David Mathews

Hello nyx,

[quoe]Does the Church of Christ not believe the text of the New Testament in a literal way? [/quote]

David: The church of Christ has no creed nor any central governing body, so I am not bound to believe the text of the New Testament in a literal way.

David: The church of Christ is changing, becoming far more tolerant and open-minded than it was in previous generations. I have advocated change in the church of Christ in a vocal manner and have been criticized by fellow Christians for my viewpoints.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

HelenM

So, in fact, you're an agnostic too!

love
Helen

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: No. I draw a distinction between empirical knowledge and the knowledge of faith. Empirically, we don't attain any certain knowledge of anything. Faith bridges the gap between the limitations of the human intellect and the transcendent God.

Love,

David Mathews

NOGO

I too draw a distinction between empirical knowledge and the knowledge of faith. Emperical knowledge is real; knowledge of faith is fabricated.

Proof?

Simple.
With time scientists tend to converge and agree concerning matters of empirical knowledge.

Given time people of faith tend to diverge and split.

I wont bother giving examples since in both cases they should be obvious but if you insist I will comply.

David Mathews

Hello NOGO,

David: I believe that you are approaching science as an idealist. Science has numerous divergent viewpoints and there are some matters of dispute which scientists may never resolve.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

Talulah

The church of Christ is changing, becoming far more tolerant and open-minded than it was in previous generations. I have advocated change in the church of Christ in a vocal manner and have been criticized by fellow Christians for my viewpoints.

David, David, I have seen so many promising, thinking young men swept along by the same old restoration fever; who start to want to do nothing more than be out in the 'world' saving souls, to the glory of God. I have seen people drop out of a college to begin to 'preach and teach the word' to a 'lost and dying generation. (or is that nation?)' When I was in college, I saw our small youth group grow by 1/3 because of the males and females both who pleaded with their their current lovers until they became members of the church. I talked with a guy who thought he had found the 'truth' and happiness when he became a member of the church only to hate himself more when he realised that he was destined to go to hell because he couldn't believe a literalist interpretation of the bible, but had already been brainwashed enough that he couldn't not believe it.

Sure, the Church of Christ is changing, by all means. I hope it changes a lot more, because right now, they still fuck the lives up of everyone they trick into believing they are helping.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Talulah ]</p>

nyx

Uhm, yeah, they do believe the scriptures in a literal way. Their interpretation, of course. Just because there is no written creed, doesn't mean there isn't a creed.

Whether or not you feel yourself bound to something is beside the point.

It seems from you own account that you have rocked the boat a little. I'd say you're still a bit unusual.


It hasn't been that many generations ago.


Nyx

diana

On literalist and figurative interpretations of scripture:

The CoC (generally speaking) claims to have a "literalist" interpretation of the bible, but they also select random passages and say, "Well...that was obviously not meant literally." How they can do this while maintaining the literalist stance is beyond me, but they do.

Why a person would claim alliance with the CoC while insisting that he doesn't believe its doctrine also baffles me. That's rather like claiming to be Republican while arguing against everything Republicans stand for. I don't see the point in the affiliation. Why not just call yourself an "Independent Xn" and be done with it?

I have no interpretation of the Bible that is without contradiction. This is not because such an interpretation doesn't exist. Indeed, I encounter people all the time whose interpretations are contradiction-free. When pressed about those verses that espouse a different philosophy, they employ a gentle interpretation, leaning toward non-literal, in order to make the stray verses "comply." They differ from their opponents only in which verses they choose to take more literally.

David, for instance, has chosen to take the grace of God more literally than the rules that say who gets tickets to heaven and who doesn't. His opponents claim that while the grace of God is clearly necessary (since we're all depraved unworthy worms), the rules were laid down for a reason, and the "grace of God" only applies to those who follow those rules. That is, their "more literal" emphasis is focused on a different idea.

But who's right? That's the rub.

It seems to me that everybody settles on whichever interpretation better suits his conscience and emotional needs. Those who know that living a good life isn't limited to Xns often have the emotional need to believe that God will understand and maybe his grace will prevail. Those who have an overpowering need to feel superior tend to go with the "I'm right and you're wrong and for that you will be punished" interpretation.

I do not have an interpretation of the bible that is without contradiction because I cannot ignore (or "gloss over," or "harmonize") all the verses which say something different from others, and I refuse to put myself in the position of explaining by what authority I make my interpretive choices.

When I was a bible-thumper, dealing with interpretation questions made me quite uncomfortable. It only made matters worse when I realized that I was avoiding answering pointed "why do you interpret it that way?" questions altogether. I realized that avoiding such questions was indicative of my refusal to take responsibility for my interpretation and ultimately, for my "soul."

I finally realized that interpretation, regardless of what the CoC teaches ("Can we all understand the Bible alike? If we understand it at all, we understand it alike") is a matter of opinion. Your opinion rests upon no stronger support than which verses you think deserve more emphasis--but that's still your opinion.

Would an omni-everything being give us such a mass of self-contradictory and cryptic rules, then threaten us with hellfire if we don't figure out the right way to interpret them?

This, I cannot believe.

And this is just one of many reasons I am an atheist.

David, while I disagree with your interpretation of scripture and your compunction to insult your opponent in lieu of simply explaining why you don't understand any given verse as she does, I think it speaks to your kindness that you cannot accept a God that would destroy people who've never heard of him. While I maintain that this is simply your take on scripture based--ultimately--upon what you are willing to accept, it says far more for you than those who hold to the cold-hearted "I believe in a god who will torment everybody who doesn't worship him" approach.

d

David Mathews

Hello Talulah,

Such eloquence ...

Love,

David Mathews

Talulah

I learned from the best.