 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/7/2003 12:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | I remember a number of years ago when I was fresh in Grad-school, I suggested to Greg Boyd the idea of having an online center that would be like an apologetics center. I.e., people who were trying to emulate what he did with his father in "Letters from a Skeptic" could get together on-line and talk shop about what worked and what didn't in trying to dialogue with non-Christians about Christianity.
I think we're falling short of that goal. I mean yes there apparently are non-Christian who read the site and post sometimes. And I think that the links on homosexuality, abortion and gun-control, affirmative action are important since we do need to sort out what are the Christian views on these important issues in order to be able to discuss our differences with non-Christians intelligently.
So how about setting up this link as a support link for people wrt their experiences apologeticking with non-Christians or helping supposedly Christian friends and family get into a better relationship with God.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 06/12/2003 7:16:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/12/2003 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | | The following is the transcript of an apologetics exchange between me and my high-school biology teacher, who was heavily influenced by Bahaism and initially had a very naturalistic view of reality.
It is me explaining some important aspects of Christianity(from an open perspective) to him, emulating Greg Boyd.
Bohlig1: As far as the argument that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and
Steve"--it seems to me Biblically flawed. After Cain killed Abel, Cain
was afraid that he would be pursued by others for his crime, therefore
God placed a mark on him so that none would dare kill him, as I recall.
So if that is the case, all kinds of people must have been created by
God who did not come from Adam and Eve, if one is to take the narrative
in a literal sense. There is nothing to suggest that Cain or Abel had
as yet had children, or by whom--certainly not by Eve, and no place is
there the suggestion that Adam and Eve had any daughters that Cain and
Abel "married." So how can anyone say that God did not create "Steve?"
The literalist is in a very difficult spot with the implications of the
narrative. At a minimum, I should think, he must be forced to admit
that many things occurred in the "acts of creation" that were never
included in the Genesis accounts. The names of the other people on
Earth whom Cain feared is not all we do not know about them. We know
nothing of their beliefs, practices, sexual orientations, etc.
David1: One of the principles of hermeneutics is that in order to
understand a passage from an other culture or from the past, you need to
uncover its background and try to see what the passage would have meant
to the people of its time. This is why a lot of the evolution versus
creation debate is whoppin' red herring. The reason is that the first chapters
of Genesis were never meant to be a scientific treatise on how the world
and humankind came into being. To understand its meanings we can compare it
to the alternative stories of how the world came into being that existed at
that time and how the genesis account differed drastically from these
and then by analogy try to uncover what its implications are for today.
If we were to contrast account of Adam and Eve to that of Greek
Mythology, we see that in the Biblical account they were created one for
The other as a gift from God,
Bohlig2:Up to here I agree with you. I am surprised that you are not
more of a literalist, as that is the impression I had.
David (continued): where as in Greek Mythology the gift of woman was
shall we say a trojan horse meant to eventually bring suffering to
humankind through the opening of Pandora's box.
Bohlig2: By your logic the Biblical gift of woman could just as easily
be, and has been, interpreted as the source of sin in the world. In the
old Norwegian church where ancestors of mine worshipped from perhaps as
long ago as 1200, the women had to sit on the north side of the church
because it was only right that since sin had come into the world via
woman that women should take some of the bite out of the air before it
hit men. And of course the Genesis accounts were not meant to refute
Greek myths, but those of Messopotamia and the Nile.
David2:The fact that in the genesis account eve was the first one to eat the fruit has been interpreted by some to mean that females as a whole bear a stronger culpability for the onset of evil in this world. This is not the only interpretation, nor the best interpretation. If you read the genesis account, you have God's admonishment to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil, then shortly after you have Eve's response to the serpent as to why they were not supposed to eat from the tree. Interestingly, they differ somewhat. One interpretation of this passage is that the serpent approached eve because she was at an information disadvantage, ie she was not around when God first made the command so her understanding of what God's will for them was not perfect. This does not imply any inherent inferiority or curiosity in females. Another, point is that since Eve went and shared the fruit with Adam right after, it is possible that Adam, who had been told that they would die if they ate the fruit, was allowing Eve to test the waters first and then equally partook of what was forbidden after no immediate affects took place on his wife.
The key thing is that both were cast out of the garden and punishment was placed upon both of them. Applying the principles of hermeneutics, we can interpret the punishment of having to work the land for men, and difficulty in childbirth as the most excruciating tasks that both of the sexes were made to do at the time. The implication: the burden for their sin was held jointly and pretty darn equally.
David1: The point was that our sexuality was a special gift from God not
just a survival mechanism designed to ensure the continued existence of
our species. The Genesis Account before the fall represents how humans
along with all of creation were created for a purpose with an ideal in
mind. It is only after the fall we see how humanity degenerated from
this ideal
Bohlig2: If you did not have Paul's theology, would you not consider
your reading of the story as "the fall" rather than "the expulsion from
the garden" unusual? For how many generations did Jews recount the
story and never, so far as we know, until Paul came along, was the
expulsion of Adam and Eve seen as a "fall" of all mankind?
David2:So the alternative interpretation is that human nature was not fallen due to the fall, we were merely made to exist in a lot crappier environment. This could be one of those nature/nurture arguments that are impossible to resolve. I would maintain that the fallenness of human nature is immediately demonstrated within the Genesis account by the murder of Abel by Cain. Adam and Eve bickered about who was the guilty party denying their guilt or passing the buck.
It might be possible that one could interpret the "fall" as largely a reaction to the very suboptimal environment humans entered into. Cain, because of the harshness of engaging in his livelihood, chose to not give God the best of his produce. Then when God did not honor his gift as he did the gift of Abel, Cain in anger sought revenge.
Likewise, since work became very hard, survival of the fittest determined which males would survive(assuming that the greater physical strength of men gave them a comparative advantage in hunting/farming over women), having worked hard there is no rationale for them to share of their harvest with others. Thus the weak die and the strong benefit from being to have multiple wives. The desire to succeed and do better than the next guy gets interwoven with the hormonal impulses. This of course leads to a degradation of the position of women and so on... . At some point weaker males decide, hey if it works for women, why not see if it will work for us. It is a free country and having the knowledge of good and evil does not stop us from acting in our self-interest.
Who knows how things developed over time so that homosexuality became a fact of life for a significant portion of the human population( I am told figures are probably two percent, not the ten percent that gay rights supporters were so fond of quoting). People claim that the ratio of homosexuality is common to all cultures. Of course this is just a theory. Evidence can partially detract or support it.
Bohlig2 (cont.): David, I want to ask you for any evidence to suggest
that humanity has degenerated from an ideal state. Have any
archeological finds ever suggested that early humans were better than
our generation? It is so easy to find fault with our age, but look at
the past, how prevalent slavery was, how hostile almost every people
were to any but their own kind, how terribly children and women were
treated, how power and wealth were even more unevenly divided than they
are now. This brings me to a question about purity. There is purity
because of innocence, and purity because of strength. While I would
never characterize our age as an age where God comes first, would the
pious of the past be as pious if they had all of the distractions we
have? We could also ask, If life in the past were not more precarious
in terms of disease, roaming and pillaging Vikings and Huns, etc., and
less under the potential control of humans than life is now, would
people have been as pious? Here we encounter the rich man, and how hard
it is for people with much to give it all up. Perhaps the pious of this
day, and certainly there are some, eclipse the pious of the past--it is
just a thought. I do strongly believe that humanity is not only "going
downhill," it is in many ways going "uphill, morally" as well. My major
question here, really, is: where is there any evidence that humanity has
degenerated from a higher state?
David2:John, you know as well as I do that the absence of any concrete proof does not necessitate a disproof. (Don't be so damn Humean on me : ) )I could give an argument such as archaelogical proof of conditions before the fall would be impossible because of the flood. Regardless of the difficult archaeological task of identifying when the flood occurred: due to the existence of flood type characters in mythologies of all types, including those of Native Americans, it is likely that some sort of flood did occur and that it affected all of humankind at that time.
Another argument would be the fact that we have been able to foresee, or idealize something more than our very imperfect circumstances throughout human history means that there may be some part of our collective conscience that goes back to a time when things were not so bad. Otherwise, we have to come up with story that explain how the beauty embodied in the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven arose out of the interaction of animals trying to eat and not be eaten. The fact that humans have the capacity of rising out of the very base environments that they are often born into and that the crass individualistic conditions of life still permit acts of kindness and selflessness indicate that the survival of the fittest story is not the only story.
I do not know if the Adam and Eve account literally occurred, but whatever it was that caused the origin of an alternative view of how society could be run that was a notch above eat or be eaten has a lot to do with what I mean when I say that the state of the world and of humankind's relation to the world and each other is fallen in the sense other than it was designed to be.
David1: (and mostly this is described with the growth of polygamy, the
imposition of headship of males over females(there is no mention of male
headship anywhere in the Genesis Account prior to the fall)
Bohlig2: nor is there any indication of any beliefs or practices of
people back then (if you believe there were others than Adam and
Eve)--so anything can be suggested. Are you suggesting that the
polygamy of Abraham was morally wrong? What about the polygamy of
Moses? Does the Bible indicate anyplace that polygamy is wrong or
offensive to God? And what do you make of Paul's comments that women
are to be silent in the churches and submissive to their husbands?
David2: A lot of the things that Abraham did were wrong. He failed to trust God to protect him against the Egyptians and tried to secure his own safety by saying Sarah was his sister(half-sister she was) and letting the Pharoah take her as one of his wives. Abraham sleeping with Hagar was wrong. Why, because it also was an act of lack of faith in God and God's providence. Apparently God was doing something wrong, since Sarah was not giving birth and yet Abraham was promised to become father of nations. It is wrong when it goes against an ideal of how humans are to relate to God or each other. The ideal here is that we as humans are to trust God to take care of us and to fullfill the promises that he makes to us. I believe it is a solid interpretation to say that Abraham's polygamy with Hagar was wrong in that sense. I would also say that only bad things have happened in history, both in the Bible and elsewhere due to polygamy. I would interpret this as being due to the fact that the marriage bed was created to be an act of love with the two becoming one, not an arena for competition. The fact that environmental conditions may in some societies lead to polygamy, is merely due to bad environmental conditions.
David1: and apparently some of the fallen angels had sexual relations
with humans producing monsters).
Bohlig2: Am I reading what I think? Do you believe angels have
physical bodies with DNA and can appear on Earth and have sex with
humans? If their DNA is not like ours, offspring would not be
possible. If the DNA is almost like ours, an inter-species offspring
would be possible. Such offspring are almost always sterile. So where
are these monsters? Did they exist only for a brief time, unable to
reproduce? I do not ever recall hearing of them, unless you are
referring to the famous passage that says "In those days there were
giants in the earth." I must confess that I am not sure what to make of
"fallen angels." If one is an angel, how does one fall?
David2:Genesis 6:4 The sons of God(commonly interpreted as angels) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. This grieved God greatly(v.3) and the progeny of these marriages were the Nephilim (giants) who "were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown." This is the hebraic account of the promiscuity of the divine that is so abundant in greek mythology. It challenges our western enlightenment understanding to try to understand how this could happen, but there is nothing we know of that prohibits it from having occurred.
The point I was trying to make was that human sexuality was designed for a purpose and this is just another example in the old testament of how this purpose could be corrupted. The general tradition that follows this story claims that the offspring of the Nephilim were mutant spiritual beings(demons) who are responsible for much of the suffering and hurt that is prevalent in the world.
David1: At any rate, the moral of the story is that this wonderful gift
that God had given us became perverted and twisted to such a miserable
state that God at one point had to almost start over. The Old Testament
is all about this theme. God created us to have a relationship with him
and we took many of the wonderful gifts that he gave us and twisted them
into horrendous acts that so hurt God and others to such an extent that
divine euthanasia was the only solution back then. The rest of it is
about God's ongoing struggle to raise up a set of believers who would
help him reestablish the close relationship that had been destroyed by
the fall.
Bohlig2: There is another way to look at the Bible: that of a people,
constantly having trouble finding and following God. The insights of
the Jews about God continued to deepen with time. It is in many ways
like watching a child grow up. The child does not start out perfect.
The parent expects the child to make mistakes. The parent is not hurt
that the child has to make mistakes, that the child is acting like a
child. Is God hurt by human failings? I doubt it. How can the
All-Knowing, the Being before Whom all are but paupers, the Lord of the
all the worlds, seen and unseen, be afflicted by "hurt?" Are these
sayings not just a way to indicate that the reflection of God within us
has been hurt? In Islam or Bahá'í, not positive which, there is the
following statement: "All things have I created for you, and you, too,
for your own selves."
David2: Part of the distinction between our two stories is with regard to whether or not this struggle to understand God that the Old Testament deals with is a process of initial discovery or recovery from a collective amnesia. In general in theology our two perspectives have been described as devolution and evolution.
I would most certainly add that central to my conception of God is God's ability to be hurt by human failings. If you will our ability to hurt others and ourselves with sinful behavior merely drives yet another spike into the hands and feet of Jesus at the Cross. God as a loving God, created us for a purpose and has a vested interest in our lives. Thus when our lives become increasingly tragic in the sense we fall further and further from how we were capable of living, this hurts God much. If our own hurt from the suffering of others is due to the fact that we imperfectly reflect God, just think how many times more would God have been hurt by the great tragedies of this world such as the holocaust, unfair subjugation of females and the ubiquity of racism as well as the perversion of human sexuality through polygamy, incest, adultery, sodomy, and homosexual acts.
John, I am afraid that your view of God as being above hurt does not at all reflect the hebraic portrait of God. I think it is very heavily influenced by the Aristotelian(Augustinian) conception of God as one eternal thought, constant in its perfection and therefore immutable in every way. This conception of God stands outside history and views the universe as it unfolds in one glorious instant.
The portrait of God that I think is better reflected in the Old and New Testament is that of a God who is intrinsically involved with history(although, in different ways at different times) and loves human life so much that it tears at God. The conception is the same as with Jesus in Mark 6:34 after having tried to get away from the crowds so he could rest for a little while, he looks out on the crowd, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began teaching them many things. If God can be moved with compassion, certainly God can be hurt. The thing is that God's ability to be hurt does not in any way take away from what makes God God. God is not some big tough guy who has to ride it rough over human history and not sweat the small stuff in order to ensure that the end result will be decent.
David1: The exact demographics of how the rest of human kind came into
Being following Adam and Eve does not touch upon this. Nowhere in the account
Of Genesis do they mention the birth of females. This does not mean that
They did not occur.
Bohlig2: I do not dispute this. But I am interested in knowing if you
believe all the females came from Adam and Eve. If so, then humans came
about through incest. If not, then all people are not descended from
Adam and Eve, unless God generated some females from the dust and Cane
and Abel were the fathers of all the grandchildren of Adam and Eve. If
more than just some females were created by God, certainly there were
people who were not descendants of Adam and Eve, and therefore not
carriers of the "sins" of those two.
David2:Well, My faith in God as understood through Christianity does not rest upon whether my particular understanding of how the origins of the human race came about is correct or not. At any rate, it is possible to tell a good story that would indicate all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Needless to say back then dating your sister seems to have been an okay thing. I believe there are some good reasons why this is wrong today. How the human genetic stock managed to diversify itself is something that I leave to faith and the many years of human adaptation(did Adam have a beard? I know Noah and Moses did. ; ) ) and procreation.
David1(Continuing): People lived to a very old age back then and I am sure no one used
birth control. It does not take much imagination to see how a
relatively large population could have sprung up within the course of a
couple hundred years. If I am right I believe Adam is reported to have
lived to be around eight hundred years. Cain in his discussion with God
could have been referring to the future descendants of Adam and Eve.
The key thing is that Adam and Eve represent the divine
ordination of marriage. Polygamy, abusive relationships where the
female is put into complete subjection, casual sexual relations between
people who do not love each other enough to forgo their economic
independence or ability to have other sexual relations are strong
deviations from this ideal. The desire of human beings for homosexual
acts is also interpreted in the old testament to
be among these acts of perversion.
Bohlig2: I have no objection to the notion that males and females were
meant for each other. Obviously, without both uniting we would not have
humans in the world today. What I take issue with is Adam and Eve being
the pattern for marriage. If you believe they disobeyed God and caused
all humans to "fall," that certainly does not seem like a good example
to me. And being the reason why all women from hence forward should
have to give birth with pain--I sure wouldn't see myself as being a very
good spouse if I were Eve.
David2:Adam and Eve certainly were not perfect as you point out. The key thing I would emphasize is that before the separation between them and God, there does not seem to have been any evidence of gender headship. Only after the fall does this become prominent. They fell, however, they still exist to symbolize that God did create man and woman as complements to each other. They still serve the role of embodying an ideal conception of how marriage could be that through their own misactions becomes tragically flawed.
This is somewhat in opposition to those Christians who advocate spiritual headship of the male. However, that is a totally different topic.
David1(Continuing): I would make an analogy from myself to those who are born with a
strong tendency toward homosexual acts. Sometimes, it is our defects
that provide us an avenue for becoming something extraodinary. This is
a blessing, but it never makes the defect not an aberration from what we
could have been. It does not take that much imagination to try to
imagine a world where great acheivements can be inspired by something
other than the need to overcome strong social barriers. These barriers
exist, much acts of hate have been committed against homosexuals, too
often in the name of Christianity. This only saddens me and denigrates
further the mission that Christians are supposed to perform on earth: to
strive to resemble Christ [and further push back Satan's grip on so much
of this planet.]
Bohlig2: No argument here, except that my concept of "Satan's grip"
would probably be far, far more methaphoric than yours.
Bohlig1: I do not know how much you know about how dogs have come into
existence. I heard a wolf expert speak once who said dogs can be
produced from wolves by taking the most docile pups of wolves and
breeding them with each other, then from their offspring take the most
docile and breed them together, etc. for about four generations. At the
end of that time you will come up with "Canis familiaris" and no longer
be able to get "Canis lupus" from them. Dogs are promiscuous, wolves
mate for life. The male dog has nothing to do with the rearing of the
young; the male wolf hunts for half the day, comes back and regurgitates
food for the pups while the female goes out to hunt. And there are
other differences. What the dog is, I was told, is a wolf that has
become stuck in adolescence, as the genes that take it beyond had been
bred out of the dog's genome. Now, when I observe some male
homosexuals, it has occurred to me that the level of "silliness" I
almost always observe (assuming we have a fair number of gay men
present) may be like the "silliness" found in many pre- to
mid-adolescents. The "loss of maturation" is one possible way to think
of male homosexual camp. I do not suggest that there has been a genetic
loss similar to that between dogs and wolves, but a "switching" of the
default female pattern brain to a male pattern brain (by testosterone,
dihydrotestosterone, etc. during fetal development) may be just as
irreversible for the gay male as becoming a wolf is for a dog. I do not
suggest that this hypothesis fits all gay males, maybe not even a large
percentage, but it might be true for some.
David1: One could see dogs as a degenerated wolf then. Or, you could
see them as the wolf adopted to meet the needs of humans to protect
themselves and perform other important tasks(not excluding
companionship). However, we could say that it is due to once more, "the
fallenness of Nature" that humans had to breed out of wolves their
maturity in order to adapt them to serving our purpose.
Bohlig2: Humans have manipulated all kinds of organisms for centuries.
I suppose the horticulturalits who have given us seedless grapes could
be pressed into an admission that they have corrupted nature, but I
doubt if the cattle breeder who has produced cows that yield double the
milk output of the ferile animal, or the Kentucky thoroughbread owner
whose horse outstrips any wild horse in a race, or the breeder of
bloodhounds whose noses can track a man's scent, and find a lost child,
or an escapted convict--I doubt if they would yield to your depiction of
their animals as examples of "nature fallen."
David2:My point was made directly to addressing your analogy between the immature behavior of male homosexuals and the immaturity of dogs. I do not contest that new varieties of animals and plants can be developed by humans that in many senses of the word are better. I still enjoy Farley Mowatt's "Never Cry Wolf", it just seemed to me that given the fact that dogs, cats other domesticated animals have a propensity to overpopulate themselves leading to plenty of near starving animals and necessitating neutering in most cases, that this loss of maturity of wolves due to the adversarial nature of human and animal relations(so brilliantly described in Mowatt's book) is tragic.
David1(Continuing): The point I am trying to make, is that we still are dealing with
ideals of human behavior, and a severe departure among gay men from what
we believe as a society is civil behavior. WE can accept this as
genetically inevitable, treating them as dogs or subhumans(although, I
know you had no intention of giving this sort of connotation to gay men)
or we can try to help these individuals in the way we help people with
strong propensities to Alcoholicism and other behavior.
Bohlig2: If homosexuality could be cured or treated, I would be all
for it for those who wish it--and I suspect the majority would. If it
could be prevented, or reduced, by reducing stresses during fetal
periods, I think we should do it. If we were talking about diabetes, or
propensities to alcoholism, no one would seriously object. However, if
we were talking about left-handedness and its elimination or reduction,
I think we should object. If we were talking about making sure all
people were within six inches of a median height for their sex, I would
object. If people were to insist that all homosexuality (as a
personality or brain type) had to be eliminated, I would object. Even
if one considered homosexuality as great a defect as blindness, I would
object, as blind people have something to teach us. Down's syndrome
people have lessons to teach us. While the look of the eyes of a blind
person discomforts me, while the disabilities and needs of a Down's
syndrome child can wear on me, while the gender-blendedness of many gay
people makes me wonder with amazement that anyone would want to have
them for a "partner," I know that much of my distress is cultural, much
of it is ego insecurity, much of it comes from my imperfect view of what
this world should be like. I would like a world in which no one would
be blind. But is that my wish, or God's? I would like a world in which
no one was a burden. But is my wish God's wish? I would like a world
in which categories and choices were more clear? But endless diversity,
unnumbered roads--that seems to be God's way. Are there societal
benefits from homosexuality? In an age where overpopulation is an
Armagedon waiting to happen, perhaps. In the worlds of art, the number
of gay contributors, I would suggest, might well outnumber the
percentage of gays in society. If so, being anti-homosexual might be
something like being anti-Jewish. Think of how much Jews have
contributed to the world. Their detractors will point out, if they are
not afraid to face those who are in the army of the politically correct,
that Jews have had a tendency to monopolize certain industries in many
countries, to the exclusion of others (banking, garments, the cinema,
etc.). Even if greatly true, would the elimination of Einstein,
Bernstein, Copland, Spielberg, Greenspan, etc. be worth any sense of
moral outrage?
David2:This brings us back to our old issue of the selective perception of a propensity to homosexuality as being more like being left handed or like being an alcoholic.
I must be frank I am similarly amazed at your characterization of homosexuality as being intrinsically interwoven in the formation of the personality of someone in the same terms as one would use for Jewish persons.
(Digression:Quite frankly, Spielberg has some good movies, but I would for one like to see the movie industry much less centralized. Too much money is being spent on too many films that really are not that different or innovative. There are plenty of other good stories to be told than those reflecting the life experiences of Woody Allen.
I have nothing against the Jews as a people. I wish they did not define their jewishness as meaning not Christian. I understand very well the centuries of discriminatory behavior and hatred on both sides that have led us to this present situation. However, as important as tradition and morality are, the law was given to the nation of Israel not as a means of salvation, but as concrete means to remind them of the importance of their relationship with God. I also understand the agnosticism that may grip the vast majority of them due to the Holocaust, ongoing persecution and also perhaps a slightly misplaced faith in Science. )
Getting back to the purpose of this exchange, just as with those who come out of the Jewish culture, I am not sure of why the beneficial aspects of homosexuals are inextricably interwoven with their practice of their homosexuality(As I do not understand how someone cannot maintain their Jewish identity and be Christian at the same time). This probably plays into same left-handedness vs Alcoholicism perception of reality.
Bohlig2: I grant you that adversity can be the cause of
gifts developing, but it can also be the cause of gifts underdeveloped.
Would Beethoven have been greater had he not lost his hearing? I cannot
say either way. I am left speechless at what he did in the face of
adversities. Would Schumann have done more had he not suffered from
mental illness? I think probably yes. So, should the homosexual be
forced to look at his/her sexuality as an affliction that will be the
source of character growth? Would we say to a cripple, do not visit the
orothopedic surgeon, as taking away your skeletal defects might detract
from your character development? I am sure most all homosexuals have
plenty of other difficulties in their lives that taking the focus off
their sexuality will not prevent them from finding many areas over which
they can find grounds for character development. But what needs to be
asked is whether or not homosexuality is so degenerate, so corrupting of
the soul, that it must be considered more terrible than: jealousy,
hatred, greed, covetousness, self-centeredness, sloth, insensitivity,
lack of civic mindedness, and how could I forget malparenting? Does
sexual attraction to a person of the same gender threaten marriage? I
doubt it, as heterosexuality has never been on the verge of extinction.
Does homosexuality lead one to cruelty, hardness of heart,
insensitivity? I think the aids epidemic has produced more than enough
examples to disprove that idea. Does homosexuality blur the lines of
what is appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior? It certainly
puts that issue in many people's faces. But I doubt that it is this
issue that lies behind people's discomfort. If it was just this, then
all the TV shows with unmarried people sleeping together would produce
far more outrage than they do. I think it goes to the complicated
manner by which males acquire their sense of maleness. Human males in
our culture need to break away from their mother, engage in competition
with each other, look down on girls as weak, cowardly, not territorialy
expansive and as inquisitive, not as spacially adventurous as the
male--they have to earn their identity in a way females do not.
David2:Is this natural or merely a(here I go again) fallen cultural model that we have for males? Is the extent of homophobia, and the vast majority of it is senseless, unbiblical, irrational hatred due to this conception of how males are supposed to develop in their heterosexuality?
Bohlig(Continuing):Males
taunt each other with "sissy" in a way girls seldom do with each other.
Do girls have any equivalent to a guy being "a mamma's boy?" Insecurity
over whether or not a guy has really made it, I believe, is what is
behind homophobia in males. As far as Biblical passages in the Hebrew
texts, much of it, I believe, is related to temple prostitution. Some
of it, I believe, springs from a patriarchial society not wanting to see
itself want for offspring, or want for males who might not be good
warriers. If one looks at the so called "Holiness Code" in Leviticus, I
see a people striving to create an identity for themselves that is very
separate from that of those around them. How otherwise can one
understand prohibitions against wearing clothing made from two different
kinds of fiber? Do I see these passages as coming from God? No.
David2:Do I see this passages as having a lot of relevance for Christians today, No. Like I talked about last time, when you are surrounded by Pagans and potentially quite susceptible to joining them in their pagan rituals in committing a large number of acts that are perceived as dishonorable to your God, you set out a set of rules for yourself to create a very distinct identity for yourself. The question of whether God ordained the passage of Leviticus is not the question at hand( I take it as God ordained, but designed for a very specific period with the question of determining its relevance for today a nontrivial question).
Bohlig2(Continuing):I see them as coming from a people seeking to find God. Do I see anger expressed at one's parents to be worthy of capital punishment, or working on the Sabbath, especially if one is a doctor, firefighter, disaster relief worker, police officer? Not at all, nor do I believe God ever did. Do I believe homosexual orientation is as good as a heterosexual orientation? Certainly not. The homosexual loses out in many ways. But just as the blind person typically has stronger sensativity in touch, smell, taste, hearing, perhaps the gay person typically has his or her own gifts. And just as the blind person may have trouble keeping a room tidy, so a gay person may have trouble with behaviors that will bother most typical people. Seeing it in this light might be of some help.
David2:I most certainly agree.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/12/2003 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Here in MX, most people are nominally Catholic although more and more are starting to fall away.
A lot of the youths are interested most in having fun or rather liberal in their views.
Mostly, my impression, is that a lot of people tend to dislike/distrust the leadership of the RCC and so they disregard its teachings.
As an academic, I am careful in class about what I say about religion, but the subject does crop up in the courses I teach. One of my students asked me this fall if the US Constitution was from the Bible. I told him know, but that the willingness to accept rules even when it was not in our interests to do so, may stem from religious beliefs.
So my students know that I am a devout Christian and sometimes the topic comes up. I got the chance last Thanksgiving to eat breakfast with my students and open with prayer. And then later I told the story about the first thanksgiving with one of my fellow professors who is not religious at all.
Anyways, one thing I learned from Boyd's "Letters from a Skeptic" was the importance of having a strong social relationship with the people you apologetic with and the need to listen. It introduced me to Open theism, but more broadly the importance of reintroducing the distinction between tradition and scripture that was obscured in much of Protestantism after their break from the Catholic Church. This distinction came to matter for me, because I saw that non-Christians often were opposed to aspects of Christian traditions and that by not treating as absolute what was fallible, a barrier to faith could be removed. However, this then led me to return to the necessity of traditions since attempts to focus on the universal had shucked out scripture and disregarded severely the need for us to make decisions about the concrete manifestations of our ministries and what rules do we govern ourselves with.
Anyways, I see apologetics as interacting with both Christians and Non-Christians about our differences and similarities and why they do or do not matter.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/13/2003 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | It is Greg Boyd's forum. I just told him that it would be great to have online support group for doing apologetics. Others can post what they want on this forum, but for this link I hope it will not be about me and my proclivities but strictly apologetics.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/13/2003 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | I want to clarify what I read above (your comments) that the board here was your idea. This is what I hear you saying. I have noticed qutie a few persons speaking rather directly to you about comments you have made to them (suggestions to change their title or comments, so forth) or they have addressed your methods of interacting (as I recall two gentlemen did awhile back). I have noticed that there have been topic threads begun directly addressing your methodology. Knowing that you gave G. Boyd the idea for the forum might help us all to better understand your drive to see it as you do (with certain titles, topics, revisions, and appealing to nonChristians) and the freedom with which you make suggestions to others about their personal comments.
Edited by - Christian on 06/14/2003 3:09:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | That wasn't what DLW said.
Please don't twist his words, or "infer" more than he meant.
Christian wrote:
quote:
So then, this forum is your brainchild, your idea? Why have you been given no credit?
Christian also wrote:
quote:
So, basically, the idea for this forum was your idea. G. Boyd took your idea and went with it. This is what I hear you saying.
A gentle reminder, if I may.
Divisiveness and/or "sowing the seeds of discord" serve only to erode our community, and turn brother against brother.
I know this probably wasn't your intention, but in the wake of the turmoil that "Bob"/Bobbie inflicted, please understand that we're all a bit "gun shy" regarding the far-reaching effects of such rash comments.
Thank you for listening...
Peace & blessings,
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 6/14/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | "Christian":
Please change your tone or change your name.
Pax,
C&H
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/14/2003 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Christian":
Please change your tone or change your name.
Pax,
C&H
I couldn't agree more...this is getting so old.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/14/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Shane!
Where ya been? On the road doing concerts? Miss'n ya man!
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Everyone will agree that it has "gotten old!"
But don't dump on Christian. These two posts were written in a context of DLW strongly wishing that the posts of others and the structure of the whole board become the artfull extension of his thoughts. More power to DLW--its worth trying.
I asked DLW if I've been to hard on him in my posts, and he e-mailed back that he enjoys it.
Lets NOT "dump" on Christian now!!!!!
It can be really tempting to gang up on one who posts a view contrary to the one we personally hold. Pay close attention to whether that is an underlying "urge" of you who criticized above. It happens. Not to say that Christian doesn't really look bad here. (Then, this is just a part of a cross-thread debate...which might be lost on some.) But, wtch your own motives, brethr'n!
Thanks.
On with the SHOW!!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | In the words of Rodney King - 'Can't we all just get along?" :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/15/2003 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Everyone will agree that it has "gotten old!"
But don't dump on Christian. These two posts were written in a context of DLW strongly wishing that the posts of others and the structure of the whole board become the artfull extension of his thoughts. More power to DLW--its worth trying.
I asked DLW if I've been to hard on him in my posts, and he e-mailed back that he enjoys it.
Lets NOT "dump" on Christian now!!!!!
It can be really tempting to gang up on one who posts a view contrary to the one we personally hold. Pay close attention to whether that is an underlying "urge" of you who criticized above. It happens. Not to say that Christian doesn't really look bad here. (Then, this is just a part of a cross-thread debate...which might be lost on some.) But, wtch your own motives, brethr'n!
Thanks.
On with the SHOW!!!!
pow,
my comment here has nothing to do with any particular stance that Christian takes on any issue.
thanks
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/15/2003 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Shell
pow, my comment here has nothing to do with any particular stance that Christian takes on any issue.
Shell, who said I was talking specifically about you? Don't act so guilty!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/15/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Only have time to post.
This article describes the conflict in Europe over whether or not they should acknowledge the role that Christianity played in their cultural formation. It reflects the animosity towards Christianity that is prevalent in much of Europe and is a propos for an apologetics link.
dlw
An Oxymoron: Europe Without Christianity
June 14, 2003
By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
Next week, leaders of the European Union will meet in
Greece to vote on a proposed constitution that will govern
the lives of 450 million Europeans. The most agitated
debate at the convention that produced the draft focused on
the preamble, specifically whether God in general, and
Christianity in particular, ought to be mentioned among the
sources of the "values" that produced a common European
culture and heritage.
Though the Vatican did not have a representative at the
convention in Brussels, Pope John Paul II has been the most
outspoken of the European churchmen who have argued that
Christianity should be listed among the inspirational
sources that have shaped European culture. That's no
surprise, since the pope has long insisted that
Christianity is the cultural link between the people of
Western and Eastern Europe. Ten East European countries,
including Catholic Poland, are expected to join the union
next year. Opponents have argued that a reference to God
belies the constitution's secular purpose, and that a
specific reference to Christianity would alienate Western
Europe's 15 million Muslim immigrants - not to mention
Muslim Turkey, which is eager to join in the union's
eastward expansion.
For the moment, the secularists have won. In the draft that
the convention approved yesterday, the preamble refers
abstractly to "the cultural, religious and humanist
inheritance of Europe." That seemed awfully vague to me as
I sipped brandy one recent night in the Piazza San Marco
after hours of communing with the mosaics of the Christian
saints inside Venice's majestic Basilica of St. Mark the
Evangelist. Indeed, it seems as if one cannot find a
Venetian public square that does not also have a church,
many of them decorated with frescos by masters like Titian,
Tintoretto and Tiepolo. The next evening, in the perfect
acoustics of the Church of San Samuele, I listened to two
young vocalists sing arias from "Tosca," "La Bohème" and
"La Traviata" under the serene gaze of a "Madonna and
Child." No one can visit Italy, or the medieval core of any
European city, without encountering evidence of the
Christian humanism that gives Europe its enduring cultural
identity and - even now - its particular glow. Who goes to
Brussels except on business?
"At the center of culture is cult," observed Christopher
Dawson, the great historian of medieval Europe. And for
more than a millennium, the cult or "worship" of Europeans
was manifestly Christian. On that basis alone, Christianity
has an unrivaled claim to a privileged place among the
sources of European culture.
Of course, the culture of modern Europe is pervasively
secular. And many on Europe's left reflexively identify
religion with political reaction. "We don't like God," was
the reported comment of one diplomat from France, which led
the secularist forces that wanted no mention of the deity
in the union's constitution. Indeed, as convention
president, former President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing of
France, a practicing Catholic, almost single-handedly
prevented any reference to God or Christianity in the text.
But delegates from Germany, Italy, Portugal and Malta,
among others, argued for inclusion.
Among those in the ambivalent middle was an Irish delegate
to the constitutional convention who declared: "I am most
firmly convinced that God is everywhere. I am very doubtful
how apt a place Article Two in the constitution is for him
to appear in." I tend to agree. Why mention God as a source
of European values when most Europeans find theirs in
economics? Such a gesture would be no more genuine than if
the union were to print "In God We Trust" on the euro.
But the failure to acknowledge Europe's specifically
Christian heritage is something else. At one point in the
process, the preamble referred to the "humanism" of Greek
and Roman civilization, then skipped without pause to the
18th-century Enlightenment. Those specific references to
Europe's past have been cut, but the preamble still ignores
Christianity's contribution to the core European values
that the union is pledged to uphold: "the central role of
the human person, and his inviolable and inalienable
rights, and of respect for law." What kind of history is
this? Surely it was Christianity that made the human
person, as a child of God, central to European values. And
it was the canon law of the Catholic Church, the oldest
legal system in the West, that nurtured respect for law
long before the rise of Europe's nation-states.
In the language of the French Enlightenment, the preamble
extols Europe's "underlying humanism: equality of persons,
freedom, respect for reason." But as we all know, these
"humanist" values, separated from religious faith, crumbled
in the blitzkrieg and disappeared at Auschwitz.
As an American, I shouldn't much care what the bureaucrats
in Brussels write in their preamble. But it should matter
to Europeans - and to anyone anywhere who cares about
history - because the eliding of the Christian foundations
of Western culture is morally and intellectually dishonest.
One can only hope that wiser heads at next week's summit
meeting in Greece will set the historical record straight
and reject the trahison des clercs manifest in Brussels.
What kind of future can there be for a united Europe that
disavows its own past? Such a move would be unimaginable, I
like to think, if the convention had met in Venice.
Kenneth L. Woodward, a contributing editor at Newsweek, is
author, most recently, of "The Book of Miracles."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/opinion/14WOOD.html?ex=1056705995&ei=1&en=98bc67e468aeb047
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/15/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/15/2003 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Another article worth reading to understand the sorts of things non-Christians or non-Evangelicals are being exposed to these days..
dlw
The Heresy That Saved a Skeptic
June 14, 2003
By DINITIA SMITH
Elaine Pagels, a renowned biblical scholar, has followed up
her classic "Gnostic Gospels" with a new book that examines
what makes Christianity so compelling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/books/14PAGE.html?ex=1056706388&ei=1&en=a25cb283b4908b0b
Apparently, its okay to believe in something that may bear some resemblance to Christianity if one is in grief.
I am sure GBoyd has some good links that describe the "book of Thomas". He wrote about that in his Cynic Sage book.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/15/2003 2:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I also highly recommend the following movies for serious apologeticists:Jesus of Montreal, Dogma, Contact, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"(portrays world where all are driven by their self-interest and yet we are somehow capable of creating beauty and acts of altruism(the only thing that sets Clint Eastwood apart are his acts of altruism)). The french film, "Queen Margot" gives a graphic depiction of the St. Bartholomew's day Massacre and gives insight into why religiosity declined so much in France.
I also have always found the use of religious symbolism in Spike Lee movies to be very interesting. There you see someone who comes from a strongly religious background that he has significantly rejected. Feel free to mention other films that have content that you think may be insightful in trying to do apologetics.
There also is a good book on W.E.B. Dubois on Religion that shows how significant the subject was for him and how he moved from a very religious person to an atheistic marxist in the end of his life.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/15/2003 2:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/15/2003 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 6/16/2003 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW--What about "Stigmata" yo?!! Fits right in with that Gospel of Thomas you mentioned above.
C&H
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/17/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Shell
pow, my comment here has nothing to do with any particular stance that Christian takes on any issue.
Shell, who said I was talking specifically about you? Don't act so guilty!
Pow, Call it strange or "acting gulity" or whatever, but when someone quotes me I tend to think they are responding at least to me and possibly others as well.
Shell
Edited by - shell on 06/17/2003 11:59:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/17/2003 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
www.hollywoodjesus.com/
ps, I checked out this sight and it is quite good, but what I had in mind was discussing movies that give distinctly non-Christian, Secular viewpoints(Such as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and some of the others listed before...), since Apologetics involves trying to understand nonChristian world-views so as to assist in the sharing of the Gospel.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 6/18/2003 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Amen.
quote:
my comment here has nothing to do with any particular stance that Christian takes on any issue.
thanks
Shell
Peace and blessings...
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/1/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | wanted to share that I was in the airport and was privileged to share a dinner with someone else who turned out to be Jewish. The topic of our conversation turned to religion. It went quite interestingly and we will be in email contact. But, the fact that I knew more about the endocrinological determination of homosexuality was something that helped a lot. She brought up the homosexuality issue as a test of me.
I also shared some Open Theism with her, since she was angry with G-d for being responsible for so much suffering...
I think understanding the "hot" issues of our times is important for being able to communicate to the "intelligentsia" of non-Christians...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:34 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|