Amos

You just reminded me of the fact that whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality as well. If this was not true, pink would not exist not would unicorns exist by the same extension.

Amos

Toto

Nomad: I think that almost all of the Bible is fiction or legend. I am amused at the mental gymnastics that Christians go through to try to rescue some basis for their faith from these obviously flawed scriptures - the entire industry of apologetics.

You did not really answer my question - once you admit some of the Bible is figurative, how do you know when to stop? What keeps you from sliding down that slippery slope until you are a Unitarian or <gasp> a secular humanist? The answer is, nothing. This is why the church is inevitably an authoritarian institution. Since it has no really compelling logic or virtue behind its position, it must use force to keep everyone on the same page. It must burn heretics, excommunicate the dissenters, or in this more enlightened time, fire the liberation theologians and forbid them from teaching theology.

Your rule for interpreting the Bible is to treat those things that are essential for salvation as literal, while all else may be figurative. If this is not circular reasoning, what is? How do you know that there is salvation? How do you know that there was ever any purity from which to fall?

The Gnostics (from my limited understanding) treated this all as symbolizing inner events, so none if it needed to be literally true. What argument can you make against this? Just that the "death and Resurrection of our Lord is to be taken literally. It is the foundation of our hope and faith as Christians." Is this supposed to be an argument? It is literally true because it has to be true?

You piously state: "To me, it is self evident that great wisdom comes from hard reading and study, humility, and a willingness to not rely only upon one's own resources, but to draw upon the collective wisdom of those who are greater and wiser than I am." But you are very selective in which part of the collective wisdom of those greater than you that you are willing to read. In fact, you seem to reject most of modern academic Biblical scholarship. (Have you read Mason's book on Josephus yet?)

You seem to me to be someone who would like to be a fundamentalist, but there are too many obvious flaws in that position. So you have taken what you think is the most defensible fallback position. But it's not really all that supportable.

I have other things on my mind now. Take care.

Toto

Wyrdsmyth

I might respond to this, if I could make sense of it.

Nomad

Hello WS, and nice to meet you.

The Church.

God did. And before you tell me that my logic is circular (something I already know), denial of this truth is equally circular.

Look at it this way, if God exists, and the Bible is His chosen way to give us His Word, then it makes sense that He appointed an authority that would give sound interpretation. According to the Bible, that sound interpretation does not come to anyone individually, but, rather, it is given to us corporately through His Body, the Church, the "pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Final aside, as a non-believer I would not expect you to accept what I have just told you, but as a Christian, I would be pretty foolish to ignore the rules for understanding what God has said to me, when the Bible itself tells me who I should listen to. I hope that you can understand my point here.

Actually, I would not rely upon my own discernment taken alone. As a Christian, I am guided by God through His chosen instruments, the Church and the Holy Spirit. I would never have the arrogance to tell you that I alone have a true understanding of the Bible. It is true that some do have this gift to a greater extent than do others, but none of us alone can claim to have a perfect understanding of God or His Will or His Mind.

This is fine for you, of course, provided that you can remain certain that God does not exist, and therefore He has nothing to say to you. At the same time, I hope that you recognize that your rejection of the existence of the Christian God has lead you to this conclusion. For me, and other Christians, acceptance of His reality leads us to believe what He has taught us.

Thank you again for your thoughts.

Nomad

Nomad

I gave you a very long answer plus references from Augustine Toto. Perhaps you did not read them.

Well, if either of these views were true, then I would hope that everyone would follow them. As they are not true, and Christianity is true, then I would hope that everyone would follow it. After all, if we will not believe in the truth, then there is not much more to talk about is there?

You talk as if authority is a bad thing. But is the authority of a parent a bad thing when they seek to teach their children? Or of a good government when it seeks to enforce the laws of the land, and keep peace and good order?

You reject Church authority because you do not think that it comes from God. You believe this because you have rejected that God exists. At the same time, you do not appear to recognize that your logic is purely circular, as is my own. If you are certain that you are right, then you have nothing to worry about.

Two points:

What century and country do you live in? The Christian church does not use force to keep people on the same page, so do not say such foolish things.

Second, do you see your assumption? If God exists, then He is the compelling force that stands behind it. If you are still on this thread, let me ask you, if you were to learn that the Christian God actually exists, would you worship and obey Him?

Which century do you live in again? Try to deal with the world as it is, not as it was Toto, and try to think of something besides nonsense when you speak of Christianity. I already know that you cannot think of a single good thing that Christianity has ever done, but this blindness on your part has produced a very closed and fundamentalist mind.

This is not my rule, it is the Churches rule. I hope you can tell the difference.

We both live in our circles. I already know this. Of course, a circle can still be based in reality, yes?

Because God has granted to me freely, by His will and for His Son's sake. How do you know that there is no salvation?

Because God creates all things perfect, then we corrupt them by our will.

I do not see any truth in their philosophy. Would you like to debate it?

No. It is a statement of fact. Statements of fact are not arguments, except to expose a lie.

No. It is true because it shows us how a perfect God can and has saved a fallen world.

Hmm... do you know who and what I have read Toto?

Yes I do, but only after I have read a good chunk of it.

No. Have you read Brown's? Or Geza Vermes? Or J.D. Crossan? Or Marcus Borg? Or Donald Akenson? Or Michael Grant? Or Robin Lane Fox? Or Bruce Chilton?

All of these men, except Brown, are either liberal Christians or agnostic/atheists. Have you read any of them?

Actually, I have no desire to be a fundamentalist, and do not find their theology at all convincing. Why do you think that I would like to be one?

I am an orthodox Christian, and am always willing to defend that theology.

Well, since you have yet to offer a single argument against orthodoxy, and have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what it teaches, I wonder how you decided to reject it. After all, rejection of that which one does not know or understand is a decision based on ignorance, and for a free thinker, my understanding is that this is a bad thing.

Be well.

Nomad

Toto

Well, this is a diversion from other worries.

Originally posted by Nomad: in bold

I gave you a very long answer plus references from Augustine Toto. Perhaps you did not read them.

Toto: I read them and laughed. That’s the basis of my reference to “mental gymnastics” – God has made things deliberately obscure “for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty.” God is deliberately constructing a puzzle to keep us entertained. ROFLMAO

After all, if we will not believe in the truth, then there is not much more to talk about is there?

Perhaps not, especially if you define “truth” as what you believe in.

You talk as if authority is a bad thing. But is the authority of a parent a bad thing when they seek to teach their children? Or of a good government when it seeks to enforce the laws of the land, and keep peace and good order?

I reject authoritarian parenting styles. I also reject benevolent despots, since they usually cannot be trusted to stay benevolent.

Two points:
What century and country do you live in? The Christian church does not use force to keep people on the same page, so do not say such foolish things.

I am thinking of the way the Catholic Church has weeded out its liberation theologists, and is imposing a loyalty oath to the Vatican’s orthodoxy on college professors in Catholic universities. That is happening in this century.

Second, do you see your assumption? If God exists, then He is the compelling force that stands behind it. If you are still on this thread, let me ask you, if you were to learn that the Christian God actually exists, would you worship and obey Him?

There are too many assumptions here. If God exists, why is he (or she or it) the Christian God? And how are you to know anything about this God? There are too many contradictions in the Bible to even define this God or decide what obeying means, and there are too many different Christian church traditions.

But this is getting way beyond this topic.

Speaking of which, you claim to be an orthodox Christian. What does that mean? Given the diversity of Christian churches and their variation in doctrine, and how many of them assume the other denominations are going to Hell, how do you pick one and claim that it is orthodox?

We both live in our circles. I already know this. Of course, a circle can still be based in reality, yes?

Circular reasoning does nothing to persuade me. It’s not worth posting on this board.

{skip statements of faith}

Toto: Just that the "death and Resurrection of our Lord is to be taken literally. It is the foundation of our hope and faith as Christians." Is this supposed to be an argument?

No. It is a statement of fact. Statements of fact are not arguments, except to expose a lie.

Sorry, it is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of your faith, for which you have no evidence. How can you call something a "lie" if it is said sincerely? It is demonizing your debate opponent to call their beliefs “lies”. It sounds like you are just preaching to yourself, not interested in discussing ideas with people that you have some respect for.

Have you read Brown's? Or Geza Vermes? Or J.D. Crossan? Or Marcus Borg? Or Donald Akenson? Or Michael Grant? Or Robin Lane Fox? Or Bruce Chilton? All of these men, except Brown, are either liberal Christians or agnostic/atheists. Have you read any of them?

I have skimmed through some of Brown, read some of J.D. Crossan and Marcus Borg. If I were going to debate their arguments, I would be sure to read them thoroughly. Nothing that I have read seems even remotely to support the sorts of arguments that you make on this board.

Actually, I have no desire to be a fundamentalist, and do not find their theology at all convincing. Why do you think that I would like to be one?
I am an orthodox Christian, and am always willing to defend that theology.

What is a small-o "orthodox Christian"? Have you invented yet another Christian sect? I thought you were a Lutheran, although you don’t hold to "sola scriptura". I assume orthodoxy requires that one believe in god, and if I find the concept of god incoherent and improbable, what more do I need to know to reject this small-o orthodoxy?

Tercel

LOL! I always thought the atheists on this board were ignorant of what Christianity was all about... now I know they are.
I'll leave this one to Nomad to give it the shredding it deserves!

Toto, I hope you can one day come to appreciate the shades of grey present in Christianity. I have no doubt that you have the ability to recognise that issues aren't always black and white. You need to try and apply the same thinking to Christianity which you apply to everything else. I can understand that between the public fundamentalist "Everything is absolutely true" portrayal of Christianity and the "Everything is absolutely wrong" approach you have learnt from the atheists here, that you would find it hard to see the shades of grey between the white and the black. Don't let the fundies (be they Christian or athiest ones) dictate to you what you believe - it is never an all or nothing situation. There are shades of grey in almost everything in the world and Christianity is no exception. To affirm a shade of grey is not to be inconsistent. I hope you can one day expand your thinking and see that there are many more than two positions to be taken on the matter of Christianity.

Tercel

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Tercel ]

Amos

Pink elephants can only be perceived because pink exists in our imagination and so do elephants. The same is true for unicorns.

Amos

Amos

Toto you fail to realize that there is reality beyond myth and allegory. When you discover this reality the allegory becomes real and the words redundant but used to describe place, thing, or event.

In the end, the entire bible is allegory or it would not be timeless.

Amos

Toto

Tercel: roll eyes yourself.

Nomad has described himself as an "orthodox" Christian. I am well aware that there are shades of grey, not to mention purple, chartreuse, and hot pink, among Christians, which is why I am asking him how he knows what is orthodox. After all, both Bishop Spong and Pat Robertson claim to be Christians, and I can't think of much that they have in common.

There are Eastern Orthodox Christians, but somehow I don't think that Nomad is that flavor of Christian. And I have never heard any of the other denominations describe themselves as "orthodox", perhaps because of the possible confusion with "Orthodox". But there is always something new.

Nomad is claiming that "church tradition" gives a guide to what is to be taken literally in the Bible and what is not. My point was that church tradition is hardly consistant or always helpful. What was your point?

I won't even ask Amos what his point was. I think it has something to do with pink unicorns.