I wonder if Keener is considered a friend of BioLogos. He is open to theistic evolution and co-wrote the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible with John Walton.
- Maybe āAsbury Revivalā-related posts merit their own thread.
- N.T. Wright spoke at Asbury? Ha! Better a heathen or atheist than a YEC-cer, eh?
Funny but when I push back harder to dissuade attempts to perform a conversion smack down on me, it almost never works. The folks whose approach I find ham handed donāt care what I think. With you I didnāt mean to put an end to the discussion. Perhaps my gentle push game needs work? But then I hadnāt responded to your post very thoroughly, a bad habit of mine is giving voice to what moves me initially and then failing to go any deeper. Let me try again.
And what you believe to be true just so happens to provide a framework for making sense of the world and our place in it. A win/win for you guys. But it is also the traditional approach to keeping regard for the sacred kindled that has most defined the milieux I have been brought up in. So I honor Christianity and all those who have made that the focus of your lifeās work. I hope sharing my own experience and thoughts never give a different impression on that score.
Iām sure that is true of many but made more sense in a more monolithic culture. In todayās global village we encounter others raised in different wisdom traditions with a regard for what is sacred but who approach it differently. Nowadays not everyone who is unchurched is against all that is holy or blind to what is sacred. If that is true I think it is time for Christianity to examine the way it regards the beliefs of those not in their fold.
Iām not arguing that Christianity does not provide a fine connection to the sacred. I think it does. I just donāt believe it is uniquely adequate. God is not petty, does not think as we do and is not shackled by conceptual categories as we are prone to be. If God is God and not an over amped human, then He is beyond our understanding and we should be much more humble regarding what we are sure of. Whatever we can know is not sufficient to rule God out; nor do I think we can or should categorize other peopleās experience and beliefs as unworthy, though their acts and words are another matter.
There was much in what you said and I may have another go later but I feel Iām reaching a TLDR limit for now.
This! Yes, and amen!
Or also to capture a similar thought that had been expressed in the book āHoly Envyā ā¦
There is no one religion or tradition or culture (not even Christianity) that owns God. (Or as you might add or slightly modify, Mark,) ā¦ that owns the sacred.
Itās funny how once you open up a little crack in what you are convinced of, major fissures can follow and lines you thought couldnāt be crossed begin to look feasible. God always seemed a bridge too far but that was only given a too narrow and rigid conception. If it is fundamentally about teleology in regard to what draws chemicals to gather into more and more animate form and the cosmos to evolve in such a way as to make that even possible ā¦ who knows? I suspect learning from many traditions might enable a broader conception of what it is we cannot encompass verbally.
Liam Iām afraid if you are going to make such an argument you have to back this up.
There are no paperworks to show that Christians donāt value their faith because it makes sense of the world.
I would counter argue in fact and say that most do indeed believe in God for that reason(although I donāt have anything to back it up)
Lol that is true and I agree. Thatās why I never bothered tried to convert or talk about God to anyone
Letās have that discussion!!
You know me Mervin to be gracious and considerate. But if being uncompromising gets me labeled ham handed, then I guess I must be excluded from talking about it with you.
Iāll add itās time for Christianity to unite and do a ācatharsisā on itself ,on doctrines, and on its adherents. Because too much āacceptanceā and āevaluationā has ruined the church in my opinion.
Moral degeneracy runs wild in Christianity today.
If Liam is coming at this as I suppose he is, that Christian belief is properly basic, then no he doesnāt have to back it up. It is a genuine epistemological stalemate. A position which I respect tremendously. But Iād take it a tiny step further to consider what reason can and cannot determine about the world.
Yeah I think that is fair. For me, it is not that Christian is true because it makes sense of the world, but rather makes sense of the world because it is true. There is, I think, a subtle but profound difference there.
Or to put it another way, IMO, the meaning that Christianity provides to life is a discovered (received?) meaning, not a constructed one.
Well put.
Whatever you say. My interactions with Christians tell me otherwise.Especially those of conservitive households,unfotunately.
Sorry that has been your experience. You have a diverse set of viewpoints to interact with here as youāre doing. May God bless your worthwhile endeavor.
I respect Longman and likely would agree with 99% of the book (good subtitle: How Our Emotions Reveal Our Deepest Questions About God), but I disagree with everything after the first sentence.
First, itās not supported by the gospels. Matthew says nothing about the Fatherās emotions, but he makes it pretty clear who is mocking and deriding Jesus, as well as who inspired the crowdās taunts. (Hint: It wasnāt God.) Second, it opens the door to a fundamental misunderstanding of the character of God. On the one hand, classical theism says God is āimpassable,ā and on the other, the emotions ascribed to God by Longman are mocking, derision, and disgust directed at the Son upon the cross. Are those the actions of a loving Father?
Contemptible? Why not do better instead of doubling down? If certainty regarding oneās beliefs about God was a sin, Iām pretty sure this jury of your peers would find you as guilty as Klax.
Cāmon guys. This isnāt hard. Word choice matters. You quote someone and reply āThis is a lie.ā Itās just as easy to say, āStrongly disagree.ā The same applies to Mike.
Itās more nuanced than this. Klax admits he doesnāt know God in numerous ways, and yet is certain regarding what may or may not be in his nature.
Classical theism sometimes errs in the way of philosophical theism.
If you believe Jesus bore the wrath of God the Father in our place on the cross, then I donāt see the problem with this including the mockery of God. If you donāt believe Jesus experienced Godās wrath, then I think you have more to disagree with Longman than his view of Godās derision.
Narcissus existence does become meaningless, but it becomes so of itself. Sisyphusās is different. Although he is is used as the ultimate example of meaningless existence, no one seems to notice that the meaninglessness of his existence was itsā PURPOSE, created for him special as punishment.
This is quite different from the run-of-the-mill nihilist, who sees life as intrinsically meaningless.
Thanks, Jay. I will never be bored, exploring more great ideas.
Mark,
I like your questions. Theyāre uncomfortable but worth thinking about.
I finished āThe Sense of the Sacredā video today, while I was repairing library books at a local school. I really felt like I was getting lost in metaphor on this one. Which is probably an occupational hazzard, when trying to talk about the sacred or divine or god/God, and particularly in terms broad enough to be entirely inclusive.
Thinking just about this problem, that is the challenge talking about these things, it really is easier, when one has a faith tradition with established concepts and ways of talking. Thereās a shared vocabulary and set of ways of thinking as well as doing that is shared.
Jimmy Lin addressed Buddhism. It doesnāt take long: