John A. Broussard

I think Billy G will point out that you need Meta-narrative analysis first before dealing with matters such as this:


As he points out:
"Meta-narrative deals in things like soteriology, christology, justification, mediation and the like." (I think he means meditation rather than mediation, but no matter.)

Now, do you understand?

Cross Examiner

No. I can offer an opinion. But that opinion would be irrelevant to the purpose of this thread: discussing whether or not I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly.

Cross Examiner

No. I really do mean mediation, not meditation. Here is a bit on what meta-narrative is. Though my use of the term differs a bit from how the author of the article uses the term.

John A. Broussard

Let us assume for a moment that I have read the Christian meta-narrative rightly. Wouldn't it then be legitimate for me to ask you your opinion about Joshua 10:13? I'd just be checking to see if your opinion was in concordance with the right reading of the Christian meta-narrative.

Thanks.

RGD

But how are expected to determine whether you've read the Christian meta-narrative correctly when you won't be bothered to specify what tenets or texts you used to derive the opinions you express in the OP?

Let's take a very, very simple example:

Christian Theist: Evolution is, according to the Christian worldview, impossible
RGD: Interesting opinion. What tenets of the faith and what texts support that opinion?

CT: The Bible makes it clear that only 6,000 years have elapsed since the world began, based on the genealogies specified. Given that, evolution didn't have time to produce the current biodiversity.

RGD: I see.

Quite simple. Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Cross Examiner

Wouldn't you have to have some idea of what the right reading of the Christian meta-narrative is before you can possibly judge mine as the wrong one? I said that if you doubt I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly then simply offer an alternative reading and then we'll go to the relevant texts as arbiter. Failing that much, I need to know what exactly you challenge and upon what basis before I can participate in this thread intelligently. I don't plan on being derailed into playing twenty questions on Biblical minutia.

RGD

It would help if you did not invent my position for me. I have not said that I regard your reading as wrong. Or right. I have simply asked what it is based on. And you have now avoided answering this remarkably straightforward question for at least nine posts. Why? Until you provide some basis for your opinions, it is not possible to discuss whether they are right or wrong.

I will, therefore, continue to request that simple, basic clarification: what tenets of the Christian worldview are your opinions based on, and what texts support those tenets?

I have dealt with this above - I will not respond to this strawman again.
I'm not asking for that. I am asking what tenets of the Christian worldview are your opinions based on, and what texts support those tenets?

Why do you continue to avoid the question?

Ulrich

In order for someone to present an alternative narrative, you first have to present your narrative. Maybe I missed your narrative, if so, could you point me to it? If not, then perhaps you should get on with presenting it.

(edit: oops, sorry, I see it is in the OP, let me see if I can present an alternative so we can investigate who is right)

Ulrich

OK, here is my alternative to BGIC's Christian Meta-narrative, maybe now he will get on to showing how his is right, and mine is wrong:

Why did God create? What does God will? God wills many things -- these as means to some ultimate end though. Ultimately, God wills Human Suffering, which not unintentionally is also man's greatest evil; his eternal death and misery. God planned that these two evils intersect in the act of torture and the perpetual state of torturous relationship between man and God: hell. What about heaven? It is a pipe dream for those who want something more than what God thinks they deserve: something else other than torture. The reason the denizens of heaven find themselves miserable instead of happy is because they mistakenly thought there could be happiness coming from God Himself (and so lived life accordingly), a lie Satan has perpetuated by authoring the Bible, and man frequently and willingly believes.

RGD

In fact, let's break the OP down into the actual opinions you presented:

O1: God wills many things.

O2: All the things that God wills are means to some ultimate end.

O3: Ultimately, God wills God's glory.

O4: God's glory is by intention also man's greatest good.

O5: Man's greatest good is his eternal life and happiness.

O6: God planned that these two goods intersect in the act of worship and the perpetual state of worshipful relationship between man and God: heaven.

- This needs some clarification: what TWO goods? You've only specified Man's greatest good.

O7: It is 'just deserts' for it is where those who want something else more than God get what they want: something else other than God.

- This opinion appears to be internally inconsistent: you claim that those who want something more than God get what they want - but then you claim they get something other than God. In which case, they haven't gotten what they want. Perhaps you could clarify this internal inconsistency.

O8: The reason the denizens of hell find themselves miserable instead of happy is because they mistakenly thought there could be happiness apart from God Himself (and so lived life accordingly), a lie Satan frequently tells and man frequently and willingly believes.