[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
zk: Except I don’t believe that at all. I hold to a theology that, from a telelogical and ontological vantage, has remained internally consistent and constant for centuries.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what your theology’s consistency over centuries has to do with anything. So somebody interpreted the bible centuries ago and you and the other people who agree with it have stuck with it for centuries. I don’t see the point. It’s still somebody’s interpretation.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe that modern American evangelicals embrace a “faith” that is immature, incomplete and ill-formed. When I listen to Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, for example, telling me what God “thinks”, I’m repulsed. For someone to hold that the true teachings of Christ would proffer a worldview bent on destruction and war is vile and reprehensible.
[/quote]
They might feel the same way about your interpretation. Perhaps in a couple centuries, their interpretation will still be popular and yours won’t anymore. Will that make theirs correct? It wouldn’t be the first time an interpretation lasted centuries and then fell out of favor.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe in the inerrancy of God’s word, but I also understand that the Bible, as it exists today, is a product of politics (meaning the First Council of Nicaea and their determination as to what was acceptable and what was not, for example the Apocryphal writings), and that the writings contained were not contiguous, thus the contradictions and the flaws.
[/quote]
So how do you decide what god really meant? And how do you decide what writings were “his” and what were the product of politics or other non-divine origins? And how is all of that not your interpretation?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Let me put it another way. Scaredy clearly adheres to the Judiac proscription of giving full voice to God’s name, thus his use of the word “G-d” in previous postings. As he pointed out, he has a “religious identity”. That said, however, he probably doesn’t agree with all strains of Judaism. I could point to large groups of Israeli Jewry, for example, that hold some extremely hate-filled and bigoted views on Islam and espouse a territorial prerogative that is eerily similar to the Nazi views on Lebensraum. Given Scaredy’s moderate views, I doubt very much he’d have any truck with that ilk.
[/quote]
Different strains of a religion. I get it. Not sure why you think I don’t.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Everyone’s path to God (or not) is their own. I agree completely that having God shoved in your face is wrong. If someone asks me for me views, I’ll tell them. Otherwise, however they find God (or not), is their business alone. This also illustrates the dangers of conflating religiosity with spirituality. One can be intensely spiritual and never set foot in a house of worship. Whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not, God’s divine spark exists in all of us. [/quote]
Or, whether we believe it or not, it doesn’t.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
My point was that one shouldn’t tar all Christians with the same brush, in the same way that one shouldn’t tar all members of a certain ethnicity or class or whatever with the same brush.
You and Scaredy represent two of the more thoughtful and well-informed posters on this board and to embrace this sort of monolithic viewpoint, candidly, is beneath you.
[/quote]
If, by “monolithic,” you mean that I think that all christians have the same beliefs, I don’t think that. And I’m not sure why you’d think I think that. I never said that all christians proselytize. I said the ones who do are rude.
Now, if you count my belief that all christians (and all religious people) are placing their faith in a fantasy, then, in that case, my viewpoint is monolithic.
