Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, yes. If you read The Bible as a simple, two-dimensional history textbook with no deeper meaning, with no symbolism, etc., you'd be correct in this statement. I just do not look at it that way. I see it as having layers of meaning and having a richness in depth and purpose.
I did read the rest of your response, but I think our disagreement boils down to this statement by you. You do see it differently than me. I think the writers meant it as they wrote it--and it was not up to us however we wanted to read it.
There are several genres of literature in the Bible. Some is poetry, some may be read in ways that are different than straight up historical fact. There are others that are meant as history. The trick is to not read the historical narratives as merely allegory, or to read into the text what is not there.
I did read the rest of your response, but I think our disagreement boils down to this statement by you. You do see it differently than me. I think the writers meant it as they wrote it--and it was not up to us however we wanted to read it.
There are several genres of literature in the Bible. Some is poetry, some may be read in ways that are different than straight up historical fact. There are others that are meant as history. The trick is to not read the historical narratives as merely allegory, or to read into the text what is not there.
Right. I think we have some common ground here. "Agree to disagree" and all that. I don't have a problem with that.
And, I sincerely don't mean this to sound snide, but the fact is, I am willing to say "I do not pretend to know" to a 100% certainty which passages of The Bible are historical accounts, or close approximations thereof, or what the writer or writers of each book or segment of each book intention was.
I have no problem accepting that The Bible does contain some history. I do not extrapolate from that that The Bible is inerrant, perfect, 100% factually true, etc.
I agree, though, that it contains many different types of literature, which is one of the reasons it has persevered so long and is so beautiful, profound and multi-faceted.
Similarly, I don't happen to default to the belief in gods. But I understand why so many people do believe in a god or gods and think of the universe of living matter and energy as something that was "created."
I am also willing to accept that I could be wrong. There may well be "A" god or many gods. Whether or not a god or gods exist is simply more than any human knows.
I did read the rest of your response, but I think our disagreement boils down to this statement by you. You do see it differently than me. I think the writers meant it as they wrote it--and it was not up to us however we wanted to read it.
There are several genres of literature in the Bible. Some is poetry, some may be read in ways that are different than straight up historical fact. There are others that are meant as history. The trick is to not read the historical narratives as merely allegory, or to read into the text what is not there.
The other trick is to determine which parts of the bible are which.
To evangelicals, the beginning of Genesis is literal historical fact. To mainline and liberal denominations, it's allegory.
If it's on me, and not the hearers of the message, what do you believe I could do to attract you to my church? Is there anything?
I don't know what value propositions you have to commend your faith to others, or whether your church or your god delivers on them.
My general experience though was that the evangelical value proposition is basically this: you, dear prospect, are fundamentally flawed, bad, and wicked. But we can fix you. Also if you are sad, lonely, alienated, rudderless or confused or hurting or afraid, we have answers for all of that too, as well as a whole raft of songs to sing about it. All you have to do is believe in Jesus, confess verbally and publicly that he is your Lord, and then conform to our teachings about what it means to obey him. As you obey him he will be your father / brother / confidante / protector / teacher.
I distinctly recall buying into all this at the tender age of not-quite-six, through the ministrations of a "good news club", and it seemed a straightforward enough proposition. Over the years though I found myself and my fellow believers just as baffled and in pain and mired in the human condition as every other human being ... in fact more so because my expectations had been set higher. The world was supposed to be a friendly and explicable place with clear rules, rewards and punishments. Instead it was hostile, absurd, and random, viewed from the perspective of my faith of origin. Rather than improving the connection between intent / effort and outcomes in life, it actually made matters worse. Rather than providing moral clarity, it provided rigid dos and don'ts (protestations of grace over legalism notwithstanding) that reduced my repertoire of solutions to problems. Worst of all, the teachings neither explained my existence nor predicted likely outcomes anywhere near as well as my present worldview does.
So I'm not picking on you and suggesting that you are willfully huckstering anyone. I am just saying that your belief system always ends up this way with respect to any life event or concern:
1) Is it good? Then praise god.
2) Is it bad? Then shame on you, or be more patient. And praise god anyway.
God has a nice gig, if you can get it. Ultimate power and no responsibility. Regrettably for the church I decided not to continue in the gig at the other end -- ultimate powerlessness and total responsibility.
I know, I know. Mysterious Ways. Have faith. Lean not on our own understanding. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Took it further than most.
I don't know what value propositions you have to commend your faith to others, or whether your church or your god delivers on them.
My general experience though was that the evangelical value proposition is basically this: you, dear prospect, are fundamentally flawed, bad, and wicked. But we can fix you. Also if you are sad, lonely, alienated, rudderless or confused or hurting or afraid, we have answers for all of that too, as well as a whole raft of songs to sing about it. All you have to do is believe in Jesus, confess verbally and publicly that he is your Lord, and then conform to our teachings about what it means to obey him. As you obey him he will be your father / brother / confidante / protector / teacher.
I distinctly recall buying into all this at the tender age of not-quite-six, through the ministrations of a "good news club", and it seemed a straightforward enough proposition. Over the years though I found myself and my fellow believers just as baffled and in pain and mired in the human condition as every other human being ... in fact more so because my expectations had been set higher. The world was supposed to be a friendly and explicable place with clear rules, rewards and punishments. Instead it was hostile, absurd, and random, viewed from the perspective of my faith of origin. Rather than improving the connection between intent / effort and outcomes in life, it actually made matters worse. Rather than providing moral clarity, it provided rigid dos and don'ts (protestations of grace over legalism notwithstanding) that reduced my repertoire of solutions to problems. Worst of all, the teachings neither explained my existence nor predicted likely outcomes anywhere near as well as my present worldview does.
So I'm not picking on you and suggesting that you are willfully huckstering anyone. I am just saying that your belief system always ends up this way with respect to any life event or concern:
1) Is it good? Then praise god.
2) Is it bad? Then shame on you, or be more patient. And praise god anyway.
God has a nice gig, if you can get it. Ultimate power and no responsibility. Regrettably for the church I decided not to continue in the gig at the other end -- ultimate powerlessness and total responsibility.
I know, I know. Mysterious Ways. Have faith. Lean not on our own understanding. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Took it further than most.
How do we resurrect the ones who have had the church experience but seem to be spiritually dead?
Side note Hannibal.
Lazarus is the name of the priesthood and when you see that name, you should have the priesthood in your mind whether it be Lazarus being resurrected or the Lazarus in the parable with the rich man. The rich man IS Lazarus, he had rejected the priesthood and instead went out in search of money and so Lazarus was ill with sores and this is to say the priesthood was ill.
Both events are showing a priesthood, Lazarus being resurrected is a sign of the resurrection of a priesthood and the man who rejected his priesthood is divided.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert Finch
How do we resurrect the ones who have had the church experience but seem to be spiritually dead?
Tell them to read the bible.
All of it. Cover to cover. Don't skip anything. That should ensure they never want to go back to that collection of myths.
Works every time. Try it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
