Forums | MacLife

Hehe...by 'bullsmurf' I meant the idea that one can change their own sexual orientation by force.

No no no, you're not paying attention, you don't change your orientation, it magically flip-flops every once in a while, depending on which clique is "cool" at the time.

Because of this, to get at "truth" in the bible, a critical eye is needed to determine what from the bible comes from Jesus and what is from various opinions of the church leaders. So when I reject things like the genesis story, it is because I see those things as versions of personal opinions and not solely of the divine. This is the "heresy" of modernism, but then that's where I am. In the modernist tradition, there is a methodology of establishing truth and fact. I would argue that every tradition has this, it is just within modernism that we continuously acknowledge this interpretation.

Hey, I was right at my first stab as to your view. Hmmm, I guess it's all those years of good Catholic schooling, or that my Junior year high school Christian Scripture teacher was a modernist (but he would never admit to it). I am genuinely intrigued by your methodology. Is it J.E.P.D. traditions reading? If so then this debate should be over the the source of truth in scripture. Modernism is one of the reasons I switched out of the aforementioned high school. I don't think of the bible in the "Bibleology" sense. I can see the logic in the traditions understanding, but I think that it's like reading into a book too much with the light of A.D. heresies. Also, I think that this understanding ruins the truth of a concise message in the bible by making it's authors adversaries instead of presenting a complete thought of what God is trying to say. I love Catholicism because it's teachings present the bible in a thematic way, where the same points from Genesis appear throughout the bible and the validity of the authors is intact. Anyway, I would like to hear more about how the modernist interpret scripture, so I can present a counter debate.

Yeah I'm definitely in the modernist tradition.  I try to be pretty open about it because its a voice that is too often silenced in debates about religion, as that earlier debate with NokX showed.  It has often been corrupted by a new-agey "whatever you believe is cool man" approach to religion.  I think the movement is also at a point to really start to bear fruit.  As an academic endeavor, the explorers have finished getting a general sense of the terrain.  It took some doing.  Now the discipline is finally ready to move into a more formal stage, though it seems reluctant to do so.  My money is on John Crossan's methodology.  He seems to be the one who is saying ok, lets figure out how we are gonna be formal about this.  Assuming Khun is right, the next generation of scholars should start to take JDC's methods and begin really trying them out.  I'm hoping that I might get into a position to add something to this new stage. 

Anyway, more to your question.  I have no idea what J.E.P.D. is.... ::googles::  Oh the 5 authors of genesis theory.  I think I agree with it.  Its not an area that I feel like I can offer an informed opinion towards the subject.  I spent my time on NT issues far far more.  I can say that the methodologies of the scholars seems to be in order and it does not contradict any information that I have.  So I will assume that those who work in that branch of the field mostly have their stuff in order.

As to what it is that modernist believe, how they work, etc. It's kinda complicated.  I'll just tell the stories of two guys involved in the ideas.  The first is Albert Schweitzer.  This was a time of the triumph of rationality.  The enlightenment was basically learning about developmental theories.  Darwin was teaching that species change, anthropology showed a natural progress in stages in civilizations, and all things started to look like things progressed in an orderly process.  These same sorts of ideas were applied to Christianity and the Bible.  It was assumed that these works, like fairy tales, had accreted stuff over the ages and it was time to really see what the source under all the rest was like.  Schweitzer's biggest addition to the study was an understanding of the apocalyptic but not eschatological nature of Jesus' teachings.

Another example is J.A.T. Robbinson, "the atheist bishop of woolwrich".  He was an anglican bishop who began to reject the old metaphors of church if those metaphors did not make any sense.  A memorable picture of him was for his election to the post, IIRC.  He wore a very basic robe with none of the embellishments that so many religious types tend to have.  He saw that these things had no meaning to most people and wanted to move the church in a direction that had meaning to the people.

With all this going on in the Church leadership, there has been a lot of work in "historical Jesus research", which is the more formal approach that I talked about with JDC.  I don't see it as putting each author against the other and letting them fight it out.  Its more of looking at each source and seeing what it says and why it probably says it.

For example, looking at the pastoral epistles of Paul, most of the scholars agree that he did not write them.  The writing style is very different.  Moreover, the letters reference a very developed church hierarchy and a concern with detailed theological issues.  It is assumed that these issues could not have arisen in the time that Paul was alive based on where the church was in his earlier letters.  But the concern is not just "is it real" but what was the church concerned with at this time, how has the tradition developed, etc.

Looking at did Matthew copy from mark or the otherway helps to date the work and figure out what was the concern at the time and how the early church developed.

As for the world population argument. Physics is an ever-changing field. We are discovering new and unthought of things in quantum physics. Also, the universe is infinite, and ideas that seem like science fiction can be implemented. I remember that before the 50's the thought of space travel was absurd. Perhaps, mars colonization is not that far fetched. With ideas like this, we see that the universe is infinite and so is our potential. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and conserve now, but I think crimes against human nature are all to often diminished. With the advent of invetro, we are seeing cloning opening up an even more unnatural evil than ever before. We should also not leave out the possibility for miracles. I know I sound all to much like a Catholic poster child, but if Christ can be raised, I'm not all to skeptical to entropy not being destroyed sometime.

Well, the best bet is some people will make it off of earth, but it will be unlikely that we can get a significant portion of the population off the earth.  Even finding a new source of energy, it only delays the inevitable.  Colonizing Mars would be like expanding the house for a bit before starting to divide it in half.  I forget what the time frame is for humanity having to expand at the speed of light to keep our population growth rate the same, but its well before the end of the universe.  Anyway, as I see it, we can screw around, have lots of kids and hope for a divine salvation, screw around, have lots of kids and hope for a scientific breakthrough, or read Malthus, and decide to keep our population in check.  I'm not arguing for no kids, just saying that zero population growth is a good thing.

I commend you for your efforts in Africa. All to often, I see christians who could care less about any sort of good works and just pay lip service to Jesus. I also agree exactly with your holocosts point. I see to often that this applies only to Jews. Judaism toughts the slogan to never forget forget the Holocost so it doesn't happen again, and meanwhile, africans are dying in the thousands--not to mention paul pots ordeal.

Well, anyway, here's to your honesty, the Kingdom of God, and leading a good life.

Yeah the big problem with the mainline churches is that they have gotten to lazy within the whole modernism movement.  The enlightenment principles teach to allow everyone to make up their own mind, but the church has done a horrid job of providing the info to make that choice.  We do not stand up to Fundamentalist charges, give ground in the spirit of ecumenicalism, and try to not look like a radical, whereas Jesus would do just the opposite.

debbiedowner wrote:

I have NEVER seen anything published by official RCism that says gay parents do violence to their children by raising them, and I bet you never did either.  The RC Church just would not do that. It would be a lie.

Please don't tell me you have seen such hate literature unless you can provide me a link to its Roman Catholic source. I'm sure you won't be able to. Now, some kookoo Protestant fundamentalists or individual rabid Catholics, maybe, write such tripe. But not any good Catholics or the Church itself.

I hope the topics I've brought back have brought you up to speed.

What?

.tsooJ