions upon millions, inspiring them to live better and to love much. This is the Jesus I know and love. This is the Jesus I have known and have loved and will continue to know and love, despite my schizophrenic tendencies (at times  ) and despite whether I regard him as the only means of salvation in this world.Let me step off my little soap box and ask a question of you (which is why I began to comment in the first place - gotta love humanties majors for their morbid verbosity!) , regarding the following paragraph: The question, for me, is: “Who is Jesus?” What does this mean when we say that Jesus is more important than all these other things? It seems to me that the Jesus who entrances me is personal. Yet He really does not seem to me to be that much like the Jesus I have heard talked about in church for this reason or that reason or this other reason, depending on which church and who was doing the talking. Maybe the fault was mine and I was running into a language barrier. Or maybe I just did not understand. What was the Jesus like that you heard about in many churches? How do you think of him differently now? In sum, I loved this newsletter (if you can’t tell already).  ~ Eryn --------------------
|
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Thursday, July 13, 2006 @ 08:24 AM
Eric, I liked this week’s newsletter a great deal, also. I have come to the point where I simply shrug at things like doctrine that don’t line up with the Jesus I know and love. I’m not a philosopher, but I do like things to make sense. There is much that doesn’t make sense - like the problem of evil - and I have yet to hear an explanation that satisfies me, but I don’t have the luxury of spending my life exploring the logic of things, so I must simply shrug them off. What I thought of as I skimmed through the newsletter this morning was the naysayers who think the gospel writers might have made Jesus up altogether, or made Him sound better than He was. I believe that a lot of mythological stories evolved in the early days. There were many that were discarded as not worth making the cut to be in the New Testament. But for what we do have, in light of the fact that so many people do admire Jesus, I wonder how mere men could have compiled just the right things to project onto Him. Mere men simply do not have the awesome wisdom He had/has that comes through the stories in the NT. The Jesus I see when I read my favorite gospel, Luke, I just don’t see being made up. And once again, the bottom line for me becomes simply the Jesus I know and love. Without the doctrine, or the apologetics, or the demands for believing this or that as it is so often force-fed to us. Without the baggage. He always did travel light. I like to, too. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Thursday, July 13, 2006 @ 02:18 PM
Thank you both for your replies. My comments to your first, Nirethil: I agree with what you say about logic. I too see value in logic, but I couldn’t very well make too much of it in an article that is trying to make the point it surely isn’t everything and is most assuredly not the pivot point from which the entire universe hinges even in the phenomenological realm. I think, as much as anything, that is why traditional apologetics (particularly of the Van Til type) leave me a little cold: they make too much of logic. They should have spent more time reading Kant and then spent a semester listening to all the Enlightenment heavyweights battle it out and see just how far they trust human beings with this so-called thing called logic. Logic certainly accords well with reality in principle and quite possibly is an actual facet of human understanding that forms an accurate correspondence when everything else is properly aligned. Unfortunately, we can rarely be assured that everything else is properly aligned, and thus in practice logic is often far from reliable.In answer to your question, to some degree that paragraph you cite is poetic license. Not that there is anything false about it, simply that over the years of writing I have learned to paint with slightly larger brushes and thus capture wider swathes of reality than I had even perhaps envisioned myself. By leaving such questions open ended, I invite the reader to fill in those questions, for the reader has undoubtedly seen his or her own representations of Jesus that did not accord with the Jesus he or she has come to know. In some ways, I suppose, this is inevitable on another level: my friend Tim and I were talking over coffee at the MudHouse last night and he was speaking of a sociology professor who has recently died: a man from Yale. Apparently, in a recent blog entry from Richard John Neuhaus (I guess it is pronounced like “new house”—he is the editor-in-chief of the excellent and predominantly (though not exclusively) Anglo-Catholic First Things Journal of Religion and Public Life), he cited this professor…. hold on, let me see if I can go look up the information…. be right back…. Okay, it wasn’t Neuhaus but the (apparently) quite new editor Joseph Bottum who wrote a short blurb at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=257 about the death of Jaroslav Pelikan on May 13, 2006, a historian from Yale, not a sociologist. That short blurb then links to a previously published article that goes into great depth about Pelikan and is undoubtedly the one Tim had in mind. I hope to read it very soon; it is found at http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5253. (Tim actually spoke about two different men, and I had them confused: the other professor who recently died was a Jewish sociologist named Philip Rieff who examined how the thrust of contemporary psychology and the emphasis on therapy may overshadow Orthodox Christian and Jewish teaching: I do not know if Rieff was tenured at Yale or elsewhere but the entry concerning him is found at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=300 and was written by Neuhaus, hence a secondary source of confusion on my part.) Now then, Pelikan was a historian at Yale and apparently an Orthodox believer; he apparently was known for his ability to dazzle students with his wide berth of knowledge and his spell-binding lectures. He (apparently—I have not read the article and may still be confusing some of what Tim shared with me) suggested that we can tell much about a given culture by their understanding of Jesus. Tim then brought in Rieff because of Rieff’s study of our current culture. In any case, I shared with Tim the quotation I excerpted recently on my own blog from Karl Barth, not about societies, but about individuals: “Tell me your Christology, and I will tell you who you are.” Tim’s suggestions really have sparked my interest, as he too has apparently been on a pursuit to uncover the historical Jesus, not as an academic novelty, but in a sincere desire to know his Lord better. A quick skim of the article about Pelikan—again http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5253 for easy retrieval—suggests that it might very well be worth the read. In any case, my reason for bringing this up is because to some degree our understanding of Jesus is always going to be personal because we are individual. To some degree my paragraph leaves room for that, because for one thing, every single human relationship that we share has its own dynamic. I believe it was my mother who once suggested that she related to each of us kids differently because just like any human relationships, our various personalities interacted with one another differently. Whether it was her statement or those like it, I have come to see that is very true: whether the other person be our friend, professor, son, daughter, husband, wife, or even Lord, the dynamics of the relationship we share are going to be as unique as the individuals sharing. To the degree that we truly have met the risen Christ, this is surely a positive and wholesome thing. Thus, no one else really could have told me who this Jesus was in this sense. But really, though I wanted to paint with larger strokes and did so quite intentionally, I actually had nothing more exotic in mind than the (perhaps deserved) ridicule we often hear of the idea that “Jesus is my best buddy,” usually leveled at the lyrics of contemporary praise and worship music. I am not sure that this quite fits; the more Scriptural “Friend that sticketh closer than a brother” is probably more accurate. And while I do think that Jesus is utterly pure (if He were not, I do not think He could offer much that a flesh and blood human being could not), I also feel a tremendous freedom in bringing to Him even the most lurid atrocities my mind is capable of conjuring. I can take to Him all that goes on inside this head of mine, the good things and the many X-rated and explicit things as well, and know that He accepts me unconditionally. So it is not really that “Jesus is my best bud” is entirely inaccurate, but words always get in the way. And I think that is really what I had in mind: Jesus is personal in a way that can’t be captured in words. If you will forgive my vulgarity for a moment, it would be something like sharing with the world an orgasm with your wife: it is highly personal and intimate and not the kind of thing that is anybody else’s business: not the kind of thing that can be precisely captured as a “one size fits all,” even though from a physiological stand-point, orgasms are probably all quite boringly similar. As I analyze my motivation for writing as I did, that is really it: I knew that anything more would get in the way of my ultimate point, so by leaving it open for interpretation, the imagination could sketch in details necessarily personal. And while what I wrote was intentional, I had hardly analyzed it to get this kind of richness out of it, though I certainly think that was the driving force. I guess when I write, I often have an impression in mind that I am traveling toward and just as one “lost” in an unfamiliar wood but knowing the general direction of his house naturally finds each step leading him closer to that destination, so too in writing do many of the stylistic devices and individual words naturally, often quite subconsciously, fall one after another toward the desired totality I hope to capture: an impression that itself is often somewhat subconscious. Enough of all of that! You hold nothing on me in terms of morbid verbosity! Karen: I do not think that the approach of simply trusting is a bad one at all. If our relationship with Jesus is to make any sense and have any true merit, it is necessarily personal. We can’t very well have any deep and true relationship with a mere abstraction, and as I have suggested in my comments to Nirethil, the dynamics in our relationship with Jesus will be personal because there is no one else exactly like ourselves and nobody else (thank God) quite like Jesus. I think you are right to ask how the teachings of Jesus as they are preserved in the New Testament can still carry so much power and meaning. In spite of my documented stance that the Bible as a whole is not inerrant, that does not mean that I do not think that it is true or that it does not have a lot of great wisdom and accurate detail. Different parts of the Bible meet with different reactions from careful scholarship and the Gospels and their cross-reference with the epistles are deemed quite generally accurate, though filtered through the perspective of the author who generally had his own agenda. (For example, the agenda of Luke, whose Gospel you say that you prefer, is said to have been to promote a more harmonious picture of the early church than what actually existed. Perhaps, if this account is accurate, Luke was a true son of God: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." So I do not think that maybe people who turn the spotlight of critical scholarship on the Bible are suggesting pure fabrication, but they are recognizing the limitations resultant from oral transmission, tumultuous history, and the various agendas (whether noble or otherwise) that all share as human beings. The bottom line is that people are imperfect and their results are not always 100% reliable. Remember what I wrote at the end of the newsletter about the pursuit of Western civilization being refined knowledge: that they want to take the ore of common sense that is basically reliable (but faulty because people are faulty) and extract from it something pure and infallible? Well, the same applies to historical studies. Certain well-meaning believers want to make the Bible just this sort of refined knowledge. But it isn’t. It is made of the stuff of earth and is basically reliable but not filled with this sort of exalted, inerrant knowledge that, as best as I can tell, does not exist in a human realm, because assuming that it did, the minute the first man or woman got his or her hands on it, it would no longer be inerrant anymore and would already be filtered through a very human lens. We are human beings but we expect, somehow, that our knowledge has to be better than human. --------------------
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Friday, July 14, 2006 @ 08:02 AM
I, too, enjoyed the latest newsletter. I wish I had time to read the “First Things” article, but, I don’t. Hope to get to it later. As for Jesus, I wonder if the qualities we revere in Him resonate so deeply in our hearts because they are the qualities of Goodness/God/Love? As children, didn’t we have a similar reaction to the “good” characters in fairy tales? Or, as adults, to the hero in the movie who risks his or her own life to help others? Is it the qualities of Jesus that really matter, or is it the qualities themselves which are important? Might not those “qualities of Spirit” BE God? I hope you understand that I’m not attempting to disparage Jesus. Obviously, He was a “God-filled” man….whether the literal Son of God, or not. I love Him, too, although not in the way that people who grew up with Him do. If you remember, I was raised in a secular home and never went to church. Here’s a great quote from Dostoevsky that sort of touches upon the subject…. “However bad we become, the cruelest and most mocking of us will not dare laugh inwardly at having been kind and good.” As for your rejections, Eric, I have a delightful Zen story to relate which I always remember when life doesn’t evolve according to plan. (or should I say “MY plan”…. ‘A farmer lived in the days when fighting was going on between small kingdoms in China. This farmer had a son. His son, with the aid of the horse, was tilling a small field. One day the horse ran away. The neighbors came and said, ‘It’s a very bad thing. You have such bad luck.’ The farmer said, ‘Maybe.’ So the next day the horse came back with half a dozen other wild horses. The neighbors came again and they said, ‘What tremendous luck.’ So he said, ‘Maybe.’ On the third day the son, while trying to ride one of the wild horses, fell and broke his leg. Again, the neighbors came and said what bad luck it was, and the farmer said, ‘Maybe.’ The next day the king’s people came to recruit strong healthy farmers into the army. When they found this farmer’s son with a broken leg they left him alone. So, again, the neighbors came and said it wasn’t such bad luck after all and that everything had turned out well. The farmer said, again, ‘Maybe.’’ Thanks again for a great newsletter. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Friday, July 14, 2006 @ 09:31 AM
Thanks for the Zen story. Your comments about Jesus and/or His qualities remind me very much of what initially prompted the newsletter, which has little to do with the First Things article (if for no other reason than because I myself have not yet read it—smile). What it had most to do with—and here is what I think will truly interest you though it will obviously have to be when you have more time—is at least the first two sections in the first of the “Unspoken Sermon” series by George MacDonald. You mention not growing up around Jesus: I have all my life and yet I do not believe I have ever heard anyone write quite like MacDonald or bring out some of the points he has. I can see why Lewis credits him with “baptizing” his imagination, not as I once did because of the emphasis on “imagination” but now much more so the emphasis on “baptism.” His writing is subtle and I attempted to find fault with it more than once only to read further and have him gently lay my objections to rest. In fact, it even took me a bit to get into my reading at all, but he snuck up on me. I do recommend it, particularly in light of your comments, but also because I think he must have been very wise: hence the emphasis on “baptism” more than “imagination”: as per the links in the newsletter: first published in 1867 and available online here; for purchase in book form here.--------------------
|
|
Eastern
Private
Gender: Male
Location: North Carolina Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 2 |
Posted Saturday, July 15, 2006 @ 07:37 PM
Hello Eric. I know that you are disappointed by what appears to be rejection by the universities to which you applied. I am not so sure that rejection by the “world” is not just an invitation by our Lord to “come aside and rest.” He often invited His disciples to do that during His (and their) busy ministry. Perhaps He saw too much interest on your part in the wisdom of this world. I know the attraction. I am also deeply interested in Philosophy and Theology and the deep waters that they appear to be. I am also impressed by education and strings of letters behind names. But what I have found by trying to pursue these interests is that, like you found, they begin to be so much straw. An attempt to make the knowledge of Him something for the elite. I think I’m attempting to be a gnostic of some sort (welcome to my world, by invitation only). God impressed on me several years ago that a right relationship with Him is most clearly seen in the relationships found in a loving family. I don’t need a book to tell me how to relate to my parents or siblings. I don’t need a theologian or philosopher to tell me how to relate to my Heavenly Father. Just as my earthly parents sacrificed to care and provide for me, so my Heavenly Father sacrificed to care and provide for me (“sparing not His only Son" I suppose that the intellectual approach is seductive, but I’m not so sure that the love of God and our relationship to Him and to His Son is all that complicated. Don’t misunderstand, our mental abilities are a gift from God, but they should, perhaps, be used to explain the simplicity of the Gospel, not to wrap it in terms that hide it from those who would come in the simplicity of a childlike faith.God Bless!! Rest, pray, look up; He does love you! Bill |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Saturday, July 15, 2006 @ 10:32 PM
Hello Bill. Thanks for posting your thoughts here. I think that what you say is really quite wise and I had to smile at your parenthetical comment of “welcome to my world, by invitation only.” I suppose the thing we really seek is this elusive happiness and the reason why we complicate matters of faith as we tend to do is because we hope that by so doing, we will be esteemed by others and thus our happiness will grow. Do you think we would pursue matters of faith in the way we do if we were the only human being left alive on the planet? But that is not the element that most inspires me in your comment, as you likely know. What inspires me is the encouragement to pursue this childlike faith as well as the reminder that a loving family provides a telling model of our Heavenly Father. In fact, I was thinking about it today off and on for some reason—I think I was reading something today that sparked my thought, though I cannot remember what—that throughout the course of human history, there have been many attempts of people to do the right thing and to find the right answer. I was thinking of how life must have looked through the eyes of Jewish rabbis, believing themselves chosen of God to pursue and uphold the Torah. Rather than being concerned with an examination and analysis of the world in the same way the Greek philosophers—teachers in their own right within their own culture—they were content to take it on faith that the Torah had been delivered by God and to uphold his commandments. I thought to myself how many of these Jewish teachers with their white beards and flowing prayer shawls would have seemed to many of us: legalistic comes to mind, among other terms we might apply to them. It has come to my attention that Jesus, in order to be known as a rabbi, had to do more than just go around teaching. He had to be formally part of the religious system. Whether he actually received the bulk of his inspiration from the Torah or directly from his Heavenly Father, in order to be allowed to teach in the Synagogue, he had to have been recognized by the Jewish authorities. A friend—an Anglican priest to be precise—was telling me the other day of the requirements for being a rabbi in Israel, though I fail to remember all that he mentioned now as he called just as another friend stopped by, and thus neither was able to get my full attention until I hung up the phone to call back at a more opportune time (and alas, upon calling back, we talked about other matters and never revisited the subject). Now that I seem to have several balls up in the air all at once, let me return to the first before continuing the second rather than attempting to juggle. I thought that these Jewish rabbis would have seemed very foreign to us in many ways, no doubt. Their standard of truth was different from our own; they thought of themselves as not only God’s chosen but the very guardians of the Law and the Torah. These were not the binding obligations our post-Reformation minds tend to conjure, but were instead seen as a Divine blessing that God would entrust them with his most holy covenant. They were to be a light to the nations and God would raise up in their midst a Messiah some day who would bring completion and usher in a new reign. At least some of the Jews believed this, perhaps most notably the Pharisees. The Pharisees have received a very bad rap because of the fact scripture records Jesus as tangling with them on occasion. However, the picture that we have formed from this in the popular imagination of the church is probably not an accurate. In all likelihood, in fact, Jesus was a Pharisee himself. As I have been reading the excellent The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity by the Lutheran minister Jeffery J. Bütz, I have been really struck. By Bütz’s own admission, much of this quest to uncover more of the historical Jesus challenged all that he held dear and orthodox and caused him a tremendous struggle, perhaps even more so with his strong Lutheran persuasion. The hero of the book, as we might have guessed, is James, the brother of Jesus, who Bütz is arguing was actually the first bishop (and not Peter as has traditionally been taught, with a recognition, of course, that the word “bishop” is anachronistic). Specifically, that James was the first bishop in Jerusalem and held that position before the Lord was crucified. In fact, not only that James was the first bishop, but that the entire family of Jesus was not antagonistic toward his ministry: Jesus’ family, in spite of occasional disagreements as in common in any family, were nevertheless supporters and followers of his ministry. Bütz lays a very careful framework, drawing from the biblical text wherever possible and bringing in the support of Josephus and other historical texts to affirm his arguments.  So far so good, I hope; even if you are inclined to disagree, hopefully I have done an adequate job in laying the exposition, and you have been able to follow me thus far. Bütz goes on to suggest that Jesus’ thought and teaching most closely aligned with the Pharisees and that he almost certainly was a member of their “sect,” as was his brother James. Again, each of these arguments has been built with strong scriptural support and historical support as well: we are talking about an ordained Lutheran minister who has no great desire to break from tradition. In his own words:Quote: My research into James’s understanding of the Jewish law has impelled me, as a Lutheran pastor, to come to grips with the question of where Jesus would have stood in the debate over the Law in the early church. Frankly, I have been swayed by the evidence to believe that Jesus was much more Law-oriented than most Protestants (and Lutherans especially) have ever realized. I have come to harbor a strong suspicion that Protestantism may have carried the doctrine of sola fide [“faith alone”] to an extreme that Jesus himself would not have advocated. Before I go on, let me say that my Jewish professor Dr. Kaufman has also been invaluable in helping me understand that Jews do not see themselves in the same light they are often cast in by (in particular) Protestant Christianity. Dr. Kaufman gave a lecture recently in which he said some rather reactionary things about Paul (suggesting a misunderstanding on his part of what the Apostle meant in his writings), and in the Q & A afterward, a lot of revealing things surfaced. One woman in particular, a very articulate and grace-filled representative of Christianity, challenged him. She was, as I suggested, gracious, yet also well schooled, and I could tell that he appreciated both. Knowing Dr. Kaufman, I would not be surprised if her probe did not inspire a change in his scholarship as he listens both to his students as well as the responses he receives when presenting public lectures. In any case, the Jewish people still see themselves as being a light to the Gentile (quote unquote as Dr. Kaufman was careful to note) nations. There were effectively two covenants that they observe, and I forget the proper names of each, but the first was that of Noah that is binding for all persons and consists of basic morality and goodness. The second was that of Moses, which was expressly for the people-group known as the Hebrews, and it was because God chose them to be set apart. Dr. Kaufman struggles with this idea of being God’s chosen, pointing to the numerous atrocities throughout the centuries that have been enacted on the Jews including the worst during the 20th Century that Nirethil cites in our opening post: thinking in particular of much of 20th Century history, Kaufman asks, especially as a Jew: “Where was God?” For the Jew, according to Dr. Kaufman, “salvation” is not limited only to the Jews, but is brought about by the Jews and will result in a renewed earth. We are coworkers with God, fellow participants in his plan to work out a world that has not fully been finished. When we chose to do evil, we partially undo what has been done, when we do good, we work in concert with God and his plans. This picture is much different than that of the oppressive Law bearing down upon the back of the Jew who cannot possible stand beneath it. In any case, let us again return to Bütz: Quote: THE CIRCUMCISION QUESTION Succeeding verses of Galatians 2 explain that there was more to Paul’s visit than simply seeking approval for his mission to the Gentiles—namely, addressing the crucial question of whether his Gentile converts needed to be circumcised in order to become Christians. That Paul needed to confer with the leadership in Jerusalem over this question speaks volumes. It shows that Paul was questioning a widely held assumption that Gentile converts were in fact required to undergo circumcision—in essence, to become a Jew—in order to follow Christ. This requirement makes sense when we remind ourselves that at this point Christianity was a Jewish phenomenon. It was not yet a separate and distinct religion, but rather a sect of Judaism. At this early time, the only thing that distinguished Jesus’ followers from any other Jews was their belief that, in Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah of Israel had arrived. Originally, they were not even called Christians, but “Nazarenes” (see Acts 24:5), the implications of which we shall discuss later. Acts attests clearly to their continued regular attendance at the services of the Temple and the goodwill they had from their fellow Jews, demonstrating that the disciples’ faith and practice remained thoroughly Jewish: [the author then cites Acts 2:44–47] The Jewish scholar, Hyam Maccoby, has pointed out some fascinating implications [in The Mythmaker: Paul And the Invention Of Christianity] of the fact that the disciples continued to worship in the Temple in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Temple that had been the central focus of Jewish religious life since the days of King Solomon: The book of Acts does not disguise the fact that the Nazarenes of Jerusalem, in the days immediately following the death of Jesus, consisted of observant Jews, for whom the Torah was still in force. For example, we are told that ‘they kept up their daily attendance at the Temple’ (Acts 2:46). Evidently, then, Jesus’ followers regarded the services of the Temple as still valid, with its meat and vegetable offerings, its Holy of Holies, its golden table for the showbread, and its menorah or candelabra with its seven branches symbolizing the seven planets. All these were venerated by the followers of Jesus, who made no effort to set up a central place of worship of their own. …Also, their acceptance of Temple worship implied an acceptance of the Aaronic priesthood who administered the Temple. Though Jesus’ movement had a system of leadership of its own, this was not a rival priesthood. Maccoby’s stark conclusion is not often considered by Christian scholars for obvious reasons. Until only very recently, Christian scholarship instead viewed Christianity as representing a complete and total break with Judaism from the time of Jesus’ death [a supporting footnote referenced here reads: “This precept has been supported by statements in the gospels such as Matthew 27:50–51: ‘Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.’]; whereas, in fact, Christianity became distinct from Judaism through a slow and gradual process, a process that has been accurately described by James Dunn in enlightening volume, The Partings of the Ways. In the eyes of Jesus’ original Jewish followers, any Gentile who wanted to become a follower of Jesus was, in fact, becoming a follower of Judaism. But as Paul’s evangelism brought in ever-larger numbers of Gentile converts, the issue of just how far these converts had to go in order to become followers became very difficult…. (67–69) On page 81 Bütz also writes: “Indeed, Acts itself says that Jesus’ followers were not called “Christians” for many years after Jesus’ death: “and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’” (Acts 11:26). Before this they were sometimes called “Nazarenes,” a designation with important ramifications which we shall examine later.” Let’s look at what Bütz has to say in support of Jesus and his brother James being of the Pharisee tradition and then we’ll tie our rambles together: Quote: In truth, it should not really surprise us that James could have been a prominent Pharisee. One of the few reliable outcomes of current historical Jesus scholarship has been the increased awareness that Jesus and the Pharisees were not the stalwart enemies that tradition pictured them as being (as is exemplified in the work of E. P. Sanders and Geza Vermes). Rather, Jesus and the Pharisees were like-minded rabbis arguing fine points of legal interpretation. And let us not forget that Jesus was indeed a rabbi. The most common title by which he is addressed in the gospels is “teacher,” which is a direct translation of the Aramaic word Rabbouni (Rabbi) in the Greek New Testament. Already in the 1960s, an early James investigator by the name of Kenneth Carroll anticipated this growing trend in modern scholarship and saw its implications for James. Writing in 1961, Carroll’s words could just as easily have been written last year: One of the great achievements of modern scholarship has been the establishment of the Pharisees as a group worthy of respect. Jesus was much closer to the Pharisees than to any other group in Jewish religious life. They represented the best in Judaism. Yet, at certain points, the Gospels show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees. Only in one or two instances does Jesus clearly criticize the Pharisaic interpretation of scripture. In other cases he simply goes farther in the extension of privilege. Most of the Christian scholars who have worked on this problem … have suggested that Jesus was not attacking the Pharisees as a whole (since his own ethical and religious beliefs were almost wholly in agreement with theirs), but that he was attacking those Pharisees who took advantage of their position of authority to exploit or suppress the Jewish masses. Some of the scholars … have suggested that the authors of the Gospels were more hostile to the Pharisees than Jesus himself was—so that our canonical Gospels possess a bias against this religious group. Of James’s relation to the Pharisees, Carroll starkly concludes: “James … was a Christian Pharisee.” In fact, we would do well to consider whether both Jesus and James were Pharisees. Pharisaism is certainly the Jewish school of thought that lies closest to the teaching of Jesus, and it is important to keep in mind that the Pharisees were not a monolithic party. There were both liberal Pharisees (as exemplified by the school of Rabbi Hillel) and conservative Pharisees (exemplified by the school of Rabbi Shammai). Rabbis Hillel and Shammai both lived into the early decades of the first century, so it is quite possible that Jesus could have come under the influence of Hillel, and James could have fallen in with Shammai. The difference between the two schools has been summarized in a classic rabbinical anecdote. The story goes that a Gentile asked the temperamental and strict Shammai to sum up the Torah “while standing on one foot”: Appalled that anyone could be simple enough to imagine that the profundities of the Mosaic revelation could be articulated in a single phrase, Shammai sent the Gentile packing. Undaunted, the Gentile then went to Hillel with the same question. Taking the man’s inquiry as sincere, Hillel is said to have replied: “Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to yourself. That is the entire Torah. All the rest is commentary.” It is interesting that, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus is also challenged to sum up the Law by a group of Pharisees (Matt. 22:34–40) and responds with a very similar answer: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” We should remember, too, that despite his well-known disagreements with the Pharisees, Jesus was friendly with many. It was while dining in the home of a Pharisee that a woman famously anoints Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36–49). Luke also records that it was a group of Pharisees who saved Jesus’ life by tipping him off that Herod was seeking to kill him (13:31). On all major matters, Jesus and the Pharisees were in agreement. Unlike the Sadducees, Jesus and the Pharisees believed in the imminent eschaton (the end of the present age) and a final judgment; they believed in the resurrection of the dead and in the existence of angels and demons—all of which the Sadducees denied. Let us also not forget that Paul had been a Pharisee and had studied under the famous Pharisaic teacher, Gamaliel. It is intriguing that Acts records how Gamaliel defended and protected the early Jesus movement in Jerusalem (see Acts 5:33–39). Finally, let us not forget that Matthew’s gospel paints Jesus as virtually a spokesman for Pharisaism. Listen to Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:17–20) A more stirring defense of the Pharisees would be hard to find! Clearly, if one can remove the blinders of twenty centuries of Pauline influence, and some five centuries of Lutheran influence, the differences between Jesus and the Pharisees are few. (96–99) Perhaps the first thing to notice here is that if Jesus and his followers saw themselves as being thoroughly Jewish (whether Pharisees or not), that in and of itself eliminates a lot of the baggage some 2,000 years of Western Christianity has effected. Think of the number of doctrines and teachings that this recognition affects—all those things we have been taught to hold dear that are well nigh essential to salvation that would have probably seemed very foreign to Jesus, the very one we are most concerned with as Christians. The number of articles affected in this way are numerous and they cut across the various denominations from top to bottom. Now consider that a Jewish rabbi would not have been especially taken with the Greek mindset of analyzing everything to death. Knowledge was not so much rational for the Jewish mind as revelational, a gift given to Moses by God and preserved through his guardians the Jews and attested to by the God-fearers (mainly Gentiles who had converted). For the Jewish rabbi, there was not the disconnect between the things of earth and the things above, a conception quite different than Plato’s divided line [see * below] drawn some four centuries earlier that we see in the latter’s Republic where the realm of pure intellection reigns supreme. (Should it surprise us that virtually all forms of mysticism can be characterized as neoPlatonic? For Plato, we have the material realm but then we have the higher realm as well, a source of inspiration for countless poets and others throughout the ages but quite different than rabbi Jesus must have conceived his world.) The Jewish rabbis could be as guilty as anyone of convolution, but the many stories and illustrations that are handed down to us suggest a certain form of teaching: namely that of the parable. The parable is drawn from the stuff of the earth and reminds me very much, Bill, of your mentioning that you believe God once showed you that his love for the world could be seen modeled in the love shared by a close and committed family. For the Jewish rabbis—and this again reminds me of something I believe I have recently been reading but I cannot unearth it now—the earth and the sky were filled with the wonder of God. They could be overbearing and legalistic by our standards I am certain. But in that overbearance and legalism is generally what we find still today when those elements are present: a level of deference and respect for what at least are considered to be the things of God. So then, I am very inclined to think that the Kingdom of Heaven is nearer at hand than any of us know; perhaps as close as our own heartbeat or the blade of grass that dances in the wind. So much that we hold dear might have very little to do with our Lord is so many more ways than one. And I do not think that any little child is ever turned away empty handed. * Endnote 39 regarding Book VI of the Republic from Allan Bloom’s translation of the same, pages 464–465: Quote: The word is eikasia, derived from the verb meaning “to make an image.” “Imagination” was chosen in order to preserve its relation to “image” (eikōn), which plays such an important role in the Republic and on all levels of the divided line. The importance of this faculty would be obscured if connection were not obvious. For the best discussion of eikasia, and a divided line as a whole, cf. Jacob Klein, A Commentary on Plato’s Meno (University of North Carolina Press, 1965), pp. 115 ff. The divided line looks something like this:  The second and third sections are equal (Klein, p. 119, note 27). The way it is stated, it is impossible to know whether the highest or lowest is larger. --------------------
|
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 01:06 PM
Wow, Eric, two newsletters for the price of one! I enjoyed Sarah’s reminder of that story which I have heard once or twice before and thoroughly enjoyed being reminded of. And Eric, I also thoroughly enjoyed your “second newsletter” in the form of your reply to Bill. What can I say? It stimulates my gray cells and wakens them again to the quest for the true Jesus. I’ll have to bookmark this page so I have reference to the links!
|
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 09:24 PM
Thanks Karen! The article about Pelikan really did not interest me personally as much as I had hoped. There were elements to it that I took away—such as that the American church as whole tends to be rather anti-historical and that this tendency curbs its ability to look at matters of doctrinal development as lucidly as it could. As a whole, however, it was mainly an overview of the intense work that Pelikan has put together on church history: he has apparently devoted his life to putting together a massive encyclopedic set of tomes on the topic and while that is certainly commendable—and while I applaud his choice of giving a lot of air time to John Henry Newman—nevertheless, it did not make as interesting reading for me personally as I had hoped. However, perhaps as one still basking in the newness of the Episcopal Church (solidly grounded locally however tumultuous on the international scene with the Anglican Communion), I have enjoyed the June 26, 2006, “On the Square” concerning the author’s first-hand reflections on, not the Episcopal Church, but the Lutheran Church. (You may well know that both of these traditions are old-school denominations in America and both—along with the Methodists—have faced recent councils over matters of human sexuality and the social gospel.) I find myself agreeing with many similar sentiments, such as: Quote: I left my Lutheran high school a self-proclaimed atheist. I say self-proclaimed because I don’t think a real atheist would have accepted me as one of his clan. I simply was not capable of maintaining the blind faith necessary to juggle all those contradictory ideas and unanswered questions (“Why is there something rather than nothing?”). Nor was I strong enough to keep sawing off the epistemological branch I was sitting on. (“There are no absolutes for apes whose brains simply grew too big.” “Are you certain?” “Absolutely!”) And: Quote: But deeper reading in Jonathan Edwards, Cornelius Van Til, and the Puritans began to shake not only that assurance of salvation that is the hallmark of evangelical religion but also my understanding of the nature of the God who did the saving. It became evident that there was a disconnect between the sermons I was hearing and what I was reading from the theological sources. On Sundays we were told that we were worse than we could ever believe but also more loved than we could imagine. This moved and reassured many in that considerable congregation, but it seemed to me to contradict Reformed theology. Some of those in attendance, surely, were loved more than they imagined. Those some were the elect, whose salvation was a given even before they came to faith—this to show forth God’s grace and the truly gratuitous nature of that salvation. The rest of the crowd were destined for the other place, and had been brought into this world for that very purpose—this to show forth God’s justice in judging sin. Christ died not for sinners—that is, for every last one of us—but only for the elect. What did this say about His assumption of human nature, His role as the second Adam? Were those not elected less than human? This latter paragraph was not so much my own experience as one of the “in-house” criticisms I have always harbored toward Reformed theology and the reason why I have never found it within myself to adopt it, however much I do value some of its other tenets. And lastly (or else I may just as well paste the entire article here and have it over and done with—smile) I will cite just a part of a later paragraph here: Quote: … In the American religious estate are many mansions, including rooms for free-form, pastor-driven seeker and emerging assemblies. They have a role in bringing the unchurched and the anti-church back to some semblance of corporate worship. But we are not them. He is here, of course, speaking about his Lutheran heritage and how he is bemused at the direction this venerable tradition seems to be headed in recent years. The same, of course, could be said of the Anglican tradition that I have only recently gained intimacy with. A subscriber, himself an Orthodox priest and hermit who is apparently from England but now resides in South Africa, sent the article Anglicanism at the Crossroads along to me, which I found more interesting than I realized I did as some of its ideas began to worm themselves around in my thoughts. For example, Sara, I know that you have commented on the apparent need for Christianity to reinvent itself because it appears to be losing relevancy with our culture. I have argued in turn that it needs to remember its traditional roots. Perhaps we have not really been in any disagreement at all, however mild. In any case, particularly in light of that thought, I found this part of the article mentioned above of interest: Quote: Liberal Christianity was hailed as the future of the Christian Church, but Allen observed, all the churches and movements within churches that have “blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.” “When a church doesn’t take itself seriously, neither do its members” argued Allen. As recently as 1960 churches such as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today the number has plummeted to around 12%. Allen cited data from the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, showing that in 1965 there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. Her comments echoed the thesis of the book, “Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity,” (Sentinel) published last year. According to author Dave Shiflett, Americans are leaving liberal denominations for churches that preach strict moral norms and uphold traditional beliefs. Liberal theologians and bishops get plenty of media coverage, observes Shiflett. But the average churchgoer wants to attend a church where they can get something not obtainable elsewhere, which doesn’t include trendy opinions on current topics. “They want the Good News, not the minister’s political views or intellectual coaching.” There is more to the article of course, and I have cited a fairly substantial portion of the closing paragraphs. But that does interest me, at least, whether it does anyone else or not. I really think the reason amounts to this: there is just something about Jesus that is not going to go away. I am inclined to agree with Frederica Mathewes-Green on the matter: Quote: The reason everybody can’t stop talking about Jesus, the reason we instinctively respond to him with respect and love, is because he is still alive. When we get tired of arguing about creeds and Mary Magdalene’s bones, in the silence of the night we will still sense that presence. It is beating in the great heart of the universe, and in our own cramped and selfish hearts. And this stirs us with longing and hope. --------------------
|
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 11:10 PM
The trancendental, universal, and objective nature of logic is binding by all. It is an outpouring of the nature of God. Quote: Originally posted by Nirethil Interestingly enough, I was having a conversation with my mom recently about being open to new ways of thinking that do not exactly qualify as linear (she has begun to read Caputo’s book a little bit) when she made a great point: I was telling her that one of my biggest objections to the Western conception of God (for example, God as omnipotent and omniscient) is the problem of evil… not so much as it is expressed in the so called “logical” problem, but in the evidential problem. I can reconcile some level of suffering in this world with the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God, but the sheer amount of senseless suffering in the world (esp. in the 20th century) makes me rather uncomfortable with the Western (or should I say Greco-Roman?) vision of God, even more so when I read the stories of the victims of said atrocities. The “problem” of Evil? Quote: Originally posted by Nirethil All that to say, in matters of faith and philosophy, of religion and the history of ideas, I can only stand rationalism and logo-centrism for so long; it is possible to suck the life out of everything via argument… Personally, I eternally waver between faith of the likes of Kierkegaard (“life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced" ; the form of fundamentalism which casts all “intellectual” cares to the wind and really believes their brand of religion - manifesting their deep spirituality in dance and song; and the road of the post-modern agnostic (like Caputo in some ways) who, disinclined to believe in any religious system, stills finds value in religion (specifically Christianity of the inclusive variety) and, at the end of the day, even hopes - against all hope - that it is true.What is Value? Quote: Originally posted by NirethilNeedless to say, I appreciate what you say about Jesus. The enigmatic and indescribable Jesus is the one I have fallen in love with: the Jesus whose teachings have changed my life and continue to change it… even though I have myriad doubts and questions and prejudices (and the fact that I am not so crazy about many factions of his “church" ; the Jesus whose message welcomes such human conditions and uncertainties; the Jesus who - whether or not he even existed in the way recorded in the Gospels - has touched the hearts of millions upon millions, inspiring them to live better and to love much. This is the Jesus I know and love. This is the Jesus I have known and have loved and will continue to know and love, despite my schizophrenic tendencies (at times ) and despite whether I regard him as the only means of salvation in this world.If it is in fact true that Christianity is false how can you love a *man* who lied to all? John 14: 6 is quite clear. Let’s use some logic (oh no!) here: If in fact there are many ways to salvation, and Jesus claimed to be the only way, a contradiction results. They cannot both be true or else a violation of the law of non-contradiction results. What is salvation? |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 11:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by karen I have come to the point where I simply shrug at things like doctrine that don’t line up with the Jesus I know and love. I’m not a philosopher, but I do like things to make sense. There is much that doesn’t make sense - like the problem of evil - and I have yet to hear an explanation that satisfies me, but I don’t have the luxury of spending my life exploring the logic of things, so I must simply shrug them off. Have any specific examples? If they are true would you still reject them? Eric you should have a newsletter dealing with the “problem” of evil (that is unless you have already done so). Quote: Originally posted by karen I believe that a lot of mythological stories evolved in the early days. There were many that were discarded as not worth making the cut to be in the New Testament. But for what we do have, in light of the fact that so many people do admire Jesus, I wonder how mere men could have compiled just the right things to project onto Him. Mere men simply do not have the awesome wisdom He had/has that comes through the stories in the NT. The Jesus I see when I read my favorite gospel, Luke, I just don’t see being made up. The bible stands far above ANY other ancient manuscript in terms of historicity, evidence, number of manuscripts, etc… |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 11:31 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Admin Thank you both for your replies. My comments to your first, Nirethil: I agree with what you say about logic. I too see value in logic, but I couldn’t very well make too much of it in an article that is trying to make the point it surely isn’t everything and is most assuredly not the pivot point from which the entire universe hinges even in the phenomenological realm. I think, as much as anything, that is why traditional apologetics (particularly of the Van Til type) leave me a little cold: they make too much of logic. They should have spent more time reading Kant and then spent a semester listening to all the Enlightenment heavyweights battle it out and see just how far they trust human beings with this so-called thing called logic. Van Til and Greg Bahnsen (as well as John Frame) were all Philosophy professors. Quote: Originally posted by AdminLogic certainly accords well with reality in principle and quite possibly is an actual facet of human understanding that forms an accurate correspondence when everything else is properly aligned. Unfortunately, we can rarely be assured that everything else is properly aligned, and thus in practice logic is often far from reliable. Can you give me an example of something that is logically impossible that exists? Quote: Originally posted by Admin So I do not think that maybe people who turn the spotlight of critical scholarship on the Bible are suggesting pure fabrication, but they are recognizing the limitations resultant from oral transmission, tumultuous history, and the various agendas (whether noble or otherwise) that all share as human beings. The bottom line is that people are imperfect and their results are not always 100% reliable. Remember what I wrote at the end of the newsletter about the pursuit of Western civilization being refined knowledge: that they want to take the ore of common sense that is basically reliable (but faulty because people are faulty) and extract from it something pure and infallible? Well, the same applies to historical studies. Certain well-meaning believers want to make the Bible just this sort of refined knowledge. But it isn’t. It is made of the stuff of earth and is basically reliable but not filled with this sort of exalted, inerrant knowledge that, as best as I can tell, does not exist in a human realm, because assuming that it did, the minute the first man or woman got his or her hands on it, it would no longer be inerrant anymore and would already be filtered through a very human lens. We are human beings but we expect, somehow, that our knowledge has to be better than human. Eric, how do you define Inerrant? |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 11:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by sara Is it the qualities of Jesus that really matter, or is it the qualities themselves which are important? Might not those “qualities of Spirit” BE God? No. Quote: Originally posted by saraI hope you understand that I’m not attempting to disparage Jesus. Obviously, He was a “God-filled” man….whether the literal Son of God, or not. I love Him, too, although not in the way that people who grew up with Him do. If you remember, I was raised in a secular home and never went to church. It makes a significant difference whether he is truly the Son of God or not. I love the King of all kings and the Lord of all lords, who shed his blood on the cross and died for my sins, Jesus Christ. He is the object of my faith. If he is not God, then I love nothing. If we look at it from a materialist perspective, love is something like indigestion. What is love without God? on another topic, read: 1 Cor. 15: 1–8 |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 11:51 PM
In response to Eastern, I just try to love God with all of my heart, soul, and *mind*. |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 11:56 PM
Eric, I only responded here because I think I have a right to respond when it comes to this letter. -Caleb |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 00:09 AM
Caleb, my friend, you do have a right to respond here. I understand that you disagree with many of us on the stance we take. No one expects you to agree. But what appears evident to me, and perhaps I am mistaken, is that you seemed angry as you were posting your comments. If I may be frank with you, you seem to be evaluating logic and the life of the mind over your fellow human beings. You are free to express your thoughts if you wish as long as you continue to do so respectfully, but I have not the slightest interest in debating with you. I would also ask you to consider whether or not the arguments you are putting forth are expressed in a manner similar to what Christ Himself would have expressed had He been chosen to express thoughts agreeing with your own on this forum. I do not think His expression would have exactly mirrored your own, for your stance seems to me to be almost antagonistic. Jesus certainly did value truth and He spoke with clarity and frankness on many occasions. But His words were always tempered with love and they were always designed not merely to advance His own views but to be a genuine blessing to others. He said to others what they needed to hear and did not often engage in arguments or public debates. I know that the latter is of especial interest to you from our conversations in e-mail. When debating is channeled properly, it can be a great service to God. When it is not, however, it can wound, rend, and tear others. It may speak with the absolute truth. It may even speak with the tongues of angels. But it has not love, it is only a clanging cymbal or a noisy gong that causes dissonance to the ears and rouses anger and offense rather than reformation, restoration, and reconciliation. Our Lord’s ministry was all about the latter, but regarding the former He had little but stern criticism. I would invite you to prayfully consider my words. There might be a very good reason you find yourself fighting lonely battles and it might not always be the reason you believe it to be. --------------------
|
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 00:34 AM
We both know that I am direct. I was frustrated, but definitely not angry. “If I may be frank with you, you seem to be evaluating logic and the life of the mind over your fellow human beings. You are free to express your thoughts if you wish as long as you continue to do so respectfully, but I have not the slightest interest in debating with you.” How so? Have I been disrespectful? “I would also ask you to consider whether or not the arguments you are putting forth are expressed in a manner similar to what Christ Himself would have expressed had He been chosen to express thoughts agreeing with your own on this forum.” Of course I cannot compare myself with Jesus but I think my arguments are in line with his reasoning. “I do not think His expression would have exactly mirrored your own, for your stance seems to me to be almost antagonistic. Jesus certainly did value truth and He spoke with clarity and frankness on many occasions. But His words were always tempered with love and they were always designed not merely to advance His own views but to be a genuine blessing to others. He said to others what they needed to hear and did not often engage in arguments or public debates.” Is there something wrong with arguing? I disagree that he didn’t get into arguments or publicly debate… “I know that the latter is of especial interest to you from our conversations in e-mail. When debating is channeled properly, it can be a great service to God. When it is not, however, it can wound, rend, and tear others.” I interpret how I debate differently than you interpret how I debate. It is relative :P. I understand what you are meaning, but I disagree that my approach is unloving. That would also depend on differing worldview presuppositions of ‘Love’. “It may speak with the absolute truth. It may even speak with the tongues of angels. But it has not love, it is only a clanging cymbal or a noisy gong that causes dissonance to the ears and rouses anger and offense rather than reformation, restoration, and reconciliation. Our Lord’s ministry was all about the latter, but regarding the former He had little but stern criticism. I would invite you to prayfully consider my words. There might be a very good reason you find yourself fighting lonely battles and it might not always be the reason you believe it to be.” I do consider your words. How do I fight lonely battles? –Caleb |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 08:43 AM
Eric, “For example, Sara, I know that you have commented on the apparent need for Christianity to reinvent itself because it appears to be losing relevancy with our culture.” I don’t think I’m necessarily saying that Christianity should “reinvent” itself…I prefer the word “evolve”. It’s not the same, is it? I’m honestly not sure. However, I do believe that mankind is at the point, historically, when we have to come to terms with spiritual diversity. I’m not sure how this transition from “tribal” to “universal” religious thinking can occur, but I feel that it is almost inevitable. It might take awhile…perhaps when we get sick enough of bloodshedanf violence “in God’s name”…but it will happen. At least, I hope so. Caleb, ”Is it the qualities of Jesus that really matter, or is it the qualities themselves which are important? Might not those “qualities of Spirit” BE God?” You respond NO with complete confidence. Why not? Basically, it’s because you don’t BELIEVE it to be true, right. Well, I BELIEVE it might be true…or might not….but think it is something to consider. I don’t fear considering it, but apparently you do…hence your vehemence. “I hope you understand that I’m not attempting to disparage Jesus. Obviously, He was a “God-filled” man….whether the literal Son of God, or not. I love Him, too, although not in the way that people who grew up with Him do.” You respond: It makes a significant difference whether he is truly the Son of God or not. I love the King of all kings and the Lord of all lords, who shed his blood on the cross and died for my sins, Jesus Christ. He is the object of my faith. If he is not God, then I love nothing. If we look at it from a materialist perspective, love is something like indigestion. What is love without God? on another topic, read: 1 Cor. 15: 1–8 It makes a significant difference to you, but not to me. Love, without God(if it is possible), might be considered a courageous act of faith or an affirmation of virtue, without reward…which seems quite noble to me. Simone Weil wrote “God, exiled from the world is the only God for whom love can be really pure.” (This from someone who encountered Jesus) I agree with Eric, you seem quite angry. It’s the tone of your responses…not the specific content of the replies. However, I like it because you add a little spice to our exchanges. I don’t think I’d like to live with you though. It’s pretty apparent you think you’re superior to everyone else, which is a drag. Also..dumb. “Convictions are a greater enemy of Truth than lies”….. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 09:54 AM
I’m feeling guilty because I got a bit personal in the closing of my last reply, which is quite unfair because I don’t know you at all, Caleb. You’re probably a fine guy…just passionate about your beliefs. I guess. It isn’t easy being both passionate and tolerant, is it? But it’s important that we try, don’t you think? |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 11:09 AM
Quote: Originally posted by sara I don’t think I’m necessarily saying that Christianity should “reinvent” itself…I prefer the word “evolve”. It’s not the same, is it? I’m honestly not sure. However, I do believe that mankind is at the point, historically, when we have to come to terms with spiritual diversity. I’m not sure how this transition from “tribal” to “universal” religious thinking can occur, but I feel that it is almost inevitable. It might take awhile…perhaps when we get sick enough of bloodshedanf violence “in God’s name”…but it will happen. At least, I hope so. When you say “evolve” you infer that something is wrong with the church. I would say it needs to be reformed perheps, but definitely not “evolve” into something entirely different (indeed it would not be Christianity if it were so). Spiritual diversity? What makes a religion true? Is truth absolute? Quote: Originally posted by sara Caleb, ”Is it the qualities of Jesus that really matter, or is it the qualities themselves which are important? Might not those “qualities of Spirit” BE God?” You respond NO with complete confidence. Why not? Basically, it’s because you don’t BELIEVE it to be true, right. Well, I BELIEVE it might be true…or might not….but think it is something to consider. I don’t fear considering it, but apparently you do…hence your vehemence. I say No with complete confidence because it undermines my worldview. It negates my very presuppositions. If we are talking about my worldview here I am going to deny a statement that is contrary to my worldview. Now I can internally critique another worldview and defend against arguments thrown at me, but it should be apparent I will not hold to an external set of presuppositions in order to critique Christianity. [QUOTE]Originally posted by sara “I hope you understand that I’m not attempting to disparage Jesus. Obviously, He was a “God-filled” man….whether the literal Son of God, or not. I love Him, too, although not in the way that people who grew up with Him do.” You respond: It makes a significant difference whether he is truly the Son of God or not. I love the King of all kings and the Lord of all lords, who shed his blood on the cross and died for my sins, Jesus Christ. He is the object of my faith. If he is not God, then I love nothing. If we look at it from a materialist perspective, love is something like indigestion. What is love without God? on another topic, read: 1 Cor. 15: 1–8 It makes a significant difference to you, but not to me. Love, without God(if it is possible), might be considered a courageous act of faith or an affirmation of virtue, without reward…which seems quite noble to me. Actually, it makes a significant difference to everybody whether they like it or not. The consequences for unbelief are either a) Eternal Hell b) Not Eternal Hell (If Jesus is not God). It also changes our actions in our life on Earth. What exactly is love without God? Is it a contigent idea that evolved with man? Did we think up love, values, etc.? Is not love a concept or an idea? Do not concepts exist in minds? Are not concepts eternal (men discover them, but they do not create them {for example 1+1=2, which was always the case before man discovered such a concept}? The concept 1+1=2 is immutable for if it changed it would be an entirely different concept. If concepts are eternal and immutable and they must exist in a mind, would there not be an eternal and immutable mind? Namely God? What is Courage without God? Quote: Originally posted by sara I agree with Eric, you seem quite angry. It’s the tone of your responses…not the specific content of the replies. However, I like it because you add a little spice to our exchanges. I don’t think I’d like to live with you though. It’s pretty apparent you think you’re superior to everyone else, which is a drag. Also..dumb. It is just my style of response. Direct, efficient, and effective. I’m not sure where the living part came in, and I surely do not think I am “superior” to everyone else. In fact we are all unrighteous, only by the grace of God am I saved, and clothed with His righteousness, not my own. I am not my own. I don’t take offense to anything you said as emotions arise and such and I am fine with that. Quote: Originally posted by sara “Convictions are a greater enemy of Truth than lies”….. If someone holds to such a statement, do they not have a conviction that that statement is true? ~Caleb |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 11:19 AM
Quote: Originally posted by sara I’m feeling guilty because I got a bit personal in the closing of my last reply, which is quite unfair because I don’t know you at all, Caleb. You’re probably a fine guy…just passionate about your beliefs. I guess. It isn’t easy being both passionate and tolerant, is it? But it’s important that we try, don’t you think? Its okay. Actually it is easy to be both passionate and tolerant. I am tolerant of other beliefs. I am curious as to how you define tolerance. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 12:50 PM
It is amazing how much better one feels after a sound night’s rest. In any case, Caleb, Sara echoes my thoughts above when she suggests that it is the tone of your comments and not so much their content that comes across as it does. I honestly do not think that you mean ill, but I wonder sometimes if you do not live in a little different world than most people. For example, when you mailed me regarding the newsletter, you had (as you often do) sectioned it into a series of paragraphs and taken some of the parts that were (from my perspective) most personal and honest—parts in which I, so to speak, stuck my neck out and risked ridicule because where I am in my life does not always accord itself so well with what has been traditionally taught—and proceeded to systematically refute them. Here on the forum you have done much of the same thing. I would guess that if this kind of approach is the one you take with all persons in your life, you do often find yourself fighting lonely battles, emphasis on “lonely.” The reason is because to many people in the world, life is not a debating ring and when they express their thoughts, they are sharing as much their feelings and emotions as they are the truth content of their message. They may not always have things down exactly right—sometimes they even know that they do not—but this does nothing to erase the way that they are feeling at that moment. That is why sensitivity and tact make nice complementary virtues to pair side by side with candor. There are other factors that play together as well in the thought that had entered my comments above. Logic may well be one of the threads that runs throughout the fabric of the universe. In fact, it may even be an especially prominent and important one. I would argue, however, that there are many other threads, equally expressive of God that run throughout the universe and while these will not deny logic, some of them, in fact, will actually transcend it in importance. When I speak in this way, I am not talking about a ball of many twisted and misshapen threads, some sticking out here, some sticking out there, no apparent top or bottom to the whole mess: I am speaking of a beautiful tapestry in which the totality of creation has been knit together—and is still being knit together. I am talking about a harmony of parts in which the emphasis on only one can fast become idolatrous. Yet with that said, from the perspective of living in a human body and interacting with human beings, perhaps the single attribute of God that I believe is most emphasized by Jesus is not that of logic but that of love. He did value truth (in whose service logic ideally serves like a knight loyal to his lady); He did hate sin. But he valued truth and hated sin because He loved people. We also read in the New Testament about bearing patiently with others in love and about love covering a multitude of sins: these are virtues—character traits—that go beyond—transcend—an exclusive focus on logic. In fact, if I can say this kindly, Jesus did argue at times with others, but it was mainly with those who devalued people by overvaluing the black and whiteness of the Torah: these men loved law and order and that was not what Jesus faulted: He faulted their insensitivity in so doing because they made more of the text than they made of men and they ended up becoming less human in the process and not more. (By contrast, it is my firm conviction that authentic spirituality will make us far more human—in every good sense of the word: loving, caring, compassionate, wise—than less.) In your reply to Bill, you have chosen to emphasize loving God with our heart, soul, and in particular mind. You will notice, however, that the mind is just one third of the equation and the key word in the sentence was and remains love, the idea of the other three words is that the total person is involved in this process. Love is relational. The Torah is summarized as these two great commandments: to love God and to love others as ourselves. If love is the most important verb and if love is relational: if to love means to bear patiently with others and to overlook faults, then I fail to see how an approach to the faith that takes apart the words of other people, parsing them for flaws and inconsistencies (especially when these people were not even arguing in the first place), and then pointing them out in a bulleted list (so to speak) is entirely consistent with this idea. But let us back up. Let us say that other people are in grave danger because they hold dangerous and heretical ideas that will almost certainly interfere with their eternal happiness. You have read the Scriptures and you know the truth, for it is quite plain and apparent. You wish to honor God and to be the bearer of light, to point out these areas that are false and mistaken because you know that they are like cancer and may very well—almost certainly will—spread over the whole person until body and mind alike are cast aside into the pit of flames. If you knew that a particular way of going about this kind of ministry was very likely to cause offense and achieve the opposite result that you hoped to effect, wouldn’t it make sense to at least reconsider your method to see if you could arrive at some approach that caused less of a negative reaction and caused a higher rate of genuine transformation? I am not speaking of changing your message at all; I am speaking of reconsidering your method. If, throughout your life, almost everybody you run into in one way or another finds your directness just a little hard to take, that might be an indication that a difference in approach (again, not necessarily in message) would be a wise course of action. The way that your approach tends to make many people feel is defensive, like they do not dare breathe around you because if they do, you might jump on them for breathing wrong. For many people, language is an expression of sharing thoughts and ideas, the key word being “sharing.” But in a debate, though rarely does either side ultimately triumph, one side is at least in principle designed to win. Debate is about winning. It is about superiority, of having the better argument. And debate never ends. If I say left, you say right. If I say up, you say down. When we debate, we are always correct, and the other is always wrong. But this realization is itself illogical, for we cannot both be right and both be wrong. Therefore, we are the ones who have the logic: it is we who are right, it is the other who is wrong. The other just happens to hold the same (mistaken) opinion that we do about the matter, but soon enough and with enough argument we will cause the other to see this fault in his or her logic. And so conversation and language becomes for us a debating match: a battle of the wits. It is no longer meant as a means of building relationships and seeking commonalities while minimizing differences (which is what ordinary language tends to do in its better moments)—in a word, it is no longer about building relationships, but about being right. It begins to value the letter of the law over the spirit of the law, the words on the page over the person hearing them. Personally, the thing that I tire of in such exchanges is that the argument never, ever, ever stops! I say something: I do not intend to argue. But it comes back parsed for errors and flaws in my logic. Okay, well, not what I expected, but I am up for the challenge. So I defend my reasons for saying what I said, occasionally agreeing but in general I remain just as certain as I was the first time I wrote it and perhaps even more so because I have now found qualifying reasons to bolster my opinion. My follow-up reply, however, is interpreted as a further invitation to debate, the amiable conversation that I would really like to be having soon becomes a debate in which, tit for tat, you point out my errors and I point out yours. The first 900 times we exchange this sort of give and take, it does add a little interest and spice to life. It can be a challenge to knock the dust off our thinking. But after the 900th time, your wife has learned either to roll her eyes and say, “Yes, Dear. Whatever you say, Dear. You are always right, Dear,” or else, “I want a divorce.” Your children have learned not to ask their Daddy questions and may, depending on how addicted he is to debate, actually run and hide rather than face another error-parsing session. After only the 400th time, your boss is likely to say that though he is very sorry, there just is no longer a place for you in his company and that your desk has already been packed out and is ready to go: won’t you please be so kind as to leave by noon? My bottom line: if the sort of directness you admit to having consistently alienates you from others, then maybe you should consider not WHAT you say but HOW you say it. Something of the truth of your words may be getting lost in the translation. Last of all, to you Sara, the mission of the church is people and it would be foolish to continue a tradition merely for the sake of tradition if it had begun to alienate people. A healthy church will hopefully have within it a component that allows for this kind of flexibility, that it will naturally let fall away that which does not contribute to people while maintaining the very thing that gives it its distinctiveness. Not that the process will always be roses, of course, because tensions will always occur from time to time, if for no other reason than because people are people. But I do think that the Apostle was on to something when he suggests that if Christ did not rise again that our faith is largely futile. I agree with an approach that recognizes we live in the here and now on planet earth and takes this responsibility very seriously. Many believers would say that living in the here and now is an act of stewardship to show forth the proper care of the world that God has entrusted to our safekeeping: a perspective I find very sensible indeed. In fact, such an approach is often overshadowed (in my opinion) by people so concerned with eschatological tomorrows that they fail to see the present day: they are so focused on the future that has not yet happened that they fail to live in the present which is currently happening. The latter is certain; the former is the evidence of their faith. Now ideally, such advance preparation is a sign of wisdom, like storing up food during the prosperous summer months in light of the coming months of winter certain to be cold beyond compare: such preparation is inherently practical and projects the present into the future keeping both fully in view. Even on the level of the present moment only, there is a great deal of value in the Christian faith. If that is simply where the faith stops, however, it has fallen short of the ultimate hope it holds forth of the possibility of overcoming death and all the many things that ail us in our present state. There exists the possibility, no matter how much our faith may cry out against it, that Christianity is no more than a system that (at least in many instances) inspires us to love more and to be more before our lives again return to the dust from whence they came, nevermore to be, though making room for the next generation. There is great value in that alone, as Pascal argues in his famous wager. But Christianity has always understood itself to be more than that: it has long been understood as advance preparation for a very real world to come. To this end, at least, Christ either is or is not the Risen One, either is or is not the pathway to the Father. Perhaps there are other pathways and other Risen Ones—those are possibilities though certainly not in accord with what Christianity has traditionally taught. But the picture does become somewhat different when we factor in not only the prosperous (though still still sometimes very hard and very hot) months of summer but also the certainty of winter and the possibility of living through it to many more summers beyond. These are articles of faith, and, granting the greatest possible lee-way (in departure from traditional Christianity), Christ is either a Risen One or He is not; He is either a way to the Father, or He is not. For the Christian, the other ways (if they do exist) cannot be guaranteed, for the Christian tends to have “all his eggs in one basket,” so to speak. The parts of Christianity that would need to evolve, then, would likely have far less to do with WHAT has always been said (or else we would no longer really have Christianity at all, but something different, however appropriate) and far more to do with HOW it is being said: whether or not it continues to be able to relate this timeless Good News in a way that not only prepares people for tomorrow but brings out the very best in them yet today. I do not think we disagree. --------------------
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 01:18 PM
Regarding “evolution”: Perhaps I’m thinking of maturation. A child understands the world in one way, but, through time and with an increase in knowledge, the child’s perception of the world changes. The original understanding isn’t wrong exactly…just simple. On one level, the sun really does “rise” in the East and “set” in the West…although, of course, with a “higher” level of understanding, it doesn’t. I agree….the consequences of unbelief ( If Jesus is not God) are: Eternal Hell or Not Eternal Hell….but the “Not Eternal Hell” might encompass many alternatives, none of which we know. What is love without God? I don’t know…ask an Existentialist. I think most of them would say “ultimate care in the face of Nothingness” or something along those lines. You have your “worldview” and they have theirs. As you say…different presuppositions. But, I suspect that both you and they have a similar understanding of virtues such as “love” “courage” “sincerity” “integrity”. You evaluate these qualities in terms of God; they apparently don’t find it necessary to do that. I don’t know if concepts are eternal. Ask Eric. He loves those kinds of questions. What makes a religion “true”? I’m not sure, although I suppose it should be logically consistent and based on some kind of experiential evidence. Again…that question is too complicated for me to answer. Again…ask Eric. I guess I thought you felt superior to other people because the tone of your response seemed angry, and, in my experience, anger ususally stems from either fear or an assumption that “I know more and I know better” than other people. My comment was stupid. Same with not wanting to live with you. Double stupid. I think it might be because you remind me of my husband who is an engineer, and with whom I HAVE NOT WON AN ARGUMENT IN 25 YEARS!!! He’s much brighter than I, you see, and it can be quite frustrating living with someone who is always right, even when he’s wrong. I’ve given up. Now I just stick my tongue out at him whenever I feel myself losing a debate. Yes, “convictions are a greater enemy of Truth than lies” is a conviction. (at this moment I am sticking my tongue out at you.) Tolerance I define as….”a fair and objective attitude toward opinions and practices which differ from one’s own.” |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 01:43 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Admin For example, when you mailed me regarding the newsletter, you had (as you often do) sectioned it into a series of paragraphs and taken some of the parts that were (from my perspective) most personal and honest—parts in which I, so to speak, stuck my neck out and risked ridicule because where I am in my life does not always accord itself so well with what has been traditionally taught—and proceeded to systematically refute them. This is just the easiest way for me to respond. I don’t think I attack those most personal and honest parts that you share, nor would I do such a thing. That is, from my perspective I do not wish to do such a thing. Obviously I shared some personal stuff to you as well, but I don’t think either of us would use that as “ammunition” in a refutation. I think we look at logic in different ways. You say that “from the perspective of living in a human body and interacting with human beings, perhaps the single attribute of God that I believe is most emphasized by Jesus is not that of logic but that of love”. I agree, but we must note that love is logical. I personally don’t view certain virtues as transcending others. I think they are transcendent to man, but I’m not sure if you could say they are transcendent to eachother. Quote: Originally posted by Admin In your reply to Bill, you have chosen to emphasize loving God with our heart, soul, and in particular mind. You will notice, however, that the mind is just one third of the equation and the key word in the sentence was and remains love, the idea of the other three words is that the total person is involved in this process. Love is relational. The Torah is summarized as these two great commandments: to love God and to love others as ourselves. If love is the most important verb and if love is relational: if to love means to bear patiently with others and to overlook faults, then I fail to see how an approach to the faith that takes apart the words of other people, parsing them for flaws and inconsistencies (especially when these people were not even arguing in the first place), and then pointing them out in a bulleted list (so to speak) is entirely consistent with this idea. I agree in the first part of this paragraph. I use arguments in a logical sense, for right now we are arguing. I disagree with the negative connotation people have placed on the word argument. You may not like my style of response, but in as much how can you condemn it for being unloving? How do you know this? Quote: Originally posted by Admin But let us back up. Let us say that other people are in grave danger because they hold dangerous and heretical ideas that will almost certainly interfere with their eternal happiness. You have read the Scriptures and you know the truth, for it is quite plain and apparent. You wish to honor God and to be the bearer of light, to point out these areas that are false and mistaken because you know that they are like cancer and may very well—almost certainly will—spread over the whole person until body and mind alike are cast aside into the pit of flames. If you knew that a particular way of going about this kind of ministry was very likely to cause offense and achieve the opposite result that you hoped to effect, wouldn’t it make sense to at least reconsider your method to see if you could arrive at some approach that caused less of a negative reaction and caused a higher rate of genuine transformation? I understand what you mean, and I have considered such things. Yet, I have come to the conclusion that it is not so much how a person feels about my approach, but how effective my approach is comparably. In addition, it is only the working of the Holy Spirit that brings about salvation. I am only a tool in the process. Quote: Originally posted by Admin I am not speaking of changing your message at all; I am speaking of reconsidering your method. If, throughout your life, almost everybody you run into in one way or another finds your directness just a little hard to take, that might be an indication that a difference in approach (again, not necessarily in message) would be a wise course of action. That is not the case. On the internet some who are more sensitive may find my directness hard to take, but it has not been a problem so to speak in my life. Personally, I think debate is very healthy if used correctly and logical fallacies are not employed (such as ad hominem statements and the like). I do think that persuasion results from debate and I can attest to this myself as I have changed major views after debates. On another note, you assume that everything for me is a debate. I appreciate you comments and I respect you a lot, but I disagree on the subject of approach. If the fruit of our labor (if you can call it that) is skepticism for those who hear, can we even call it fruit at all? -Caleb |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 02:02 PM
Sara, I think that we need to put a truth claim in context. So that when we say “the sun really does rise in the East and set in the West”, it is really an absolute truth claim when put into context. We understand the meaning of the text (if we didn’t rational discourse could not take place), so that even with a “higher” level of understanding it does still rise in the East and set in the West when put into context. Now on an atheist scheme it would depend on other views how they would define love. I just wanted your thoughts on how you think an atheist would define love. I think we both have a similar understanding of virtues such as Love, Courage, Sincerity, Integrity, etc. because we are all made in the image of God. But the question comes can they account for such things given their worldview? “What makes a religion “true”? I’m not sure, although I suppose it should be logically consistent and based on some kind of experiential evidence. Again…that question is too complicated for me to answer. Again…ask Eric. “ A worldview defines what exactly experiential evidence is. I *definitely* agree with the logically consistent part, or the ability to account for such things. “Yes, “convictions are a greater enemy of Truth than lies” is a conviction. (at this moment I am sticking my tongue out at you.)” :P “Tolerance I define as….”a fair and objective attitude toward opinions and practices which differ from one’s own.”” I think I agree with your definition. I think I have been fair and objective toward other opinions and practices which differ from my own. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. I can disagree and yet demonstrate another viewpoint as false by internally critiquing another viewpoint, while the whole time being respectful and understanding of the position at hand. ~Caleb |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 03:18 PM
Hmmm….how would an atheist define love? Gee whiz… I suppose it depends on the atheist. There must be different types of atheists, just like there are different kinds of believers, no? Some would dismiss the concept altogether…some would define it in terms of natural selection…others, of a more romantic nature, like Bertrand Russell, for instance, would express it poetically… ………..(an excerpt from “A Free Man’s Worship”….. …..” Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power. “ I know it’s a contradiction in terms, but I’ve always thought of Bertrand Russell as a “religious atheist” of sorts. Same with Nietzsche. Their hearts hungered for God, but their minds would not permit it. F*** logic. |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 04:29 PM
Sara, Yes, there are people who hold to different types of what they call atheism (I would say there really is no such thing as an atheist anyways). No, I would not agree that there are different “types” of believers. A true believer is saved by the grace of God. In that sense we are all the same. We may have disagreements but not on the very foundation. So in that sense we are the same type. In “atheism” you have agnostics, “weak” atheist and strong atheist. You are right in that atheism is a “religion” in that it is a worldview. Atheist hold to their religious beliefs as fervently as any other religions adherents. I find it humorous that some atheists believe “chance” is an actual ‘thing’. All men hunger for God, whether they acknowledge it or not. All atheists are “religious” in their beliefs as their beliefs are “religious” in nature. Note that it is not their minds that would not permit God, but their wills. “F*** logic.” How poetic…Not. How can logic be Fornication under carnal knowledge? What’s logical about that? |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 05:39 PM
F*** logic was not meant to be logical. It was an existential outburst. I was feeling sorry for poor Nietzsche and I got a little dramatic. If you have “weak” and “strong” atheists, why can’t you have “weak” and “strong” believers? I don’t get it. I know a lot of people who are “vague” believers. They believe in something, but they are not quite sure what it is. Then there are the “almost” believers…they are close, but not quite ready to believe, for one reason or another. Then there’s the “cafeteria” style believers…believe a little of this and a little of that. (I have to confess that I am one of those.) Then there are, of course,the ardent believers. They start sentences with phrases such as “A true believer is……” They sometimes crash planes into buildings to get into Heaven. Aside from different kinds of believers, there are also a number of beliefs. And…as might be expected, conflicts often arise between different believers having different beliefs. Heaven is apparently quite restricted. |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 06:07 PM
“F*** logic was not meant to be logical. It was an existential outburst. I was feeling sorry for poor Nietzsche and I got a little dramatic.” Yeeahh….I try to keep conversations on the rational level. A “strong” atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. He believes God does not exist. A “weak” atheist believes that either God might exist but they don’t know, or they believe we can’t know if God exist. Given my worldview there is no such thing as atheist (All men know God by his general revelation and are without excuse in their unbelief Rom. 1: 18–21). I define a believer as one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, and is saved by the Grace of God. I don’t consider people who pick parts to believe are believers (at the very foundational level). So no, given my worldview there is only one type of believer. You say “ardent” believers crash planes into buildings etc. The problem with this is that my worldview states those men were not believers and in fact condemns such activity. It is contrary to God’s law. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 09:26 PM
Given my worldview, only people who pick parts to believe are believers. My worldview only recognizes this type of believer as being a true believer. We seem to be at an impasse….. |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Monday, July 17, 2006 @ 10:30 PM
When I say my worldview, I mean Christianity. So I don’t think every individual has a different worldview than every other different individual. By this I mean that we have worldviews like Christianity, Atheism, etc. I think that the bible as a whole is God’s word. How could I believe some parts of it and not others? Hopefully I am not coming across as condescending, as I do not mean to come across in such a way. ~Caleb I find that it is better to not take arguments as personal, even though they can imply personal matters. By this I mean I don’t want anybody to take my arguments personal, as if I am trying to attack or refute them as a person or something. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Tuesday, July 18, 2006 @ 08:07 AM
I know what you meant, Caleb, and I was just trying to be provocative in an obnoxious sort of way. It is one of my qualities that endears me to everyone. Actually, I think you are a very sincere person and, although I reacted emotionally, I didn’t take anything you said personally. I suspect that I might be more sensitive than usual to what seemed to me to be your unyielding certitude because of what is happening in the Middle East. I promise that I’ll never again respond on this website with CNN on in the background. |
|
caleb_woodrow
Private First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Jul 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 15 |
Posted Tuesday, July 18, 2006 @ 11:21 AM
No problem.
|
|
letabee
Private First Class
Gender: Female
Location: MN Registered: Aug 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 17 |
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2006 @ 10:36 AM 
Oh me, oh, my. I tried to follow all this (and digest it) and keep it sorted out in one setting. I have two observations to make: since Jesus made it clear on more than one occasion that He was God and the Son of God, either that is true or He was a liar= not even a good man. (too much logic?) I, personally, have a quarrel with the word “love ” which we find in our new Testament, “all over the place”. Some years ago, I looked up all the instances where [whatever the original word was] the translation was our word “love.” What does this conjure up in your mind? there is sweet, tender sacrifical emotion of our mothers ; there is physical hungry need for sexual intercourse; there is affection for our friends, etc. ( I have been informed that nowhere in the Bible was the original word used that carries the meaning of physical love : eros so we can forget that one.) As I read all the places I could find in my New Testament where the word love was/is, I came across references like “the scribes and the Pharisees LOVE” to have the praise of men and the better seats, etc. I cast about mentally to think what exactly this was describing; I came up with “value”; so when one says he/she “loves Jesus” to me it means he/she values Jesus; and to love Him (and God the Father and the Holy Spirit = one God) with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength is to say I value Him EXTREMELY highly. I say this because what I FEEL [emotionally] for Him is so inadequate. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the statement “I fell in love with Jesus”. So when I read above of all the love, I had to say to myself, “this person values his/her Lord, as I do”. comments? LB |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2006 @ 11:41 AM
I agree that the word “love” is certainly overused. Personally, I like “values highly”, and I think you should continue using the term in that sense if it is helpful to you. When I use the word “love”…in it’s highest meaning…I usually think of it as “seeing the world as God sees it.” Of course, we all have different conceptions of God, but I think it might work for all of them. Sometimes my definition, which I admit is completely personal, evokes emotion…compassion…but, not all the time. Usually it just implies willing myself to see people and events from a perspective that is above my own personal egocentric reactive self. It allows me to love people that I may not even especially like. If you would like to read an excellent book about love, read C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves. I’m in a bit of a hurry, so, to save time, I’ll cut and paste a brief synopsis of his views on the subject, which were discussed by someone named Father Lou at the St Catherine Greek Orthodox Church…wherever that is. I just happened to have this information because I just led a discussion group on “Loving the Unlovable”, so it is handy. Hope you find it interesting….. Four Greek Words For Love Agape - willing another’s good Storge - affection/liking Philia - friendship Eros - romantic attraction Do you realize that there are four words for love in Greek? Now, the English word, ‘love’, can be applied to almost anything. One can ‘love’ a house, a car, a hairstyle, a good juicy steak, a piece of cheesecake or baklava, and one’s spouse. The same word can be used for all. It is not so, however with the language of the New Testament. In fact, one would not use any of the four Greek words for love for anything inanimate. They are words of interpersonal relationship appropriate for God, human relationships and perhaps, our pets. ‘Eros’ is often associated with a sexual attraction love. It is a love whereby one’s loved one becomes the object of focus ‘Storge’ is a natural love, say between a parent and their child. ‘Filia” is a friendship love where the sharing of common interests and focuses bring people together. ‘Agape’ is an unconditional love, where one gives freely without expecting anything in return. It is divine as it is from God and concerned with giving rather than with receiving. This is the love of 1st Corinthians and the main love focused upon throughout the New Testament. |
| Welcome to Monsieur Renaissance : le forum de discussion, Guest! | |
| Login | |
| In order to make full use of the abilities of this forum, you are required to register as a member. Registration is free, and allows you to post replies and customize your experience on the forum, changing its look and functionality. Register now! | |
|
There are currently 0 members and 10 guests on the forum. The most users ever online at one time was 70 on 03-29-2009 08:16 AM | |
Home | About | Newsletter | Forum | Misc. | Contact | Search | Links | Random Page
.:| get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.
