Couple of Questions

[Silmarien]

Does anyone have any experience converting as an adult? Particularly after having once been hostile towards the religion? I'm all over the place theologically right now.

I could believe in the Resurrection (non-bodily, at least)--I like the argument that the disciples had to have experienced something to go to such lengths after the fact, but I've also seen the counterarguments so it's a bit of a coin toss. That's a jump I could make, but I've realized that I'm still very divided--on an aesthetic and moral level, I love the religion, but my atheist years were spent going after Christian theology in philosophy classes, so there's a fair amount of intellectual hostility there that I never actually defused. It's getting better, but I'm probably going to have to do a lot of theological reading. C.S. Lewis first, though.

Would anyone have any advice for this sort of situation? I've moved close enough to the religion now that not being able to believe (or not believing enough) is a bit stressful, but it's a long way back from hostile atheism, especially if you're not entirely convinced that this isn't just some mad flight of fancy (I'm prone to such things).

Also, I'll have to discuss it with the priest eventually, but at what point is it appropriate to take communion? It'd feel blasphemous to do so right now, since I don't identify as Christian, but I'm not sure when that changes. Episcopal, so the actual requirements are lax.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Apparently Paul (and the Holy Spirit if you believe that Scripture is divinely inspired) misunderstood as well, because the New Testament uses the Marriage relationship as an example of Jesus and his Church ... unless those same feminists believe that God should submit to men and women in an equal partnership as well?

Hi at,
In the beginning, Eve was co ruler of the earth with Adam, Both had equal ruler-ship of the earth together until Eve was deceived by Satan (Gen. 3:16) (1 Cor. 11:1-3)

 

[eddif]

The mud no longer has dominion.

eddif

 

[Silmarien]

Today I discovered Calvinism.

Really wish I could undiscover it, since it certainly adds a new level of horror and self-hatred to the "I'd like to believe but am not sure I can" issue. I guess looking into the conservative side of things was not the best idea, because... uh, that's quite the sea monster lurking beneath. Talk about a bait and switch!

Hopefully I'll get over it by the morning. Otherwise the apologetics are going on hold indefinitely.

 

[eddif]

Ephesians 1:4 KJV
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Sounds like he predestined our behavior, and not something else.

God's treasures are hidden in earthen vessels. The mud of who we are is in us. Study scriptures and not what men define scriptures to say. You can get over a lot.

eddif

 

[atpollard]

Deleted as misplaced debate.

 

[atpollard]

Today I discovered Calvinism.

Really wish I could undiscover it, since it certainly adds a new level of horror and self-hatred to the "I'd like to believe but am not sure I can" issue. I guess looking into the conservative side of things was not the best idea, because... uh, that's quite the sea monster lurking beneath.

It is really a matter of perspective. If you are absolutely determined to approach God on your terms and on your merit and no one, not even God will tell you differently ... then Calvinism is the worst thing in the world and you WILL want to avoid the Bible and stick to Pelagianism and Universalism where everyone is good and everyone is forgiven and everyone is pretty darn special just as they are.

On the other hand, Calvin wrote about the rediscovery that the Bible actually teaches that people are pretty darn bad and, left to our own efforts, nobody would really give God much of a thought one way or another except for some possibly selfish motive. On the other hand, the fact that you care even a little means something HUGE. It means that God has chosen, called, elected you. Check this out, God has loved you so much from before the creation of the world (not all people, YOU in particular) that he was unwilling to leave your fate to chance. God chose to send his spirit to draw you to himself. Then God gave you the faith to believe in him. Then he created in you a desire to want to repent and change. Then God pre-arranged to come to Earth as a human being and suffer your punishment and death, so that you could 'put on' as in be clothed in his perfect goodness. Then God placed his spirit within your heart as a deposit guaranteeing that you would make it all the way through this life and join him in Heaven. Then God decided that friendship was not enough, so he adopted you as his son and decided to 'glorify' you when you get home to Heaven (Glorify means to make perfect). All of this has ZERO to do with what you deserve or earn and 100% to do with how crazy in love with you God is.

That is the monster of Calvinism.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Today I discovered Calvinism.

Really wish I could undiscover it, since it certainly adds a new level of horror and self-hatred to the "I'd like to believe but am not sure I can" issue. I guess looking into the conservative side of things was not the best idea, because... uh, that's quite the sea monster lurking beneath. Talk about a bait and switch!

Hopefully I'll get over it by the morning. Otherwise the apologetics are going on hold indefinitely.

Predestination is grossly misinterpreted. The T.U.L.I.P. believers deny the truth of the scriptures to a point that is disturbing. There is a rule for Hermeneutics that must never be ignored the reads as, "No scripture can be fully understood without the light of all other scripture shinning on it." If God were as capricious as the far, far, right wants to believe then the scripture in peter that assures us of God's perfect wiill as being that all should come to repentence is a lie. Because they have God creating some with no Heavenly hope and the Peter verse reports we all have that hope.

You see, there can be no conflicts in perfection and all that God does is perfection, nothing less. And when the Holy Spirit indwelt me all, apparent conflict, disappeared because I was awarded His wisdom on those issues. Of course the Arminians have gone to the other extreme and are equally as incorrect.

God has promised in Duet 4:2 and in the last chapter of Rev. 22, God promised to gard over His Word and allow no additions and no deletions from it, it is therefore pure and all of these apparent contradictions fade into understanding. Being a Biblicist, IfGod said it, I believe it. And God provided scriptures that men might have a great delusion but that those who follow Him will understand.

what both Major Camps miss is that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. They both utter it without ever understanding what they mouth. None the less, because God is limitless and because God is limitless, he is with every person in the world right now, recording what we do, and because God created the Time/Space Continuum for js to live out this testing period He is in the Past and the Future!

God wrote the Book of Life before He created the World because He was unlimited and had already witnessed the future, thus He knew the very second I would surrender and be saved. He also knows when you will surrender or put Him aside to exhist forever in the Abyss with Satan.

 

[atpollard]

Deleted as not addressed to the OP poster

 

[Silmarien]

It is really a matter of perspective. If you are absolutely determined to approach God on your terms and on your merit and no one, not even God will tell you differently ... then Calvinism is the worst thing in the world and you WILL want to avoid the Bible and stick to Pelagianism and Universalism where everyone is good and everyone is forgiven and everyone is pretty darn special just as they are.

On the other hand, Calvin wrote about the rediscovery that the Bible actually teaches that people are pretty darn bad and, left to our own efforts, nobody would really give God much of a thought one way or another except for some possibly selfish motive. On the other hand, the fact that you care even a little means something HUGE. It means that God has chosen, called, elected you. Check this out, God has loved you so much from before the creation of the world (not all people, YOU in particular) that he was unwilling to leave your fate to chance. God chose to send his spirit to draw you to himself. Then God gave you the faith to believe in him. Then he created in you a desire to want to repent and change. Then God pre-arranged to come to Earth as a human being and suffer your punishment and death, so that you could 'put on' as in be clothed in his perfect goodness. Then God placed his spirit within your heart as a deposit guaranteeing that you would make it all the way through this life and join him in Heaven. Then God decided that friendship was not enough, so he adopted you as his son and decided to 'glorify' you when you get home to Heaven (Glorify means to make perfect). All of this has ZERO to do with what you deserve or earn and 100% to do with how crazy in love with you God is.

That is the monster of Calvinism.

I don't think that everyone is good and forgiven. I think we're kind of terrible. I quite like the Greek Orthodox idea that everyone ends up in God's presence and Heaven and Hell are manners of perceiving Him, and if you are not prepared for that, you will burn. I do lean towards Universalism, yes, but that hardly means everyone is special as they are. "Indefinite punishment" is still punishment, and probably not short. Annihilationism makes some sense to me as well, but if I'm going to lean in a direction, I'd rather it be UR.

I'm not actually "determined" to meet God on my own terms, but I absolutely do have some pride issues at play. Unfortunately, I've also got some self-hatred issues, which I realized today probably are just another form of pride. It's vicious, and makes the "repent depraved sinner" narrative a bit... unhelpful. Speaking of which, this was a rather interesting religious article on the subject: http://www.dranthonybradley.com/self-hatred-the-forgotten-human-condition/

Anyway, Calvinism is the worst thing ever when your reaction to it is going to be "If I can't seem to believe, maybe this part actually is true, and nothing I look into will ever fully convince me, because of course God would never want me anyway." I don't buy Calvinism at all, but that's not exactly a fun thought, and yeah, a pretty monstrous way to wrap up something that's supposed to be good news.

I saw your posts about it and understand why you believe it, but yeah... I've been a bit moody today since reading up on it.

...and now I need to get up in six hours. Whoops.

 

[eddif]

Silmarien
Finding balance between all the issues you understand is tough. We do not wish to be lukewarm, but work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

The cerebellum is our balance (with some inner ear). You hear a lot in life, but what ultimately proves true comes from the light of Jesus.

Romans 7:25 has us facing mind and flesh. Finding balance has to come by God's work. At the last trump the flesh will be changed, but till that time there are some issues of the flesh. Jesus is our intercession with the Father. Let the mind of Christ develop in you. The carnal mind will never understand everything.

The word became Jesus.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[eddif]

Some of the river of spinal fluid comes from the left brain and some from the right. There is no way to understand till we know that the law used lawfully can be understood as a thing of beauty and art / craft.

I was forced from an almost 100% left brain person to some right brain thinking (by a vision problem). Jesus is seated on the right hand of the Father ever making intercession for us. The Mind of Christ clears a lot of murky thinking.

Read about the New Jerusalem and see if the word in our mind fits. The things of God are seen in what he has created. Metaphysical: physical along with what the Master teacher hid in creation.
Romans1:19-20

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

I walked away from Christianity as a child because of evolution. I'm not sure if dropping literalism means dropping conservativism, because there have been people who've read Genesis as allegory since the religion first started up. That seems to be even more common in Judaism. I didn't know that this stuff could be read in layers when I was seven, but I certainly know it now. I'm not ready to say it's divinely inspired because I'm not actually a believer--if I decide the Resurrection happened, I can then start working on the question of how much of the rest is true, but that seems a bit backwards as a starting point.

Can you be conservative and read the Garden of Eden metaphorically? I find it a very powerful statement when viewed symbolically, but when taken literally, I think it's blatantly misogynistic. My liberal bias very clearly lines up to the reality that Eve has been used as an excuse to justify the oppression of women throughout all of Judeo-Christian history. This is a tragedy in Christianity's case because the Gospel is the opposite of misogynistic, but there's other stuff in there that people have used to defend whatever terrible point of view they've had for centuries. I could very easily look at the Garden of Eden metaphorically and say that man's estrangement from God has had many results, including a tendency towards gender oppression, but a literal reading of it is beyond me. I am sympathetic to evangelical feminist thought (i.e., that female subordination was a result of the curse and Christ's blood washed it away as well), but I lean towards the liberal view that the Word of God was filtered through a patriarchal culture and picked up some of its bias. Could God have intended the systemic oppression of women throughout almost all of known history? I don't know one way or the other, but I'd rather not blame Him for it when I know enough about mankind to realize that we absolutely would have edited stories to fit our own agenda. We do it all the time, so my liberal bias is matching up perfectly with reality. This doesn't mean the Bible isn't divinely inspired, but it does mean infallibility is a hard sell for me.

I also strongly disapprove of the suppression of free thought. The answer to someone having problems with certain issues isn't, "Your view is wrong and needs to be corrected." It's open dialogue. "Correction" throughout Christian history has tended to involve inquisitions and crusades, dissent led to massacres between Catholics and Protestants. Are all views equally valid? No. That doesn't make coercion a legitimate way of enforcing agreement. This is by definition a liberal view, though not necessarily inconsistent with conservative theology.

And my final major issue is that I have linguistic concerns. This again isn't at odds with conservative theology, but it does mean I would need to master Hebrew and Koine Greek to be able to trust Scripture entirely. I've seen translation controversies pop up in debates as serious as eternal damnation vs. universal reconciliation, and that is kind of a major issue. I'm multilingual and have some interest in translation, so I'm very aware of how complicated it is and how much room for error actually exists. If I do ever come to believe that the Bible actually is the Word of God, I'll go learn the languages, but that seems like overkill right now.

Did you write this up before my last post? I would think it obvious that pursuing the evidence is specifically what I want to do. I have every intention of taking a look at conservative scholarship.

But could you please stop berating me for the way my mind works? This isn't a debate, and you're really not winning me over to your side of the argument by attacking where I am right now. My 'liberal bias' mostly consists of the types of questions and concerns that come up for me. If they can be answered in a way I find convincing, I'm not at all opposed to adopting different views. I've done it plenty of times in the past.

His endorsement of Donald Trump. In all seriousness, I disapprove immensely of the politicization of religion. He seems to mix the two a fair amount, and that makes me believe that I'm not his intended audience. N.T. Wright seems the perfect first stop, and I can only read so much at once anyway. I'll probably need to grab his behemoth Resurrection work eventually, but I'll stick to the basic apologetics for now.

There are politically progressive, theologically conservative Christians out there. I've even seen a couple here. ;)

I'm not sure why liberalism is always conflated with hedonism--you can be against shaming women for sexual behavior that would be excused in a man without being a proponent of (and much less a participant in) modern hook-up culture. I assume it involves a lot of careful introspection, but politically conservative Christianity should too--when you've got a history of using the Bible to justify slavery, segregation, and denying people suffrage, you've tossed out the Synoptics and turned yourself into an oxymoron too.

Silmarien,

I'll pick up a few things from the early parts of your post.

1. 'I walked away from Christianity as a child because of evolution'. Go to the science section of this forum to discuss this further if you want. However, to allow Charles Darwin & Co to determine HOW God created and continues to create is a view that is added to Scripture. I don't see the origin of species and adaptation (Darwinism) in Scripture, but I won't discuss here.

2. 'I'm not sure if dropping literalism means dropping conservativism, because there have been people who've read Genesis as allegory since the religion first started up. That seems to be even more common in Judaism'.

You provide not one piece of documentation for this. It is your assertion. Therefore, it is a diversionary tactic. If you want to interpret Genesis as allegory, then start a thread and raise the issues. Do you want the first man and woman to be an allegory? Are you going to treat Noah and the flood as an allegory? How about Abraham? Is God's promise to Abraham, 'I will make of you a great nation', an allegory that had no relationship to the nation of Israel?

How do you read your local newspaper, whether hard copy or online? Do you read it literally or impose your allegory on it? Take this morning's article from the Brisbane Times (29 January 2017), Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban' executive order kicks in, passengers refused entry to US.

The article began:

New York: President Donald Trump's executive order closing the nation's borders to refugees was put into immediate effect on Friday night (Saturday AEDT). Refugees who were in the air on the way to the United States when the order was signed were stopped and detained at airports.​

What would stop you from making this an allegory where you force your own meaning onto it to make it say what you want? That's what allegorical interpretation does. It imposes a meaning from outside of what the text states. It is far too easy for you to say, 'there have been people who've read Genesis as allegory since the religion first started up. That seems to be even more common in Judaism. I didn't know that this stuff could be read in layers when I was seven, but I certainly know it now'.

So you are already accepting the 'layers' of allegorical interpretation without investigating the deleterious consequences of what that does to any piece of literature, including the Bible.

CFnet won't allow me to continue this post so I'll provide another reply.

Oz

(continued)

 

[OzSpen]

Silmarien,

This is a continuation of #52:

3. 'if I decide the Resurrection happened, I can then start working on the question of how much of the rest is true, but that seems a bit backwards as a starting point.' But you have already told us about your 'liberal bias'. How will you ever get to understand Jesus' resurrection as an historical event without telling us which historical criteria you will be using to examine the evidence.

4. You say, 'Can you be conservative and read the Garden of Eden metaphorically? I find it a very powerful statement when viewed symbolically, but when taken literally, I think it's blatantly misogynistic. My liberal bias very clearly lines up to the reality that Eve has been used as an excuse to justify the oppression of women throughout all of Judeo-Christian history'.

You can't be a legitimate biblical interpreter and make the Scriptures mean what you want them to mean. When you impose a metaphorical hermeneutic on the Garden of Eden, you introduce your own story into the narrative. That's called a red herring fallacy because it takes us away from what the narrative states. There is no indicator in the text of Gen 1-3 (ESV) that tells us the Garden of Eden narrative is an allegory. That's your 'liberal bias' imposition.

5. You have nailed what drives your agenda: 'I lean towards the liberal view that the Word of God was filtered through a patriarchal culture and picked up some of its bias'. Again, that's imposition on the text. It's eisegesis (putting your meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (getting the meaning out of the text). Unless you put your presuppositions up for examination and follow the evidence wherever it leads, you are going to have difficulty in pursuing this investigation. I see your foggy worldview of liberalism blinding you to the reality of what the text states.

When you pick and choose what you want to make allegory, you are the postmodern deconstructionist who is deconstructing the text to your own worldview. I urge you to place your presuppositions on the altar of critical examination (I ask the same of all of us on this forum, including myself).

That should be enough to get us going for the moment.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

It's not a diversionary tactic to not provide evidence--I figured you'd already know what I was talking about, since I've been at this for a couple months now; you've been doing it for significantly longer! But if you want evidence, I know Clement of Alexandria and Origen interpreted things allegorically, and in Judaism, there's the Remez approach to interpretation, which appears to be allegorical. There was also apparently a medieval rabbi called Saadia Gaon who said that a passage should not be interpreted literally if that made it contrary to the senses or reason. I am not making any of this up; it is quite ancient and literally biblical. We can go straight to Galatians 4:24, since apparently Paul himself interpreted things allegorically: "Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants." If Paul wasn't orthodox, I have no idea what orthodoxy is, haha.

A critical examination of the Old Testament is very much the problem, though. God creates animals first and humans second in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2, Adam is created before the animals. Cain conjures up a wife out of nowhere and then goes off and builds himself a city, even though there's supposedly nobody to live in it yet. I'm sure there are ways to get around all the continuity issues, but for me, it kind of feels like trying to trap God within the pages of a book. Because my problem with literalism isn't just liberal post-modernism; it's also mysticism. The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold.

Regarding historical evidence, I accept logical arguments that take the formula "if not P, then not Q. Q is true, therefore P is true." Could be applied to the disciples' transformation, as well as Paul's conversion. There are plenty of facts that are debatable, but these two are not. I'm also intrigued by extra-biblical evidence in general--Constantine's vision, Genesis 1 continuing to match up to the Big Bang Theory, but evidence for the Old Testament is probably a bit premature.

This isn't really an investigation, though, since I actually do believe. Experimentation with prayer has been... pretty conclusive. A lot of it could be attributed to brain chemicals, but when a prayer of "Hey Jesus, if you're real, can you please help me not be crazy over Calvinism?" results in immediately calming down... well, it can't be the placebo effect when you don't actually have faith. The problem is that I already have deconstructed everything--it's too late to not be a postmodernist when you've already torn everything to pieces. I guess all I can do now is try to put it back together in a way that's reasonably orthodox. I did just order Simply Christian, so hopefully that will help. C.S. Lewis offered some food for thought, but not really on a theological level.

 

[eddif]

I Peter 4:11 KJV
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Good ole Peter. Always speaking as an oracle. Even when he was dead wrong. The beauty of it all is Jesus would praise Peter when he was correct (giving credit to the Father for the revelation).

Or

Condemn Peter for speaking for Satan.


So we wind up seeking to be speaking oracles of God. Mississippi rednecks look at who we are, and see flesh an say ok I will open my mouth (you fill it with the right thing).

We live in a world of shadows. Physical death is a shadow that begins at birth. Big long valley to walk by ourselves. We need God with us.

Spiritual death is the reality that casts the shadow of physical death (what we see is physical death - with the carnal mind).

Revelation 3:20 has God wanting us to open the door on a personal level. Corporate religious experience is seen and experienced ( first chapters of Revelation), but the personal relationship is offered after seeing the problems and benefits with the different public manifestations.

The balance of all this is revealed in the New Jerusalem. Coming down out of Heaven. We struggle to see all the things of the flesh and mind. The crucified Christ taking care of the flesh, and the ascended Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father sending the Holy Spirit to Jews and then to Gentiles.

Here I sit with welding lenses on trying to see. So darkly do I see, but one day face to face.

Sunshine has to be pumped into Mississippi because of the darkness.

eddif

 

[eddif]

Does anyone have any experience converting as an adult? Particularly after having once been hostile towards the religion? I'm all over the place theologically right now.

I could believe in the Resurrection (non-bodily, at least)--I like the argument that the disciples had to have experienced something to go to such lengths after the fact, but I've also seen the counterarguments so it's a bit of a coin toss. That's a jump I could make, but I've realized that I'm still very divided--on an aesthetic and moral level, I love the religion, but my atheist years were spent going after Christian theology in philosophy classes, so there's a fair amount of intellectual hostility there that I never actually defused. It's getting better, but I'm probably going to have to do a lot of theological reading. C.S. Lewis first, though.

Would anyone have any advice for this sort of situation? I've moved close enough to the religion now that not being able to believe (or not believing enough) is a bit stressful, but it's a long way back from hostile atheism, especially if you're not entirely convinced that this isn't just some mad flight of fancy (I'm prone to such things).

Also, I'll have to discuss it with the priest eventually, but at what point is it appropriate to take communion? It'd feel blasphemous to do so right now, since I don't identify as Christian, but I'm not sure when that changes. Episcopal, so the actual requirements are lax.

I am slow sometimes to hear (really hear) a post.
As an adult? The Peter Pan syndrome leaves us avoiding adulthood (I'll never grow up, I'll never grow up; no never, no never).

All over the place theologically? Well good. Most folks want a narrow our group mentality (us four no more Acts 2:4 (as humor and not directed at Pentecostals). I probably fit the Pentecostal description pretty well, but my theology is too broad to allow acceptance into their fellowship.

I repented of sins at 12 (not exactly adult). So some folks folks just stop there (II Chronicles 7:14). Repentance is discussed till the cows come home. Do we need to repent? Absolutely. Does repentance save us? No. Repentance does create a need for a solution. Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (the solution).

If we stop at repentance we can discuss repentance and the need for salvation (maybe even discussing Jesus some). Just beginning to get all over the place.

Then we come to full blown belief in Jesus Christ (his actions that save us for eternity). Ok at this point some stop their broad journey (all over the place journey). I mean salvation is based on His work).

Broad enough for a lot of folks. We just farm and this side of Jordan will just do just fine. After all the next level of experience is filled with all sorts of problems. Well yes it is. You get to cover (sin, righteousness, judgement on a personal level, and become equipped to witness to others). Oh no I think religion is personal. Really? We just wander around blind? We always see through a glass darkly, but blind is not where we should choose to be..

I do not believe in dragging folks into where I think they should be. I do believe in painting the most vivid painting possible. I also understand my artistry is like a developmentally delayed person. I am challenged in so many ways that I criticize no one ( I do discuss a broad area), but It is taking me forever to die to self.

Spirituals for today? Yes. Filled with problems? Sure. The OT had one group blessed and another group suffering (looking for a better resurrection). Looking for a better resurrection under the old covenant.

How all over the place can we stand? Honestly Peter Pan is singing in the background, and faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing to cast that mountain into the sea.

Open the door and allow the high priests representative on earth to enter, and discuss with them. Do not live by wafers alone, but words.

How all over the place am I? To some? Way beyond all reason. No wonder I discuss the liver, kidneys, cerebellum, etc.. For the things of God are seen in His creation. Especially his Eternal Godhead.

Mississippi redneck.
eddif

 

[eddif]

I forgot the rest of timeframe (although posted many times).

Repented at 12
Accepted Jesus at 24
Baptized at home in Holy Spirit at 26 while reading bible alone.

Decades later I am still trying to allow myself to mature.

eddif

 

[eddif]

Romans 2:4 KJV
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

We may start out despising so much of what God is (the very goodness, forebearsnce and long suffering), but the goodness grabs us.

Grabs us and sends us to repentance. John the baptists kind of repentance; the repentance that includes the believe in the one who comes after me (after John - Jesus)

The Holy Spirit does convict of sin, righteousness, and judgement so we can witness to others (in power).

However

What draws us to repentance is the goodness of God.

If I don't watch out I cross into other forum areas. I used to think the Holy Spirit was for me, but it is for others.
Repentance
Belief in work of Jesus
Holy Spirit that I might be s witness.

There is an order to things, I will be so glad to get to order. Right now my
Wrenches, hammers and screwdrivers are scattered everywhere. The Holy Spirit has to bring to remberance where the correct tool is.

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

It's not a diversionary tactic to not provide evidence--I figured you'd already know what I was talking about, since I've been at this for a couple months now; you've been doing it for significantly longer! But if you want evidence, I know Clement of Alexandria and Origen interpreted things allegorically, and in Judaism, there's the Remez approach to interpretation, which appears to be allegorical. There was also apparently a medieval rabbi called Saadia Gaon who said that a passage should not be interpreted literally if that made it contrary to the senses or reason. I am not making any of this up; it is quite ancient and literally biblical. We can go straight to Galatians 4:24, since apparently Paul himself interpreted things allegorically: "Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants." If Paul wasn't orthodox, I have no idea what orthodoxy is, haha.

You confuse 2 things: (1) Allegorical interpretation, and (2) A narrative that says something is an allegory.

Do you want me to interpret your above information allegorically, by which I make your statements say what I want them to say and not what you have stated literally? Let's try one example:

• 'It's not a diversionary tactic to not provide evidence--I figured you'd already know what I was talking about, since I've been at this for a couple months now; you've been doing it for significantly longer!'
• By this, Silmarien means that God's lack of evidence (for Jesus) is merely God's way of getting through to Silmarien that God has superior knowledge to Silmarien's beginning inquiries into spiritual things.
• If I invented allegorical interpretation of everything you wrote, you would have every right to call it baloney or bunkum. Why? Because allegorical interpretation is an illegitimate method of interpretation because it forces into a text what is not there.
  
• When Paul states in Gal 4:24 that he was dealing with an allegory. That was a literal interpretation by Paul to confirm the existence of allegory.

A critical examination of the Old Testament is very much the problem, though. God creates animals first and humans second in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2, Adam is created before the animals. Cain conjures up a wife out of nowhere and then goes off and builds himself a city, even though there's supposedly nobody to live in it yet. I'm sure there are ways to get around all the continuity issues, but for me, it kind of feels like trying to trap God within the pages of a book. Because my problem with literalism isn't just liberal post-modernism; it's also mysticism. The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold.

To the contrary, a careful examination of the OT is not a problem. Every one of the issues you raise here from Gen 1 and 2 has been successfully resolved. The differences in the order of creation are quite easily explained.

• Gen 1 gives the order of events:
• Chronological order
• Outline
• Creating animals

Then,

• Gen 2 goes into more detail on the content about what was in ch. 1:
• There is no contradiction, since ch 1 doesn't affirm when God made the animals. Ch 2 gives:
  
• Topical order
• Details, and the
  
• Naming of animals, not creating animals.

Therefore Gen 1 and 2 is a harmonious statement that gives a more complete picture of the events of creation (with help from Geisler & Howe 1992:35).

Determining the source of Cain's wife is an old chestnut. It is easily solved. Your claim is that 'Cain conjures up a wife out of nowhere'. Were there no women for Cain to marry as there were only Adam, Eve (Gen 4:1) and his dead brother Abel (Gen 5:4).

Cain probably married his sister or niece because we are told that Adam 'fathered other sons and daughters ' (Gen 5:4 HCSB). Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5 ESV) so he had stacks of time to have a pile of children. Was Cain committing incest if he married his sister/cousin? At the beginning of the human raise there would have been no genetic imperfections. Genetic defects would have emerged following the Fall into sin. Since only a pair (Adam & Eve) began the human race, Cain had nobody else to marry except a close female relative.

You state that Cain 'goes off and builds himself a city, even though there's supposedly nobody to live in it yet'. It's time that you read Gen 5 more carefully. 'Supposedly nobody to live in it' is bunk, when you read the text.

You say, 'My problem with literalism isn't just liberal post-modernism; it's also mysticism. The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold'. Your problems with this statement include:

• Your problems with 'literalism' are not applied by you to your own text. If you gave a post-modern, getting below the surface interpretation to what you write, then I would understand your dilemma.
• But you don't apply this principle of anti-literalism to your own narratives.
• You say, 'The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold'. That's existentialism, which is bound up in its own problems of experience without purpose and knowing God's will.

Regarding historical evidence, I accept logical arguments that take the formula "if not P, then not Q. Q is true, therefore P is true." Could be applied to the disciples' transformation, as well as Paul's conversion. There are plenty of facts that are debatable, but these two are not. I'm also intrigued by extra-biblical evidence in general--Constantine's vision, Genesis 1 continuing to match up to the Big Bang Theory, but evidence for the Old Testament is probably a bit premature.

Do you affirm the Law of Noncontradiction that 'A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship'?

Evidence for the reliability of the OT is not premature. Your knowledge seems to have a gap here. Take a read of archaeologist, Egyptologist and historian, Dr Kenneth A Kitchen 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

This isn't really an investigation, though, since I actually do believe. Experimentation with prayer has been... pretty conclusive. A lot of it could be attributed to brain chemicals, but when a prayer of "Hey Jesus, if you're real, can you please help me not be crazy over Calvinism?" results in immediately calming down... well, it can't be the placebo effect when you don't actually have faith. The problem is that I already have deconstructed everything--it's too late to not be a postmodernist when you've already torn everything to pieces. I guess all I can do now is try to put it back together in a way that's reasonably orthodox. I did just order Simply Christian, so hopefully that will help. C.S. Lewis offered some food for thought, but not really on a theological level.

You say you actually do believe. What do you believe in? What is the nature of your belief? I'm reminded of a verse that James taught, 'You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!' (James 2:19 ESV).

Your claim is that you have deconstructed everything and it's too late not to be a postmodernist. That fact is that that is not true. What you have written in your post is not postmodern deconstruction. For the benefit of those who don't understand that language, we should define 'postmodern deconstruction'.

It means that words and sentences have no inherent meaning in themselves. People who read anything construct their own meaning, which is shaped by culture and life's experiences. So the author's intention in the writing is deconstructed, i.e. altered by the reader. The reader determines what the author means. Postmodern deconstruction turns an author's meaning on its head. The reader determines the meaning.

Silmarien, in your post here, I didn't read anything that told me I must read your post as postmodern deconstruction. I'm surprised how close postmodern deconstruction is to allegorical interpretation. Postmodern deconstruction tears the heart out of any document. You cannot apply for social security, secure a bank loan, or answer the rules of the road to get your driver's license using postmodern deconstruction.

So, you do not engage in postmodern deconstruction of 'everything'. You are selective in what you deconstruct. That's your liberal bias coming into play and that bias needs to be exposed if you are going to read the Bible objectively and not impose your deconstructed message on it.

Oz

 

[eddif]

My head would swim trying to build constructs that would harmonize disparencies. I do believe in balance, but the balance is used to keep from slipping into the creek (the creek of toxic waste). I just leave heaven and hell in two different places. One ticket to heaven.

Of course that tears the comments out of some commentaries.

Oh well. Mississippi folks are out of tune with upper society and their book learning.

I would not have you ignorant brothers.
1 get outa here
2 let us talk about this

I don't normally use all these fancy words.

eddif