A quote from M. Borg's book "The God We Never Knew" pg 8
"Fundamentalism as a conscious and deliberate insistence on the literal and historical factuality of Scripture came into existence early in the twentieth century. Rather than being "traditional Christianity," it is a modern reaction to the worldview of the Enlightenment. I agree with its rejection of the modern worldview as an absolute, but I cannot agree with its attempt to establish the Bible as a source of divinely guaranteed factual knowledge."
Here again it confirms what I've been saying that fundamentalism does not reflect traditional Christianity but is in fact a human invention.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Christian Fundamentalism
JAB:-6
Absolutely. Add to that fact that he can back that up with historical evidence.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Absolutely. Add to that fact that he can back that up with historical evidence.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Google Marcus Borg.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Google Marcus Borg.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
JAB:-6
Facts are facts and have nothing to do with faith. Faith that one will see a purple unicorn does not make them exist.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Facts are facts and have nothing to do with faith. Faith that one will see a purple unicorn does not make them exist.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
JAB:-6
Wrong again.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Wrong again.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Perhaps you should re do that google. I see pages and pages. There enough there for a great deal of reading. That I will not do for you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Perhaps you should re do that google. I see pages and pages. There enough there for a great deal of reading. That I will not do for you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
JAB:-6
You are probably correct in that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are probably correct in that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Are you really that lazy that you cannot google two words? No help here. Are you afraid of the truth or of learning something new"
Shalom
Ted:-6
Are you really that lazy that you cannot google two words? No help here. Are you afraid of the truth or of learning something new"
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Oh!!!
The bio is right there for your reading pleasure and the enhancement of your knowledge.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Oh!!!
The bio is right there for your reading pleasure and the enhancement of your knowledge.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Don't know how to use google? Get a book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Don't know how to use google? Get a book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Ho hum.
I'm not doing your work for you. Either learn or don't. That is your problem.
But again with the personal attacks on folks of whom you know nothing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ho hum.
I'm not doing your work for you. Either learn or don't. That is your problem.
But again with the personal attacks on folks of whom you know nothing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Calling people a liar is such a wonderful Christian act so it would seem. Judging others is such a fine Christian act? In my view neither are Christian acts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Calling people a liar is such a wonderful Christian act so it would seem. Judging others is such a fine Christian act? In my view neither are Christian acts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
There is no difference between what happened during a protest at an American University and what happened at Tienanmen square.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is no difference between what happened during a protest at an American University and what happened at Tienanmen square.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Now that makes absolutely no sense.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Now that makes absolutely no sense.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
AAAHHH! the old dodge the bullet routine. It is a creative dance to avoid the questions. LOL
Actually I couldn't resist that one.
I'm just not sure how one can justify the murder of unarmed university students and yet condemn the action in Bejing. Interesting paradox.
Shalom
Ted:-6
AAAHHH! the old dodge the bullet routine. It is a creative dance to avoid the questions. LOL
Actually I couldn't resist that one.
I'm just not sure how one can justify the murder of unarmed university students and yet condemn the action in Bejing. Interesting paradox.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
Can't be bothered looking it up eh? Now that "eh" is Canadian. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can't be bothered looking it up eh? Now that "eh" is Canadian. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Ted;1031080 wrote: A quote from M. Borg's book "The God We Never Knew" pg 8
"Fundamentalism as a conscious and deliberate insistence on the literal and historical factuality of Scripture came into existence early in the twentieth century. Rather than being "traditional Christianity," it is a modern reaction to the worldview of the Enlightenment. I agree with its rejection of the modern worldview as an absolute, but I cannot agree with its attempt to establish the Bible as a source of divinely guaranteed factual knowledge."
Here again it confirms what I've been saying that fundamentalism does not reflect traditional Christianity but is in fact a human invention.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Well that's a load of cobblers for a kick off. Look at the problems Darwin had and he was hardly 20th century. Fundamentalism has been around for centuries and it's advocates were burning heretics for quite some time-you get catholic fundamentalists as well as protestant. Do a web search under Puritan. What do you think they were?
och I'll do it for you
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html
They didn't go away they got kicked out of England and went to the states. You didn't just get liberal democracy from us you got our religious bigotry as well. They wanted freedom to worship as they pleased but it wasn't something they really wanted to let everybody else have given half a chance they would again make life miserable for those they regard as sinners-all because they have everybody's best interests at heart and they just need to do what they are told id best for them.
It's surprising that the most vitriolic threads are in the religious section. Where is the love and common bond of a shared (if absurd ) belief?:-2
Value the differences, hug an atheist, read the god delusion (haven't read it yet myself actually).
You both share a common religious belief yet you seem unable to just agree to disagree amicably without getting personal about it. Why not?
"Fundamentalism as a conscious and deliberate insistence on the literal and historical factuality of Scripture came into existence early in the twentieth century. Rather than being "traditional Christianity," it is a modern reaction to the worldview of the Enlightenment. I agree with its rejection of the modern worldview as an absolute, but I cannot agree with its attempt to establish the Bible as a source of divinely guaranteed factual knowledge."
Here again it confirms what I've been saying that fundamentalism does not reflect traditional Christianity but is in fact a human invention.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Well that's a load of cobblers for a kick off. Look at the problems Darwin had and he was hardly 20th century. Fundamentalism has been around for centuries and it's advocates were burning heretics for quite some time-you get catholic fundamentalists as well as protestant. Do a web search under Puritan. What do you think they were?
och I'll do it for you
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html
They didn't go away they got kicked out of England and went to the states. You didn't just get liberal democracy from us you got our religious bigotry as well. They wanted freedom to worship as they pleased but it wasn't something they really wanted to let everybody else have given half a chance they would again make life miserable for those they regard as sinners-all because they have everybody's best interests at heart and they just need to do what they are told id best for them.
It's surprising that the most vitriolic threads are in the religious section. Where is the love and common bond of a shared (if absurd ) belief?:-2
Value the differences, hug an atheist, read the god delusion (haven't read it yet myself actually).
You both share a common religious belief yet you seem unable to just agree to disagree amicably without getting personal about it. Why not?
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester;1033786 wrote: I am certain that with Ted I am no longer arguing True Christianity. His ideologies are totally fase humanistic philosophy and have absolutely nothing to do with any thing Holy. Borgs ideas arent 'christian' at all, they are philisophical and metaphysical ideologies that tear at the core of thousands of years of biblical intepretation. Its actually nothing new, the pharisees had done the same thing in Christs time and after.
After reading more of Borg and Crossan (Teds two fav's) I see more of where they are coming from, which is a systematic humanistic philosophy to deny God. In short they are evil men who subvert the Holyness of God, by denying any truth specific to his character, the main force of pluralism is that the 'devine' which they refer to God as in order to un-name him and distance the hearer from a personal realationship with God, is to create enough doubt in the believer that God is less exact, less concerned with what they do in terms of a decision about God thus enabling them to be the god that decides what they want to hear. In essence its a reverse, the reformers took the bible and brought it to the comman man to allow him to read it for themselves instead of the clergy interpreting it, what the pluralist has in mind is to replace the clergy with the scholar, you see, according to them, the 'devine' is not understandable unless they explain it to you. Keep buying thier books and cd's and paying their high college teaching salaries, while they trapes around the country spouting off all they 'cant be sure of', after all, in Ted's own words (a parrot reading of the so called scholar-non thealogian Marcus Borg) 'no one knows for sure what the bible says'.
I see your point about the way the bible was interpreted and practiced by the historical groups you mentioned but, I have nothing to do with those groups, I don't hold the same standards that they practiced, and I am a fundamentalist of the bible.
I'm not suggesting you do have anything to do with your groups. Rather that a certain "fundamentalist" mind set of I am right and everybody else is wrong, you're all going to hell and the preparedness to commit the most awful atrocities on other christians has been around for hundreds of years and is not a recent phenomenon. I always think those who propound such a theory show a remarkable ignorance of history and en even more marked reluctance to challenge their own pet theories carefully ignoring anything that might conflict.
Islam has the same phenomenon and that also goes back hundreds of years. Maybe it's a universal trade of mankind.
Karen Armstrong strikes me as another such writer. She wants to believe that monotheism is somehow that from which all civilisation flows and in so doing ignores anything that might conflict with it. It's one of the reasons I haven't read any of her books I find the very notion irritating-might have a look in the local library though since I do claim to be open minded I should practice what I preach.
After reading more of Borg and Crossan (Teds two fav's) I see more of where they are coming from, which is a systematic humanistic philosophy to deny God.
How can you deny something you can't prove exists?:sneaky::D
As before let's agree to disagree on that one. How can you take seriously someone called after a star trek alien species? resistance is futile or what.
After reading more of Borg and Crossan (Teds two fav's) I see more of where they are coming from, which is a systematic humanistic philosophy to deny God. In short they are evil men who subvert the Holyness of God, by denying any truth specific to his character, the main force of pluralism is that the 'devine' which they refer to God as in order to un-name him and distance the hearer from a personal realationship with God, is to create enough doubt in the believer that God is less exact, less concerned with what they do in terms of a decision about God thus enabling them to be the god that decides what they want to hear. In essence its a reverse, the reformers took the bible and brought it to the comman man to allow him to read it for themselves instead of the clergy interpreting it, what the pluralist has in mind is to replace the clergy with the scholar, you see, according to them, the 'devine' is not understandable unless they explain it to you. Keep buying thier books and cd's and paying their high college teaching salaries, while they trapes around the country spouting off all they 'cant be sure of', after all, in Ted's own words (a parrot reading of the so called scholar-non thealogian Marcus Borg) 'no one knows for sure what the bible says'.
I see your point about the way the bible was interpreted and practiced by the historical groups you mentioned but, I have nothing to do with those groups, I don't hold the same standards that they practiced, and I am a fundamentalist of the bible.
I'm not suggesting you do have anything to do with your groups. Rather that a certain "fundamentalist" mind set of I am right and everybody else is wrong, you're all going to hell and the preparedness to commit the most awful atrocities on other christians has been around for hundreds of years and is not a recent phenomenon. I always think those who propound such a theory show a remarkable ignorance of history and en even more marked reluctance to challenge their own pet theories carefully ignoring anything that might conflict.
Islam has the same phenomenon and that also goes back hundreds of years. Maybe it's a universal trade of mankind.
Karen Armstrong strikes me as another such writer. She wants to believe that monotheism is somehow that from which all civilisation flows and in so doing ignores anything that might conflict with it. It's one of the reasons I haven't read any of her books I find the very notion irritating-might have a look in the local library though since I do claim to be open minded I should practice what I preach.
After reading more of Borg and Crossan (Teds two fav's) I see more of where they are coming from, which is a systematic humanistic philosophy to deny God.
How can you deny something you can't prove exists?:sneaky::D
As before let's agree to disagree on that one. How can you take seriously someone called after a star trek alien species? resistance is futile or what.
Christian Fundamentalism
gmc:-6
Is it rational to criticize a writer whom you have not read?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Is it rational to criticize a writer whom you have not read?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester/Hoss:-6
I like the use of the British term cobblers. That is what you are presenting. You are presenting your ideas.
No, Borg and Crossan don't change the Bible nor the interpretation. They go back as far as history allows and try to comprehend how the writers wrote and what they wrote. I might take issue with Borg's use of the term early 20th cent. but I would have to discuss that will him which I have ample opportunity to do.
However the reformers are the ones who decided they did not like what the earliest church thought and did and so they changed it to read the way they want.. That includes using modern definitions to words that meant something different when they were written etc.
To tell me I am presenting a false religion is rather an arrogant stand based on your opinion. In fact this is precisely what drove me out of the fundamentalist church and continues to turn many against the fundamentalist church. Fundamentalism has totally distorted the teachings of the early church and the teachings of Jesus. They have failed to read and study their history standing on their own understanding. My attempt is to get back to what the early church, the church of the apostles knew, taught, and loved. I do not rely on my own understanding as the fundamentalists are wont to do.
As for my position let me make one thing clear. What Borg, Crossan and others are teaching I came to believe and understand long before I even knew they existed. They have simply given me the words and concepts to better express my own beliefs.
No, you simply do not understand me nor do you even make an effort to do so. The comment was made that I was too stubblorn to change but that is a comment that goes both ways. At least I have thought, studied, prayed, meditated, discussed what I have come to believe with many, not just a few, scholarly people.
I guess one can either be like the Ayatolla Khomeine and read only one book or one can try to broaden their understanding of life and the Divine by reading and thinking more broadly. After all that is precisely why God gave us the intelligence to use. I believe it is a sin not to use that intelligence.
Hoss, no I don't take the Bible as you do. I take the Bible very seriously but not literally and God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.
Anyway, you have shown me that nothing has changed in the last 50 years. The fundamentalist church is still living in the past and treating the Bible as a dead book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I like the use of the British term cobblers. That is what you are presenting. You are presenting your ideas.
No, Borg and Crossan don't change the Bible nor the interpretation. They go back as far as history allows and try to comprehend how the writers wrote and what they wrote. I might take issue with Borg's use of the term early 20th cent. but I would have to discuss that will him which I have ample opportunity to do.
However the reformers are the ones who decided they did not like what the earliest church thought and did and so they changed it to read the way they want.. That includes using modern definitions to words that meant something different when they were written etc.
To tell me I am presenting a false religion is rather an arrogant stand based on your opinion. In fact this is precisely what drove me out of the fundamentalist church and continues to turn many against the fundamentalist church. Fundamentalism has totally distorted the teachings of the early church and the teachings of Jesus. They have failed to read and study their history standing on their own understanding. My attempt is to get back to what the early church, the church of the apostles knew, taught, and loved. I do not rely on my own understanding as the fundamentalists are wont to do.
As for my position let me make one thing clear. What Borg, Crossan and others are teaching I came to believe and understand long before I even knew they existed. They have simply given me the words and concepts to better express my own beliefs.
No, you simply do not understand me nor do you even make an effort to do so. The comment was made that I was too stubblorn to change but that is a comment that goes both ways. At least I have thought, studied, prayed, meditated, discussed what I have come to believe with many, not just a few, scholarly people.
I guess one can either be like the Ayatolla Khomeine and read only one book or one can try to broaden their understanding of life and the Divine by reading and thinking more broadly. After all that is precisely why God gave us the intelligence to use. I believe it is a sin not to use that intelligence.
Hoss, no I don't take the Bible as you do. I take the Bible very seriously but not literally and God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.
Anyway, you have shown me that nothing has changed in the last 50 years. The fundamentalist church is still living in the past and treating the Bible as a dead book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Jester:-6
I have now explained my position. It is indeed my opinion, supported by many others just as what you present is your opinion. That does not mean that I declare that anyone else is teaching a false religion. That is a judgment that I am quite willing to leave up to God.
Since your point of view turns many off I have every right to present mine. If they find it more acceptable that is fine. If they don't that is fine as well.
I will leave the judging up to God with every confidence in the judgment of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have now explained my position. It is indeed my opinion, supported by many others just as what you present is your opinion. That does not mean that I declare that anyone else is teaching a false religion. That is a judgment that I am quite willing to leave up to God.
Since your point of view turns many off I have every right to present mine. If they find it more acceptable that is fine. If they don't that is fine as well.
I will leave the judging up to God with every confidence in the judgment of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
Thanks. I do respect that.
The point is not to argue but to share ideas. I see nothing wrong with disagreement. The world is full of it. That is one way in which we learn.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. I do respect that.
The point is not to argue but to share ideas. I see nothing wrong with disagreement. The world is full of it. That is one way in which we learn.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Ted;1042259 wrote: gmc:-6
Is it rational to criticize a writer whom you have not read?
Shalom
Ted:-6
:D Valid point. Like you I have my prejudices and some things I can't be bothered reading which is why I am not criticising the specifics just the basic premise as I suspect she sets out to prove her case rather than anything else.
Have you read the god delusion. Make a deal with you-you read the god delusion and I'll read karen armstrong. I haven't actually read richard dawkins myself although I've glanced through it. I don't think it will tell me anything I haven't worked out for myself. I find fundamentalist atheists just as irritating as the christian or muslim variety. You can't ignore the very real part religious faith has played in history any more than you can insist it is the only thing that made a difference.
Have read the bible but I don't see it as the word of god and I wouldn't argue with you or hoss about it since the fundamental disagreement on what it is (no pun intended) is just that-but it's one I can live with. I can respect your belief and live let live. My dislike of fundamentalists is that too many of them can't find it in themselves to respect others beliefs.
Is it rational to criticize a writer whom you have not read?
Shalom
Ted:-6
:D Valid point. Like you I have my prejudices and some things I can't be bothered reading which is why I am not criticising the specifics just the basic premise as I suspect she sets out to prove her case rather than anything else.
Have you read the god delusion. Make a deal with you-you read the god delusion and I'll read karen armstrong. I haven't actually read richard dawkins myself although I've glanced through it. I don't think it will tell me anything I haven't worked out for myself. I find fundamentalist atheists just as irritating as the christian or muslim variety. You can't ignore the very real part religious faith has played in history any more than you can insist it is the only thing that made a difference.
Have read the bible but I don't see it as the word of god and I wouldn't argue with you or hoss about it since the fundamental disagreement on what it is (no pun intended) is just that-but it's one I can live with. I can respect your belief and live let live. My dislike of fundamentalists is that too many of them can't find it in themselves to respect others beliefs.
Christian Fundamentalism
Just to clear up any misconceptions about the academic career and the credentials of Marcus Borg. Lest anyone take Jester's rant at face value.
Marcus Borg academic credentials
Shalom
Ted:-6
Marcus Borg academic credentials
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
gmc:-6
I suspect in many ways we are not that far apart in things.
I've read enough of "The God Delusion" to know that Dawkin's rant is just that. He is ranting against something that many churches discarded many years ago. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to modern theology. In many ways I could have written the same rant.
A good deal of what he objects to I object to as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I suspect in many ways we are not that far apart in things.
I've read enough of "The God Delusion" to know that Dawkin's rant is just that. He is ranting against something that many churches discarded many years ago. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to modern theology. In many ways I could have written the same rant.
A good deal of what he objects to I object to as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
Ted;1042932 wrote: gmc:-6
I suspect in many ways we are not that far apart in things.
I've read enough of "The God Delusion" to know that Dawkin's rant is just that. He is ranting against something that many churches discarded many years ago. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to modern theology. In many ways I could have written the same rant.
A good deal of what he objects to I object to as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'll have to read it myself. But one of the reasons I haven't bothered is glancing through it he's does not seem to be pointing out anything I didn't already know.
I suspect in many ways we are not that far apart in things.
I've read enough of "The God Delusion" to know that Dawkin's rant is just that. He is ranting against something that many churches discarded many years ago. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to modern theology. In many ways I could have written the same rant.
A good deal of what he objects to I object to as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'll have to read it myself. But one of the reasons I haven't bothered is glancing through it he's does not seem to be pointing out anything I didn't already know.
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss;1045653 wrote: I'm going to stand in for my dad here because this really bothers me. Mr. Borg maybe a well educated man, but that doesn't mean he is right about spiritual things. There are plenty of well educated men that I would never ever take advice on biblical matters. Stephen Hawkins was an extremely well educated man, yet the best he could do to estimate anything spiritual was state that his life long discovery of knowledge led him to conclude that 'God exists', there's a whole lot more to God than the fact that he exists.
On matters of spirituality education matters very little to me, I'd much rather see the character of the man and judge from how he lives, if he has any spiritual views to impart that are worth listening to.
Being that Mr. Borg denies every word of Jesus written in the New Testament, I doubt he has anything spiritual to impart to me.
Just for one I entirely agree with you. Make up your own mind and think for yourself. Too many people, especially religious people just follow and believe what they are told to think. Maybe you have more in common with those early puritans than you think. Just too bad some went on to become fundamentalist extremists-those are the ones we remember and pillory.
On matters of spirituality education matters very little to me, I'd much rather see the character of the man and judge from how he lives, if he has any spiritual views to impart that are worth listening to.
Being that Mr. Borg denies every word of Jesus written in the New Testament, I doubt he has anything spiritual to impart to me.
Just for one I entirely agree with you. Make up your own mind and think for yourself. Too many people, especially religious people just follow and believe what they are told to think. Maybe you have more in common with those early puritans than you think. Just too bad some went on to become fundamentalist extremists-those are the ones we remember and pillory.
Christian Fundamentalism
Hoss:-6
Stephen Hawking is a scientist not a biblical scholar nor a Jesus scholar. You are wrong in saying that he denies all of the words attributed to Jesus but that is what comes from commenting on folks you have not read. You have absolutely no ideas about his spirituality or the depth of his faith.
J. D. Crossan is recognized as the world's premier scholar on Jesus and M. Borg is close behind him.
The problem is that you and many others simply don't like what they have to say. It is not whether or not they speak the truth but you simply don't want to hear anything different then what you think you already "know".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Stephen Hawking is a scientist not a biblical scholar nor a Jesus scholar. You are wrong in saying that he denies all of the words attributed to Jesus but that is what comes from commenting on folks you have not read. You have absolutely no ideas about his spirituality or the depth of his faith.
J. D. Crossan is recognized as the world's premier scholar on Jesus and M. Borg is close behind him.
The problem is that you and many others simply don't like what they have to say. It is not whether or not they speak the truth but you simply don't want to hear anything different then what you think you already "know".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Christian Fundamentalism
I found an interesting quote the other day. Since I don't know who the author is I cannot credit him or her but it does reflect quite well on modern theology.
"I'd rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
Shalom
Ted:-6
"I'd rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
Shalom
Ted:-6