Vinnie

Its about to get deep in here

I get the impression that people in these little groups or "cadres" accept doctrines as propositions of fact. That is why they ask questions like "Do you believe in the Trinity? Is Jesus the only way? and so on.

I cannot affirm the virginal conception. I have no proof it didn't occur either but that is not new news. I can't prove Zeus didn't sodomize Hercules either but I can certainly tell you why I lack belief in both statements. I work from the framework of "why should I believe this"?

You lost me or rather confused me with the "verbalizations of God consciousness". Can you elaborate? I think I got you but I think you might be in the extreme minority on this. The Creeds are more than mere functional verbilizations of the experiences. They are accepted as facts. Trust me, I'm all for the functional verbilization stuff. I have no problems accepting a myth (the Jesus story) functionally and that is what I do. But I don’t think that is what you or Tercel do. Both of you have stated that you literally believe Jesus was God incarnate. That is a functional verbalization rather than a stated proposition of fact?

A CAUTION. You should know me well enough by now to know that I do not use "myth" naively in a negative sense. It does not mean "false" or any such thing that is often advocated by well intentioned people who are misinformed.. When I call the story a myth its a VERY positive description, not a negative one. Myth is poetry plus, not science minus. To call it mythical for me is to say, "I don't know if this story is true or not but I know it is true."

I have no evidence for the virginal conception. I have no good reason to accept this as being an actual even that occured 2,000 years ago. Yet I can still affirm the Nicene Creed? Is this like sacred scripture? To call a text sacred scripture speaks not of its origin, but of its status within a religious community? To speak of the VC is not to accept that it occurred, but to accept its status or role in a particular community? Is that what you are saying?

This seems like, I realize there is no evidence for my dogma but I am going to keep it and remain in the community anyways? I do not say that negatively as I have no problems with that.

Vinnie writes:

Meta responds with: “I agree.”

I must admit, your response threw me off balance for a second. Didn’t see that one coming

Let me ask you a question then, why do you believe Jesus was literally God incarnate? My position is “I don’t know” if it was literally true or not but I accept his identity on a functional level.

To switch gears, I assume the functional Jesus of my faith (the living transforming Jesus whom I experience) is ontologically God (he/she does that which I reserve as being only capable of being done by God). That is settled for me. But that does not mean my functional dogma is literally correct. I’m not sure how you are making that leap here? That is my major problem.

Let me know when you make the thread.

I never stated that everything must be backed by such data. If you expect me to believe a man was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago, I hope you don’t expect me to just assume that it is true. I am not going to. You’ve also exaggerated the discussion which makes your final question completely ineffective. Asking for evidence for a virginal conception is not equivalent to “demanding empirical sense data for EVERYTHING in a world view.”

I cannot argue for the validity of reason. To do so would assume reason. How could I assume what I am arguing for? We are, to put it simply, stuck with reason. There is no way around it or way to dispute it. Surely, you are not equating something like this with the VC are you?

Vinnie

Vinnie

Meta, I am going to wait until you respond to this but your comments, some of them, surprised me. I have seen you in the past critique and dismiss Marcus Borg as do so many Christian apologists. it was apparent to me then that you've probably never serioulsy read the man's work

Unless I am totally misunderstanding you, see his talk about the Nicene Creed and the Trinity on pp 153-155 of his joint book with NT Wright, The Meaining of Jesus.

Borg certainly does not give his intellectual assent to the doctrine of the Trinity but he has no problems with the Nicene Creed. "To continue with a personal comment: I have no difficulty saying and affirming the Nicene Creed."

Of course, all Christian apologists seem quick to jump on any Jesus Seminar member any chance they get. I know I was before. Its all part of our evangelical indoctrination. You'd probably be surprised by Borg's views.

But if you are saying something similar to what Borg is saying then I may have to again stress that you probably speak only for a tiny minority of orthod Christians. Most that I meet seem to happy to pounce on the Jesus Seminar members. This tells me that they accept Creeds as propositions of fact, not as functional verbilizations.

Vinnie

Metacrock

Meta =>Most christians who accept the creeds probably do accept them as propositions of fact. I was saying that doctrines in general shouldn't be viewed in that way, not that they should be taken as only symbolic or untrue, but they dont' need to be seen as propositions of fact in the sense of having to be empirically validated.

Most christians didn't go to Perkins and haven't read Schleiermacher.


I have not read Borg. I have read Crosson, the dreaded Crosson, and his statments on faith moved me. I am prepared to find that these guys do have a sense of faith. They are not atheists they are not trying to destroy religion. I don't know that I would agree with them. I don't like a lot of things about the JS, like the hype in the media and the way they play to it, the statements they make baiting the fundies. But I'm not dismissing them all as just a bunch of anti-religious wolves in scholars clothing or anything like that.

Metacrock

Bravo Tercel!!!


The myth of "one true religion


Yes, why should there be "one true religion?" Who ever said that? The Bible doesn't say it! (schocked, atheists?)

There is one true savior but not necessarily only one way to understand or find that savior (see Romans chapter 2 and acts 17)

The crucial question is not "which religion is ture?" But which one best mediates transformation?

Metacrock

Meta => Why do we need empirically verifiable evidence for the truth of a creed? That's the point I was making. You don't have to prove everything to bleieve it. Matters of faith are things we dont prove.




Meta =>1) no we are not! The liberal revisionary tradition is 500 years old and it doens't even give a flying you know what about the creeds. You can't say they aren't christian, if you do you rule out the United Methodists, the Presbyterian USA, Anglican, and many others. (most of those profess the creeds, but they don't insist upon them litterally).


2) I do take the creeds litterally. I believe that God really create the universe, that Jesus really is the incarnation of God, and so forth. But I dont' treet them as propositions of fact, because propositions of fact are demonstrated facutally--empirically and these are propositions of faith.





Meta =>Yes, that's what I mean. I accept it on faith as part of the package. But my acceptance of the overall package is a world view, which means it was formed out of my global experince; my personal experinces of God, my intellectual reading and reasoning, what I've heard form others whose persectives I value and trust, ect ect.






Meta =>why would you want to reduce propositions of faith to propositions of fact? They don't have to be.



Vinnie [/B][/QUOTE] Is The Bible the Word of God?

Vinnie

And, might I add, there is no evidence demonstrating these propositions as facts. For some reason this does not stop virtually all orthodox Christians from accepting them as such and whats more, they try to convince others that they are true historical statements! Go figure on that one

Sure, but if I can't validate or invalidate the creed isn't it best to use it functionally or symbolically or mythically? "I don't know if this story is true or not but I know that it is true." That is the sense that I would affirm. To say that these events are literally true is to say things which you cannot back by evidence. What if I were to equally assert that they are not true without evidence? What if a Muslim was to eqwually assert a creed not as a proposition of fact but as a functional verbilization of God consciousness?

What good is Perkins if this theology never filters down into the pew-warmers? Who defines Christianity? A few theologians with specialized knowledge or the millions and billions of pew warmers who did not read Schleiermacher. This is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. I am not using this as an argument against the theology because it is not one but it is tiresome in that scholarly information never filters down in churches.

You have not read Borg but you have dismissed him before. A perfect example of evangelical indoctrination. All Christians (myself included) have it to some degree or another at one point or another.

I already knew you thought that and it pleases me

Well in one sense there was the advertising craze, in another this info needs to get into the pew-warmers circles sooner or later. They are the ones so intensely engaged in historical apologetics like the sweeping and utterly nonsensical claim that "the Gospels are historically reliable"? Is the sayings material in GJohn historically reliable? And without that, where is the compelling evidence that the historical Jesus claimed to be God incarnate? At best you can mix your prior belief in divinity with a kenotic view of incarnation but thats it. There is no, who do say I am am? God or man line here. Its undercut once we throw out the Johannine sayings material.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Exactly what I said

Vinnie

Metacrock

I'll have to answer your other posts latter.

I've stated discussions for you, Vinnie, and Tercel, on my boards. All atheists welcome too.

ON "Is there a God" you can discuss with William Basckerville, Catholic Apologist.

on "Theology" you can discuss with Urbild, process theology seminarian extradinare. The topic:

matters of faith need not be reduced to matters of fact.


Is there a God board:

http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheolo...icID=739.topic


Theology:


http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheolo...icID=560.topic

Fred

Okay, thanks.
I find it difficult to rate "inspiration" because each of us has our own feelings of inspiration. If I was to believe that one inspiration had more value than another, I would then be forced to place more value one person over another depending on their respective inspiration.

I myself am a musician, therefore I have had much inspiration over the years. Am I to place a greater value on this because it is in the realm of the artistic ? Is it less than another persons inspiration ?

In order for me to believe there is a difference, I must apply a value system to people. History has shown the results of this kind of arrogance. the Nazi's are a very good example.
If one assumes that divine inspiration is of greater value, after all it is guidance by a god, then those who do not feel it must be of less value than those who do.

Please point out the difference because I don't really want to buy another book right now.
Ta.
Fred.

Tercel

Vinnie,

I will explain my position on the creeds. To me it is all about my beliefs having a coherent and consistent logical foundation. I accept the existence of God largely because I think there are numerous converging lines of philosophical argument which amount to complete proof. The Monothestic/Panentheistic God proved by this is consistent with the God of Christianity and perhaps a few other religions such as Judaism, Islam etc. (though perhaps fits Christianity slightly better)
But no 2000 year old text can ever sufficiently prove a miracle short of world-wide attestation. We cannot know the incarnation or the ressurection or the virgin birth for fact by studying historicity.
How then do we distinguish Christianity from the alternatives? Basically, to me it is all about how we can experience religion today within the various traditions. 2000 year old evidence doesn't cut it, but we can still read it and basically ask "does this resonate with me as being real insight into God?". We can experience or read or hear about miracles in the modern day within the Christian tradition. We can feel God's presence ourselves as we participate within the Christian tradition. We can come to the view that the Christian tradition provides for the best mediation. (as Meta has repeatedly said, and I would agree with him 100%) We can study the doctrine of the Christian tradition and compare it to the teachings of the other traditions and find it superior. etc.

What I'm saying is: Whatever reason we personally will gain, find, or choose to be Christian for, that reason will inevitably be something that validates the Christian tradition as a whole. It won't be something that proves the resurrection. It won't be something that proves Jesus was God. It won't be something that proves the virgin birth. It will be something that makes us think that Christianity is true and/or the most true religion.

Once we have reached that point, what do we do? I suggest that in accepting Christianity as in essence true, we should therefore accept as true (or as very probably so) the core teachings of Christianity which have been always affirmed by all the Christian tradition.
This basically equates to the contents of the Nicene creed. That is a creed written by the Church in two universal councils, reaffirmed in a couple more universal councils, used by Christians universally for the past 15 centuries, whos contents can supported from the New Testament (which is important in my view because it records the beliefs of the early church).

If we have evidence of the truth of Christianity, then I believe we should accept the beliefs that have been common to all Christians, and to me that is saying we should accept the Nicene creed. Hence: I do.


Now that said: Yes, the Virgin Birth is the one thing in the creed I have personally always struggled with. My innate objection to gratutious miracles, its only double-attestation (perhaps triple if you count Paul's ambiguous statement and/or believe he taught Luke's gospel or its precursor) in the New Testament makes it comparitively under-established, the entire lack of good theological reason for its existence etc I see as problematic.

However, I cannot disprove it. I do happen to believe it is triply attested, and I don't buy the 2SH so it's lack of presence in GMark doesn't particularly worry me. But far more importantly: There is no record of a claim by the early Christians that the ones teaching it were wrong, (and since I don't buy silence=ignorance claims or silence=didn't believe claims) as such it is something that has only ever been affirmed by all Christians everywhere as far as I can know. AND, there is nothing unreasonable about it. If I accept the primary Christian teaching that Jesus really was God incarnate, then a claim that there was a miracle regarding his birth is hardly an extraordinary claim at all. It doesn't as such require a particularly large amount of evidence, and thus the universal Christian attestation will do for me.

Intellectually, can I actually convince myself beyond doubt that the Virgin Birth happened? I don't think so: I do have doubts. But I don't give a damn about my doubts, and I'm not going to waste time trying to "force" myself to hold an intellectual belief - especially since that's impossible. It's my decision not my stupid brain's and I'll accept as true whatever I decide to thank-you-very-much not be compelled to be a slave to whatever I can convince my intellect of 100% and be changing my opinion every 5 seconds whenever my emotions cause that belief to fluctuate.
I've decided to be a Christian. I've decided that as a Christian I should affirm the truth of those teachings held by all Christians. Therefore I affirm the Nicene creed. Therefore I affirm the Virgin Birth. So be it.