Metacrock

John the atheiod says that my views on revelation are "just nothing." They are such gibberish and "weasel words" becasue I use big words and doesn't know what they mean. Ipertrich says that my view (and all liberal views) are just "take what you like and leave the rest" and they always repeat the saw that they are not well defined. Why? Because they wont take the time to think about them or find out what they are.

Let's see how well defiened they are. But first observe, the motvation for this could well be because liberal christianity is the real thing! It is the scholarly version, since these guys are far too uneducated to deal with that they have to dismiss it as though it is meaningless because they are really scared to death to actually try to argue with it.

Now they will quote Corsson all over the place as though he's a big authority and then turn right around and say that only fundamentalism is true christianity. Crosson is a Christian. He doesn't not think of himself as an atheist and liberal theology is the sort of Christianity he believes in. To taut him as the big authority when he says things you like and than dismiss totally his view point as though it is absurd and stupid, is just totally dishonest and is the mark of a pesudo scholarly hack who can't think!

Now let's see how ill defined it is, and if I can present my view usuing 50 cent words.


Frist of all, the standard conservative view is verbal plenary inspiration. This view was developed in the 19th century by Warefield and Darby in reaction to modernity. It was not the view of the chruch fathers, it was not the view of scholastics of the middel ages, it is a modern veiw. It is part of the modern world and it is a reaction to the modern world, therefore, it is not the essence of the Christain view. It is a secterian view. But it's one atheists insit is the true view becasue easier to laugh at.

Secondly, VP assumes that God is going to dictate a letter like a business man dictating to a secretary. But that is a false assumption. There is no reason to assume that this is the hall mark of inspairtion.

Thirdly, it assumes that literal history is the hallmark of truth. This is why atheists like it because they all they have to do is find the mythological elements and they have a great argument against the Bible. But all they really have is an argument against a modern version of hermeneutics which failed becasue it was falwed to begin with.

Foruth, the old saw that liberal view is just "take what you want and leave the rest" is stupid, and it is so becasue that's what the whole science of textual criticism is desinged to do, to give one a means of understanding the original nature of the text. That's what we use rather than just what we like, textual criticism and the history critical method. That offers a totally scientific and very accurate way of being able to understand exactly what is mythology, what is litteral, what is added and what is original. It's not 100% accurate but it is very good.


Now, my view can be described in the following points:

1) rather than dictation it assumes that reflection upon one's personal experinces of God is the basis of inspiration.

2) This means that when one encounters God in one's own life and writes about it in some way then that experince is the dominate feature of the communiation, not some littreal dispensing of a message word for word.

3) Such experiences are encoded into cultural constructs. This means that mytyhology may be used, that one may draw upon other religions or upon other works to emphasize or communicate some aspect.

4) For this reason litteral history is not very important except in certain enstances such as the resurrection, merely becasue the people who were there lived in the communities that produced the Gospels and their testimony became important, for example.

5) Redaction: the redactors had their own experinces and those colored the choices they made in redaction.

6) Community: The community chose the texts that were meaningful to them. Thus the important thing about the text is the way in which they define the identity of the community, not the litteral information being communicated in terms of historical enstances ect.

7) Bestowing Gace: The Bible is not science it is not epistemology. It's funcition is very simple. It is aimed at bestowing Grace upon the reader. The measure of that success is if Grace is actually bestrowed, not if they got little scientific details right or if they thought the sun moves around the eath. That is unimportant. We need not expect parler tricks from the text. All we need is a reflection of an experince which bestows Grace.


Now why is this not well defined? Let's summarize in an even more simplistic manner. That might be easier for certain people to follow:

1) God is not the big guy in the sky. He is not dictating word for word.

2) He's not doing parler tricks with little hints about science not concerned with historical details except in certain specialized matters.

3) it's a reflection of inner expernice of the devine which aims as bestowing Grace upon the reader.

4) It makes use of mythology because it is grounded in a mythological world view.It is grounded in the cultural constructs of the ancient world thus we can expect it to reflect the views of the ancient world.

Now that means that your knit picking piddeling "contradictions" are totally unimportant and you just have the wrong end of the stick in thinking about what makes the Bible true or in what way its true.

Now what is so (*&^^%% +_) unclear about that?

Kosh

You've lost your prescription meds, haven't you?

Metacrock

Gosh, your so perceptive. how did you know that?


Come on now man, what's unclear about it?


I'll simplfy even more:

fundies wrong, liberals right. got it?

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Asha'man

Nit-picking at contradictions is not the fundamental reason why I am an atheist. It helps to get people in a skeptical state of mind, but it isn't going to convert anyone. And it can also be hilariously funny at times.

My real reason? I don't think the supernatural exists, in any way, shape, or form. It is all just superstition. Christianity is fundamentally no different than a belief in Zeus or Odin.

Am I biased? You bet. I am taking an extreme position and I know it.

But am I right? I don't know for sure, but I would be willing to bet real money on this belief.

Wanna prove me wrong? Here is how: provide scientific evidence of any supernatural occurrence, and have that evidence survive scrutiny. I'll give you some extra motivation: there is a million dollar prize if you can do it.

Jayhawker Soule

When you ask the Holy Spirit for Grace, you might ask if he/she/it could include a spell-checker.

Muad'Dib

Meta has dyslexia, so let's not be too hard on him on that front. He claims he's trying to be careful about it. Let's leave it at that for now.

Toto

Hi Meta - this rant actually does better in the spelling department than some of your others. Maybe the Holy Spirit is working on your dyslexia!

But about the substance - you can't argue with liberal Christianity because there's no there there. God isn't up in the sky, he's -- where? If the Bible contains metaphors, Jesus could just be a metaphor, the ten commandments the ten suggestions.

Could you define the differences for me between liberal Christianity and watered down Buddhism (where you don't have to sit in an uncomfortable position and meditate) on the one hand, and liberal modern Christianity and heretical 2nd century gnosticism on the other?

-DM-

Is that ["John the atheiod"] meant to be an insult? Should I, as a fellow nontheist feel insulted (as you say that you do when Christianity is insulted)?


You seem very fond of stating as certainties what you cannot possibly know.

... or it could well be that liberal Christianity is simply a whitewash of REAL fundamentalist Christianity by those who are too weak-kneed to embrace REAL fundamentalist Christianity.

There are those who view Crosson as a pseudo- scholarly hack who can't think straight.

It is a relatively modern reaction to a relatively modern world but that doesn't make it an incorrect view. The idea was to get back to the fundamentals of the so-called Christian religion, the essence of Christian belief.

And there is no reason not to assume it either. After all, it certainly would be in the realm of a perfect and omnipotent "God" to inspire a perfect, infallible, and plenary "Word of God." In fact, to think that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could possibly have anything to do with an imperfect, incomplete, and fallible "Word of God" (or "book," if you prefer) is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Under your view, the Bible was apparently flawed to begin with. Putting one's faith into a so-called revealed religion which is based on a book which is flawed from the start seems to me to be intellectually dishonest and unwise.

If you believe that textual criticism and the historical approach to the Bible (as well as the other techniques of so-called higher criticism) can arrive at what is and is not believable, so be it. In that case, however, you will need to apply those same techniques/methods to other alleged Holy books such as the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. Have you?

Then the Bible is more or less useless inasmuch as reflection upon one's alleged personal experiences of God vary so extensively from one individual to the next that even different concepts of the one true "God" are arrived at.

This viewpoint considerably diminishes the value of the Bible as any kind of a guide for Christians today as well as the value of the alleged teachings of Paul and Jesus (which the Bible may have wrong).

Oh, I see. The so-called Resurrection is suddenly "literal history." And you claim that liberal Christians don't pick and choose what they will believe?

...

Given the uncertainties inherent in your viewpoint of inspiration, there is no way whatsoever that you can be sure of that.

And how would you propose to prove or falsify that alleged bestowing of grace on those who call themselves Christians?

And you complain about insults??

He isn't doing the job of a perfect and omnipotent "God" if "He" only partially inspires or inspires a faulty book. In fact, an inspiration less than perfect would call into question his alleged perfection (a concept which fundamentalists grasp).

The Bible is full of what could be termed parlor tricks that "He" allegedly did.

Where does it say anything like that in the Bible itself?

God is allegedly omniscient and omnipotent. There is no reason that something which "He" inspired should not reflect that omnipotence and omniscience. An omnipotent and omniscient "God" would not limited by the thinking of liberal theologians and apologists.

I say that my viewpoint is more valid than yours, namely: If a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God" had anything to do with the inspiration of a book "He" could have, should have, and would have done a much better job of it than to inspire the Bible.

Not only that, "He" -- if "He" existed at all -- would get together with Christian theologians and apologists so that they would understand and agree on what each and every verse of that Bible meant. There would be one Church, one denomination, not 20,000+ denominations each with its petty (or sometimes more major) doctrinal differences.

Oh, and "He" would have no use for a Metacrock to come here and allegedly explain what "He" allegedly meant.

--Don--

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This statement is uncalled for. Please post a substantive response.

Michael

Metacrock

Meta -&gt;That it can, and sometimes that sort of thing is important for dealing with the fundie mind set. But to speak as though that is the essence of the matter is misleading.


Meta =&gt;O yes it is, fundamentally different in many ways. Besides, I think your underating belief in Odin. Religious experince is a neat thing. Read my debate with Gurdur, see espeicially the first couple of posts I made in that debate.

Meta =&gt;Willing to bet money? your betting everything that makes you human and that makes life worth living. Your betting the future of the speicies and the essence of humanity. Not to mention your immotal soul.

Meta =&gt;Your on sucker!


<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm</a>


all you have to do is overtun the medical evidence in those cases.

(btw just kidding with that "sucker" thing, let's agree to keep it friendly).


ps there isn't really a million bucks in it is there? AW I knew you weren't on the level.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>