There's certainly mix of contributors here and it may well range from professors to diary boys and girls, Pez. One variety that doesn't seem to be here in appreciable numbers is what I will (for convenient differentiation, but respectfully) call the "small-c" Christian - the kind who prefers to live their life in ways that might attract others to the values they believe in, rather than the self-righteous, argumentative, sarcastic, I've-got-the-bible-on-my-side-so-prove-me-wrong hectoring types who seem drawn to these forums like moths to the 40 watt bulb.

Really I'm grateful to know some Christians who aren't in the least bit like some of the putative 'Christians' above, whose approach is utterly repellent.

Dear Ringtail & RObert

I am grateful for your praise. Thank you so very much. My (yes let's use the word) bigoted period is not something that I'm very proud of. I wish I could blame it all on fundamentalism but I can't. True I was lied to & tricked but my bias, ignorance & egotism were all my own doing. Faults i am struggling to correct.

Dear Pez

You are of course quite correct. Allow me to rephrase. Any authority who privileges his/her own position by, for example, using induction to examine their opponents evidence but never their own; who demands that the principle of falsifiability be accepted by their opponent but refuses to use it themselves are, I would contend, indulging in illogic & bias. It is illogical therefore to look upon such an authority as a reasonable source of information. Hence my statement. PS: If I have given anyone the impression that secular authorities are always correct then you have my profound apologies. I can think of 3 scholars off the top of my head whose opinion I prize & who are extremely devout. 2 are christian & 1 is jewish. But they are prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if it goes against their faith. It is scholars like those that have taught me the importance of allegience to the truth above all!!
Bosk the 99.9% all-knowing

Aslan,

TRUTH:

Many popular Greek philosophers used, and, Greek influenced teachers, use, the technique of Dialogue, where, there is a Master and Learner in discourse. The Master carefully moves the Learner to a revealed truth. Peter Abelard took issue with this notion of following others to reveal the orthodox truths. Herein, in Sic et Non, Abelard (1120) states:

“There are many seeming contradictions and even obscurities in the innumerable writings of the church fathers. Our respect for their authority should not stand in the way of an effort on our part to come at the truth…. In view of these considerations, I have ventured to bring together various dicta of the holy fathers, as they came to mind, and to formulate certain questions, which were suggested by the seeming contradictions in the statements. These questions ought to serve to excite tender readers to a zealous inquiry into truth and so sharpen their wits…. By doubting we come to examine, and by examining we reach the truth.”

Moreover, Abelard (1120), also suggests that the Churches dodge issues by blaming the scribes, not political theologians, for the discrepancies in the scriptures:

“In the Scriptures, when anything strikes us as absurd, we may not say that the writer erred, but that the scribe made a blunder in copying the manuscripts, or that there is an error in interpretation, or that the passage is not understood. The fathers make a very careful distinction between the Scriptures and later works. They advocate a discriminating, not to say suspicious, use of the writings of their own contemporaries.”

Thus, Abelard argues, in the words of Elvis Presley, “A Suspicious Mind”. Think and research for yourself, don’t accept truth from authorities, unguardedly. Don’t accept scholars blaming the scribes.

Abelard was outspoken on the above and passionate in many ways. As a result, he lost his keys to the Ecumenical Council.

I will draw a conclusion with the next posting. I won’t post immediately below, lest I am in breach of the Forum protocols.

Word limit … to be continued

p.s. I know there are other Greek schools.

Imputed righteousness
Divine law is absolute: State law is relative. Societies apply variations of relative standards. As behaviour descends from divine law it becomes more morally decadent. Divine law identifies the absolute perfect character, while State law identifies an acceptable or tolerable standard of social behaviour. Every society will set different benchmarks where behaviour becomes unacceptable before applying penalties.

If one keeps the absolutes of divine law no punishment applies, but one offence and penalties apply. The penalty for violation of divine law is the separation of our spirit from the absolute holiness of God. Because we have all violated the divine standard, this is the reason the NT talks about imputed righteousness to sinners so they can be reconciled to God. This is the message of Christianity: that Christ paid for us the penalty of divine law. Christianity is not about the balance of our good deeds against our misdemeanours; such theology is Zoroastrianism.

The Mosaic Law required the payment of life to reconcile the difference. Christianity is about our faith in the death of Jesus Christ to atone for our falling short of divine law. That God in grace imputes perfect righteousness to us who accept this covenant. The Christian position is: there is none who has lived as God intended therefore we are all guilty. The good news is that He has imputed righteousness to us who have turned away from sin and now aspire to follow in His Spirit.

Jesus said, Matthew. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law… I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them. 18 … until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven … 22 … anyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment…and in danger of the fire of hell.

Christ and the Lawyers

Christ identified that the standards that the Judaist Judges of the law were applying condemned even them. They were administering what they supposed was the divine law while they were less than perfect. They had hatred in their hearts for him. Jesus taught that if one even hates his brother then the divine law had been violated. The Judaists believed they were applying the penalties of divine law by stoning adulterers, or blasphemers. Jesus released a woman caught in the very act of adultery and for blasphemy he was threatened by stoning.

The fact is when mere mortals assume to administer divine law they become obsessed with punishment rather than the gracious nature of God who makes reconciliation possible. The true Christian position is to teach the character of divine behaviour and encourage aspirants to live in the Spirit this is above any standard set by society. The true Christian aspires for the perfection of character that is represented by absolutes of divine law, whereas the natural desires are focused toward lesser values and such a person is in need of repentance.

Leftwing Christians, excuse or condone behaviours that are well within human capacity to correct. Example: They condone the slaughter of innocent children in the womb, while they protest about the war. Their aspirations are not toward perfecting behaviour but of excusing or ignoring the behaviour. They expect acceptance while they undermine social values. They want to continue in their behaviours that they have no real intention to abandon, yet expect forgiveness.

Because right wing Christians identify sin it is easier for them to see it lived out in others rather than themselves. The Right need to practise the encouragement of love and self-awareness to save others from the downward spiral into unrighteous behaviours.

Mt. 7:12 “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law”. The balance is making State law is to causes some conviction for unacceptable behaviour while upholding the focus upon worship, tolerance and forgiveness as the perfect character – God

Well this is really good ! :)
Bosk, I'm sending the cheque to Pez for his support in due course :))
kidding, but I did appreciate his input there.

Bosky, I know Clif is a 'fundy' in some senses, but he is also an enquiring mind and a hands on Archeologist. He would without question write from a conservative evangelical viewpoint, but not as you put it 'without reference to evidence'.

The weakest part of your position is that you assume most scholars do in fact follow where the evidence leads, rather than where they would LIKE the evidence to take them. To indulge this misconception would almost be an insult to your intelligence because you know its not the case, because ego is so much at work, and the desire to 'snatch the next batch of funding' etc. The old 'publish or perish' is also at work and many other influential pressures on scientists.

My view, without apology, is that what I cannot reconcile with the Biblical record, I'll withhold judgement about until more information is available. The reason for this is well founded on the many instances where it has proven the appropriate pathway, as the bible has been shown to be correct. There are still issues which are unresolved and I accept these as 'a work in process'.

Bigotry is quite different from a sincerely held faith conviction, unless u want to lump all people who hold a sincere belief in the 'bigot' basket.
Our belief is based on primarily an encounter with Christ. This immediately makes us 'hyper subjective' :) wow, confession eh :)

I've met people like the 'old' you, and they are rather obnoxious.

FIONA yes, Pez expressed his view very well. But I still feel you are so 'anti' that anyone who expresses a view with is tighter than a handful of earthworms ranks as a bigot to you. Your position is quite noticably rigid, so I hope you can see past that 'beam' in ur eye dear :)