From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 16:44:09 EST
Michael Roberts wrote:
> Not worried about myself . I dont the NT teaches an imminent return of
> Christ in the 1st century.
>
> What worries me is the damage caused by fundamentalist/dispensational
> teaching which forces an interpretation (and a dodgy one ) onto the NT. To
> Christians who start to question this can result in a domino effect on their
> faith and perhpas it is happening to Jim.
>
> It is the same as insisting on a literal 6 day view of Genesis. When it
> crumbles faith goes
I have an alternate theory, Michael.
To me Christianity is about a personal relationship with God, not a bout a
relationship with a book. I sense that many hang their beliefs on their view of
the Bible and that it must be the infallible word of God --- totally divine,
error free on all subjects, yada, yada, yada.
Then one might hang out with enemies of our faith, or just simply
listen to those
posting on this list. One concludes that the first book of the Bible is nowhere
near scientifically correct. In face t he ancients thought they lived under a
bowl and they got that from some sumerian myth. The next few chapters may be
envisioned as coming from the musings of an ancient, hairy theologian by his
fire, with his spear and loincloth, weaving spiritual tales about the good old
days. All of this followed by non historical tales of Jonah, Job ,
and maybe even
about Peter walking on water. Maintaining the notion of Biblical infallibility
becomes a rather difficult chore.
So the relationship with book dies -- if the relationship was God was never
present.
Agnosticism is not the worst thing in the world but it is just a wimp's way of
avoiding taking a position. Keep a foot in all possible worlds and
then hop back
and forth depending upon the way the rocks are flying. Criticize everything and
defend nothing. But Agnosticism cannot be true unless atheism is not a viable
world view.
The proper response is manly atheism. Seize the bull by the horns and live life
without the God that does not exist anyhow. Recognize morality for the facade
that it is and size the moment to grab everything just for numero uno. It's the
logical path.
IMO that leads one to eventually think the problem through completely and tends
to result in the path followed by C. S. Lewis: From atheism to theism to a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Once one is that point, THE
BOOK is for
spiritual edification -- not the literal cornerstone of one's faith
IMHO
Walt
>
>
> Michael
>
> Subject: Re: Historical evidence for Jesus
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > What is that "worries" you? Are you concerned about Jim's recent mindset
> change
> > -- or do think he has raised a serious issue in your mind?
> >
> > Walt
> >
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > > One major problem with Christianity is that Jesus' return is 2000
> years
> > > > overdue (Mt 24:29-35, Mk 13:24-31, Luke 21:5-36, Rev 1:1-3).
> > >
> > > Jim wrote this and I am a bit worried. These passages due talk of an
> > > imminent return of Christ but dont say when .Further the exact meaning
> of
> > > these passages is not clear and Christians have always been divided. Too
> > > many scholars Liberal, Conservative or Dispensationalist try to force
> their
> > > opinion on to them. At the begining of acts jesus says no one know the
> > > times or seasons - that is good enough for me - and ought to be good
> enough
> > > for anyone
> > >
> > > Michael.
> > > >
> > > > It's really all about the truth and trustworthiness. For practical
> > > > purposes, Christianity takes huge hits every time a YEC opens his or
> > > > her mouth. I used to equate Christianity with people who were honest
> > > > truth-seekers. I guess I've grown up.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Eisele
> > > > Genesis in Question
> > > > http://genesisinquestion.org
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> >
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
> >
> >
> >
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 11:02:11 EST