Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
The Nicene Creed is a common litmus test for Orthodoxy:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I don't think Meta has ever denied any of this. I personally, just lack the valid "proof" that it is all literally true and I am not inclined to accept a creed just for the sake of accepting the creed. Meta has said he accepts the VB mainly on the basis of the Creeds. For some reason he places a special emphasis on them. Maybe he can elaborate? The natural response is "God has been working through the community" but this is complicated by "religious pluralism". Its easier for the conservatives to argue this way. The liberals who are more open to other faiths have more difficult here. This was a long lesson that I learned.

Vinnie

I'm a methodist. That would be the united methodists. I do accept the creeds..

OK here's now it goes. for me theology is a conversation. To be part of that conversation one must be part of the community of faith, because that's whose having the converation (that's if one cares to do christian theology). The lanague of the community of faith is the creeds. That's our self identity, that's what tells us and others who we are and defines the boarders of the community.

So to be part of the community one accepts the tradition of the community (the converstation of theology) and one speaks in the language of the creeds.

In our post industrialized modernist west we think of courselves as individuals apart from any organization or group. But a community of faith is a more organic organization than is an insitution of modernity or a corporate commerical concern. Lanague is culture, and thinking is language. So our values and core ideas come from the community at large anyway. Thus the community is not something we can escape. We cannot be anti-social. We have to part of the general community, and if we want to take part in a sub community and join their conversation and "commune" with some group, then we have to speak their lanague and identify with them as a group.

Kosh · 05-01-2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
IN the argument I'm making there, the community serves the same function as the individual apostles in the traditional view, they saw the risen Christ, or thought they did, and found the empty tomb, heard Jesus' teachings and so on. It's not appeal to authority, it's their collective testimony as witnesses.

It's also nothing but speculation and unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for your claim.
Since the first Gospel was written ca 70 ad, it's unlikely that the first people to hear the Gospel could have been witness to the events it describes.

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie

Since Meta believes Jesus was literally God incarnate I take it absolutely for granted that he wants to to know what Jesus is like as do all other Christians (and even non Christians want to know about this man).

[/b]

Meta=> right. I think he's got it.

Quote:

The problem for outsiders is one of evidence. If history or other fields cannot demonstrate the central claims of Christianity what can? Naturally the only answer I can see is authentic experiences with God. Existential experiences with the living and transforming Jesus. Unfortunately, it is a fallacy to assume that these experiences make your dogma correct because they occur cross-culturally. That is why, I guess I find myself outside of creedal and orthodox Christianity.

Meta => You need to bring your understanding of doctrine into the 19th century. Rather than sticking to the verbal pleanry idea that doctrines are propositions of fact to be affirmed as a requriement for memebership (in some group? IN some little "cadre" so to speak), think of them as "verbalizations of God consciousness." That is, of Schleiermacher's feeling of utter dependence. ie verbalizations of these authentic and authenticating experiences. Of course that doesn't "make the dogma correct" but it is an expression of the qualia of faith, and thus is the best we can do. It's communication, it's the langauge of the converstaion of the community of faith.

Quote:

I accept the creeds on a functional level. They are part of the community and part of my Christian identity but I have no evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin. There is none. All Christians have is "inspiration" or "creeds". Neither are fullproof here. Conservative versions of inspiration are not tenable and liberal versions, well, they do not necessitate a literal VB, especially not natural inspiration. The creeds, well, there is nothing which makes them infallible either.

Meta => I agree.

Quote:

I find myself closest to orthodoxy in my view on the need for salvation and such like that. But I have recently embraced panentheism (Christian panenetheism). The framework of supernatural theism is too hard for me to accept. God heals little Timmy of cancer but sits by during the holocaust and a trillion other incidents? The idea of a God "out there" looking in and picking and choosing when to act and not act is too hard to imagine for me.

I don't study the HJ for apologetical reasons. Historians have to prescind from faith but once you cut out historicl apologetics or the possibility of reconstructing the central points of the Christian story, what is left? I'm a functional Christian but I don't believe the dogma to be literally true. There is simply a lack of evidence for it. I cannot prove Jesus was born of a virgin or that he wasn't. Its usually said that we acept it on the basis of the creeds of the community which God has been active in but as stated, this is not full-proof. Liberal Christians think God has been active throughout the world, cross-culturally and through different faiths. God being active in our community does not necessarily lead to "the creeds are true" or tht our dogma is correct.

Meta => I'm going to open, latter tonight, a discussion with you on my "is there a God board" on the nature of evidence. Becuse I think that's a great mistake to limit belief to evidence --epseicially when by "evidence" you only mean empirically verifable sense data kinds of things. Why does everything have to be backed up with such data? You can't prove any of the most basic epistemological questions with any kind of empirical sense data. So why demand that for everything in your world view?

my boards:

http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Wow, Meta, you're quite the unorthodox heretic. If you said those things in the church I used to go to, they wouldn't look at you as being any better off than an atheist -- maybe worse.

ahahahha, I'm actually thought of as conservative in the seminary where I got my Masters. That would be Perkins school of theology, flagship of the UMC fleet.

I'm a Methoidst, those would be the United Methodists.

Metacrock · 05-01-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Actually, I am quite impressed with Meta here. He's really baring his theological soul here.

Meta =>thanks

Quote:

Although I don't understand why, if all religions have what it takes, Christianity is so important, and the HJ is so important. If everybody has some handle on the truth -- ROPE, TREE, WALL, SNAKE, SPEAR, FAN -- then particular beliefs are no big deal, so long as one is a good person.

Meta => Ok go back to what it says on my page about inspiration. There are three things that religions do (in the abstract):

1) Identfy human problematic

2) Resolve problematic through UTE (ultimate transformative experinces)

3) mediate UTE

So it's not a question of "which one has it" "which one one is right" but a question of (they all mediate to some extent) which one mediates with the most efficacy.

To me its christianity because you can't beat the concept of Grace. That's the most beautiful idea that ever was put in the human mind, IMO.

Jesus' death on the cross as a statment of solidairty is a pure act of Grace. But that's just a nice symbol if it didn't really happen. The fact, if it is a fact, that Jesus really did this, to me makes that symbol much more powerful. That's why it's important to know about the historical Jesus.

and the reason to be a christian as oppossed to any other view is because as a christian you speak that lanague of the community of faith in the theolgoical conversation; and that language is made up of the doctrines and the doctrines all center around God's grace. So the language of the tradition, in effect, is the language of grace.

Beyond that, why know half a truth? If God really enetered human history to show us the divine nature first hand, wouldn't you want to know about it?

Tercel · 05-01-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I think we have to give Meta and Tercel some credit for these two posts. I have never seen the various ways Christians can regard inspiration laid out so neatly, so I thank Tercel for his fine post.

Thank you.

Quote:

That said, if Christians can generate five different major ways to view the Bible, and a dozen different HJs, and twenty thousand different denominations irrespective of heresies....never mind. I am sure it is true that Christianity must be the one true religion.

Oh, indeed the One True Religion(tm)...

It never ceases to amaze me how people who supposedly accept that God is the God of ALL PEOPLE, think that his relevation is completely confined to one religion and one culture. I believe Christianity is true and the most true religion insofar as I believe Jesus really was God incarnate etc. (otherwise I wouldn't call myself a Christian) But the idea that He completely ignored other cultures etc stuns me, you only need to read Jonah (if you're a literalist) to know that this is obviously not the case.

Tercel · 05-01-2003, 08:38 PM

And for the ultimate of ironies with regard church attendance: I'm a Baptist...
Or at least: I go to a Baptist church (and always have) - which is not exactly the same thing...

Kosh · 05-01-2003, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
And for the ultimate of ironies with regard church attendance: I'm a Baptist...
Or at least: I go to a Baptist church (and always have) - which is not exactly the same thing...

As liberal as you are, it's pretty clear that NZ Baptists bear no resemblance to Southern Baptists or American Baptists (two US based denominations).

Tercel · 05-01-2003, 09:01 PM

Not at all: From what I can tell, NZ Baptists are very similiar to American and Southern Baptists. I only said I go to a Baptist church, not that my beliefs are typical or similar to theirs!

Vinnie · 05-01-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

I do accept the creeds..

I know

Quote:

OK here's now it goes. for me theology is a conversation. To be part of that conversation one must be part of the community of faith, because that's whose having the converation (that's if one cares to do christian theology). The lanague of the community of faith is the creeds. That's our self identity, that's what tells us and others who we are and defines the boarders of the community.

The problem I have is what do you mean? Functionally, I can accept the creeds and so can Marcus Borg. They are a part of my Christian identity but to be quite honest, like borg, I do not believe in the historicity of the virginal conception. I have no solid evidence (whether it is historical, from an "inspired" text or creed or whatever) demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago.

Naturally, we are outside the borders of the community because this community, accepts the creeds literally (as best as I can tell).

Quote:

So to be part of the community one accepts the tradition of the community (the converstation of theology) and one speaks in the language of the creeds.

What do you mean? To be a part of the community one believes Jesus was born of a virgin? Is that what you mean by "accept the tradition"? You yourself have stated that you have no real reason aside from the creed to accept the virginal conception have you not? The question is, why would I want to accept the creed as factually true or why should I?

Quote:

In our post industrialized modernist west we think of courselves as individuals apart from any organization or group. But a community of faith is a more organic organization than is an insitution of modernity or a corporate commerical concern. Lanague is culture, and thinking is language. So our values and core ideas come from the community at large anyway. Thus the community is not something we can escape. We cannot be anti-social. We have to part of the general community, and if we want to take part in a sub community and join their conversation and "commune" with some group, then we have to speak their lanague and identify with them as a group. [/B]

None of this means Jesus was born of a virgin. This is not an issue of trying to leave the community for me. Its deals with the necessity of evidence for a claim like this.

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 08:38 PM	#37
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	And for the ultimate of ironies with regard church attendance: I'm a Baptist... Or at least: I go to a Baptist church (and always have) - which is not exactly the same thing...

05-01-2003, 09:01 PM	#39
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	Not at all: From what I can tell, NZ Baptists are very similiar to American and Southern Baptists. I only said I go to a Baptist church, not that my beliefs are typical or similar to theirs!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.