Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Metacrock]

I understand it a lot better than you do. What you are calling "complexities" are just the typical atheist stereotype. You have no real understanding of the nature of theology. But that's not the point.I didn't say all that to offend you, I was trying to get over the idea that just taking the bible literally is no measure of Christianity as a belief system.

You are not really saying anything here.
Also, it is clear that I understand theological issues better than you do.

I have a Masters degree in Theology from Perkins, you don't even know what that is do you? I studied with Schubert Ogden, whom I'm sure you have never heard of have you?

Have you read a single page of any work by a major theolgoian? I doubt it very much. Name them. tell me who you have read?

Nah, nah, nah. You have no understanding of the nature of God. The whole thing is far more subtle and complex than you think it is. Typical of flawed Christian thinking; "Internet Christians". It seems you are getting defensive because your dogma is in question. I can see how this might frighten you and cause you to attack me.

you really think your childish posturing proves something?

[Metacrock]

You are trying to judge the truth of Christiantiy as a belief system by how you relate to the Bible. That's a mistake because the common proetestant understanding of the Bible in America is a departure from the historical understanding of the Bible in Chruch history. The idea of "inerrency" as modern American prots defend it did not exit before the 19th century. It is not in any creed and was not endorsed by any council. It was the invention of Warefeild and Darby.

Metacrock, where do you get your information about Christianity?

I went to semnary and got a Masters degree from a major liberal seminary. I get my info from many scholarly sources. But the opproative term is "scholarship." I only do schoalrship.

How do YOU "relate" to the Bible? I relate to it as a collection of ancient myths and stories and judge the religion partly based upon that as well as the actions, writings and speeches given by various Christians.

I see my self as a modern Christian. I have continuity with the past, I see the tradition as living. I see the bible as a creature of the hierarhcy, not fice versa. It is a collection of myths, it's also a collection of hisory, it's also a collection of experinces. I relate to it as a set of artifacts that tell us of human-divine encounter.

[Metacrock]

The first thing we have to do is to change our model of understanding revelation. Revelation is not a word for word rendition of memos from the boss. Revleation is a ersonal existential realization that emerges from encountering the divine.

the Bible is a collection of works that were chosen because they spoke to the bishops and Rabbis (in the case of OT canon collected at Jamina in 90AD) not becasue they dazel with scientific insight that ancient people coudl not know, but because they are artifacts of huamn-divine encoutner. They are colored by the lenze through which they were viewed, an ancient near eastern culture more than 2000 years ago. But there is something in them that cause the reader (and redactor) to say "hey I see in this my own experince of God."

In spite of the ancient undersatanding and ancient world and near eastern approach to life, which is very foreign to our own, they also refelct universal truths and themes because they are a refelection of the way in which the people who wrote and who redacted them understood their own experinces of the divine.

How is this a grand defense of the bible? These are opinions - and there are many Christians who do share these opinions.

what the hell do you think theology is? It's not emprical fact. Don't you understand that? you can't dig up an empirical fact that proves tha the Bible is the word of God, God is not given in sense data. You have to develop a case based upon many view points and in the end it will be largely opinion. That doesn't matter because is not about facts. Theology isn ot science (apologies to Karl Barth).

Inerrency is nothing more than opinion as well. It's all theolgoical positoning.

[Cmass]

I have a Masters degree in Theology from Perkins, you don't even know what that is do you? I studied with Schubert Ogden, whom I'm sure you have never heard of have you?
Have you read a single page of any work by a major theolgoian? I doubt it very much. Name them. tell me who you have read?

Your condescension has been apparent the whole time. This is why I made various - what I thought were obvious - sarcastic comments about you not knowing anything about the bible. I was simply parroting back your own comments hoping you would "get it" and get back on track. I was wrong as can be seen by your pully out all the stops. I hope the above quote is the pinnacle of your arrogance so you can climb down off that horse before it dies.

[Cmass]

Cmass wrote:
Metacrock, where do you get your information about Christianity?

I went to semnary and got a Masters degree from a major liberal seminary. I get my info from many scholarly sources. But the opproative term is "scholarship." I only do schoalrship.

Quote:
How do YOU "relate" to the Bible? I relate to it as a collection of ancient myths and stories and judge the religion partly based upon that as well as the actions, writings and speeches given by various Christians.

I see my self as a modern Christian. I have continuity with the past, I see the tradition as living. I see the bible as a creature of the hierarhcy, not fice versa. It is a collection of myths, it's also a collection of hisory, it's also a collection of experinces. I relate to it as a set of artifacts that tell us of human-divine encounter.

OK, now we're getting somewhere!

1st underlined section: Do you think it is necessary for someone to have a masters degree in theology in order to properly debate or understand Christianity?

2nd underlined section: This makes perfect sense to me.

[Metacrock]

I have a Masters degree in Theology from Perkins, you don't even know what that is do you? I studied with Schubert Ogden, whom I'm sure you have never heard of have you?
Have you read a single page of any work by a major theolgoian? I doubt it very much. Name them. tell me who you have read?

Your condescension has been apparent the whole time. This is why I made various - what I thought were obvious - sarcastic comments about you not knowing anything about the bible. I was simply parroting back your own comments hoping you would "get it" and get back on track. I was wrong as can be seen by your pully out all the stops. I hope the above quote is the pinnacle of your arrogance so you can climb down off that horse before it dies.

sorry it came across that way. I really was not trying to be like that. I am not interested in going on in this p-ing contest.

why don't we scrap it and just be friends?

[Metacrock]

Cmass wrote:
Metacrock, where do you get your information about Christianity?

I went to semnary and got a Masters degree from a major liberal seminary. I get my info from many scholarly sources. But the opproative term is "scholarship." I only do schoalrship.

Quote:
How do YOU "relate" to the Bible? I relate to it as a collection of ancient myths and stories and judge the religion partly based upon that as well as the actions, writings and speeches given by various Christians.

I see my self as a modern Christian. I have continuity with the past, I see the tradition as living. I see the bible as a creature of the hierarhcy, not fice versa. It is a collection of myths, it's also a collection of hisory, it's also a collection of experinces. I relate to it as a set of artifacts that tell us of human-divine encounter.

OK, now we're getting somewhere!

1st underlined section: Do you think it is necessary for someone to have a masters degree in theology in order to properly debate or understand Christianity?

No I don't. I can see how my tone made me seem an ass. Let's start over. I do apologize but you must understand. I run so many people on boards who just really don't know anything about it and they don't care. I precieve you are not one of them.

sorry.

2nd underlined section: This makes perfect sense to me.

Excellent! I really do have problems with inerrnecy.
certanily I can see your point in that those who can only read it litterally do bend over backwards to rationalize views that just don't make sense in the modern world. As a liberal I feel like my task is to place the faith in a broader framework that translates it into the modern world without losing the core message, but in such a way as to discord things like wiping out the infants and so forth.



I find a lot of atheists are not willing to assume any other kind of Christian exists but fundametnlists. that's sort of what set me on edge.

Do you think there will be a split between liberal and fundamentlists? I think they are already as far apart as you can get. It's not long befor they just become two different religions.

[Goose]

I noticed you only quoted those peopel who think it is authentic.. but it isn't considered authentic by many.

I will admit your sources are ultra conservative, and try to push the earliest dates possible, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I will also note that you have just a list, and no reasoning behind that about why they think it is authentic, and why the place it in that date range. Not a very good terciary source of your source..


More information about the reasoning of why certain people will place the gospel later than your sources do can be found at

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html

Goat, quick question. This site you've mentioned, do you use any other sites or sources to get your info and dating? Just wondering.

[Goat]

I noticed you only quoted those peopel who think it is authentic.. but it isn't considered authentic by many.

I will admit your sources are ultra conservative, and try to push the earliest dates possible, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I will also note that you have just a list, and no reasoning behind that about why they think it is authentic, and why the place it in that date range. Not a very good terciary source of your source..


More information about the reasoning of why certain people will place the gospel later than your sources do can be found at

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html

Goat, quick question. This site you've mentioned, do you use any other sites or sources to get your info and dating? Just wondering.

This is convient, but I have also used other sites. I like it because it gives the sources that are both "liberal" and "conservative"... both sides of the story so to speak.

[Goose]

I noticed you only quoted those peopel who think it is authentic.. but it isn't considered authentic by many.

I will admit your sources are ultra conservative, and try to push the earliest dates possible, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I will also note that you have just a list, and no reasoning behind that about why they think it is authentic, and why the place it in that date range. Not a very good terciary source of your source..


More information about the reasoning of why certain people will place the gospel later than your sources do can be found at

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html

Goat, quick question. This site you've mentioned, do you use any other sites or sources to get your info and dating? Just wondering.

This is convient, but I have also used other sites. I like it because it gives the sources that are both "liberal" and "conservative"... both sides of the story so to speak.

It's an interesting site. Think it would be a stretch to say it represents the conservative camp though. The dating on the NT from this site is definitely in the liberal camp. Don't think there's any doubt Peter Kirby is a pretty staunch sceptic. But it's good to know you're "shopping around" for info. Thanks for the response.