Listen to this Audio Message...

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

I tested the link to Amazon that I posted on page one of his thread, and it worked for me. Did you have trouble with it?

Shlamaa,
Emmet

I don't mean to answer for Rick, but I think that there is something with his browser, that doesn't drop a link down, but instead puts in one straight line, causing his page widen and the posts to not fit on the page. Since your URL was so long, it must have made his page really wide. I don't have this problem with my browser. They just break into another line for me.

[Guest]

Hello, Derek,

Thanks! That clears things up. I can see how that would be annoying.

Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Rick, I'm also wary of the "healing on demand" style of theology. Greg Boyd holds to the view that we should always pray for the sick (in faith) and by doing so, some will be healed. He fully admits that not every sick person will be healed by God but we should proceed (in prayer) with the belief that they will be healed. This squares with Jesus' teaching that we are to always pray in faith but also realize that God's will is not to heal everyone.

Greg takes a lot of flack because of his open-knowledge view of God. I once rejected this view but now realize that I didn't understand what it was actually saying. I may start a thread on it.

[Guest]

JC-

do when you say "open knowledge" view of God, do you mean open theism? if so there is a huge thread on here somewhere- i believe under misc theol topics. Paidion is a champion of that view, and is rather convincing. he has me pretty convinced, although not 100%.

TK

[Guest]

Thanks, TK -- found it.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... pen+theism

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

Emmet, perhaps you're incapable of light-hearted discussion but my mention of dating a chemist wasn't meant to prove anything. Could it be that your belt is a little tight, sir? ... I will admit that my perferred method of argumentation often refers to outlandish or tongue-in-cheeck examples, but you can't blame me when you take something more seriously than you ought.

Perhaps I keepeth my belt tight, JC,
yet thus may my loins be girded for strength,
and lo(w), perhaps, my trousers saggeth not.


Give me a more substantive reply, and perhaps I will have less occasion to be out of humor. Or perhaps you might do me the service of marking your throwaway answers in some fashion. I do not know you personally, and it may not always be obvious whether an answer is lightweight because it is "light-hearted" or ill-considered.

It might be preferable, though, if humor were not a substitute for serious engagement. Perhaps you are pressed for time? That is understandable. But if either of us should take a week (or longer) to bit-by-bit compose a substantive response, mightn't that serve both of us better than a lesser posting with a rapid response time?

It seems convenient that any time you misunderstand someone or fail to grasp the context of a discussion that you blame the communicator.

I will keep your assessment in mind. I have a weakness for convenience.

By the way, the language nazi will point out your usage of "any" in the above statement, not so different from your use of "only" in "Only scholars can take something entirely simple and turn it into rhetorical nonsense." Universalities have their place, admittedly, but a more measured diction is generally recommendable. Why? To begin with, it is more easily defensible, and lends less of a strident tone. More importantly, it leaves the mind open to exceptions and variation. And most importantly: it is often a better reflection of truth.

You're familiar with the term "straw man?"

You're familiar with the term reductio ad absurdum?

kaufmannphillips: So, how many trained theologians have you run across?

JC: Hundreds. I work in the ministry. My best friend is a pastor.

Ah. So you are thinking of persons with an M.Div., am I correct? Which is a professional degree, and not a scholastic degree.

I hold a scholastic seminary degree, but many of my courses co-enrolled with M.Div. students. Some of these persons may have academic chops. But such students are usually career ministers, and not necessarily focused on becoming scholastically adept; their skill sets and/or interests can be rather more pastoral, and they may not be so concerned about learning Aramaic or becoming familiar with the pseudepigrapha.

I'm not against religious scholarship, only the abuse of it. One such abuse is to think more highly of oneself on the basis of training alone. There's a profound difference between parroting another scholar and actually reasoning through an issue by taking several views into consideration.

Some scholars may succumb to the pitfall of resting upon laurels. But then again, persons who are not versed in the field may not appreciate the distinction between "parroting" and citation.

kaufmannphillips: Actually, Jesus was tendering his appraisal of the two greatest rules, if you will recall the text. It is theological assunption that these two rules should override any others, rather than seeing the whole body of rules as fully concordant. What is love, and how is it to be expressed? The other rules establish parameters.

JC: I fail to see the practical value of this argument. If I love my neighbor I will istinctively know that I shouldn't steal his car. No one has to tell me not to steal his car because it wouldn't even cross my mind. If someone has to tell you, "Don't take advantage of people or harm them for your own personal gain" then you should perhaps start with loving others, since love is the reason we refrain from such things.

But if you love your neighbor, will you "instinctively know" under which circumstances you should not have sex with them? Or will you know not to bear false witness concerning them, even if you think it would help them out?

Furthermore, why is it that stealing “wouldn’t even cross [your] mind”? I will speculate that you had the law taught to you from an early age. I have worked in childcare, and am skeptical that children start out “instinctively” aware of property ethics.

Love without law falters under ignorance. Thence we find the practical value of law.

Another problem I have with "rules" as you seem to understand them is that it all boils down to... whose rules? Which rules, Emmet, must one follow to please God? You see why this gets dangerous?

But this is a rather universal problem. Which principles shall we follow? Which manner of spirit should we cultivate? Which understanding of Love shall we pursue? Which witness(es) should we trust?

Human existence in the image of God involves the capacity for choice, but not personal omniscience – hence, the challenge of discernment.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

It might be preferable, though, if humor were not a substitute for serious engagement. Perhaps you are pressed for time? That is understandable. But if either of us should take a week (or longer) to bit-by-bit compose a substantive response, mightn't that serve both of us better than a lesser posting with a rapid response time?

I'm only online during short spurts in the afternoon so rapid responses, for me, are a necessity. You'll pardon my cheekiness, it isn't intended. I see this forum as a means of written conversation. Hence, I type the way I speak. Some take a more formal, scholarly tone in their written conversations and it's perfectly fine to do so.

Why? To begin with, it is more easily defensible, and lends less of a strident tone. More importantly, it leaves the mind open to exceptions and variation. And most importantly: it is often a better reflection of truth.

Point taken. My use of exclusive language is meant to be emphatic, not literal... as you know by now. Out of consideration for you (and possibly others) I'll try to refrain from such language in an effort to convey truth more effectively. Though I find many of your arguments to be lacking, your written communication skills far exceed my own.

You're familiar with the term reductio ad absurdum?

Now look who's being cheeky.

Ah. So you are thinking of persons with an M.Div., am I correct? Which is a professional degree, and not a scholastic degree.

My friends in the minstry are a mixed bag, but there are other considerations. My original statement was that Steve Gregg, someone without a professional degree to his credit, seems to have a superior handle on the scriptures when compared to academics. You can read his debate with Norman Geisler on this very forum. I've also read the works and commentaries of numerous theologians holding a M.Div and none of them, in my opinion, surpass the knowledge of Steve.

My point here was merely to demonstrate the fact that it doesn't take a scholar to be an expert on something. Though I took some film courses in college, I don't have a degree in film... Yet, I can entertain a very lengthly and technical discussion with a UCLA grad on the subject. Why? Because I've been around lights and lenses since I was very young and cut my teeth doing real world filmmaking, usually working for free. I've met graduates from the top film schools who've never made a film. If someone wants to make a flick, whose opinion holds more weight?

And yes, before you mention it, I realize religious study contains more nuance than filmmaking. This is why I use someone like Steve G. as an example.

Human existence in the image of God involves the capacity for choice, but not personal omniscience – hence, the challenge of discernment.

I agree... but I'm asking you for examples. Did God not leave us anything objective?



[/quote]

[Guest]

Hi, JC,

Also....

Greg Boyd holds to the view that we should always pray for the sick (in faith) and by doing so, some will be healed. He fully admits that not every sick person will be healed by God but we should proceed (in prayer) with the belief that they will be healed. This squares with Jesus' teaching that we are to always pray in faith but also realize that God's will is not to heal everyone.

For what it is worth, I would not say that "we should proceed (in prayer) with the belief that [an afflicted person] will be healed." Should we front a belief in something we know full well may not transpire, and pray in a way that might lead people to discredit God?

Rather, we may proceed with faith that God is able, kind, and knowledgeable. The faith should not rest in the healing, but in the healing one.

Probably you agree?

Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

For what it is worth, I would not say that "we should proceed (in prayer) with the belief that [an afflicted person] will be healed." Should we front a belief in something we know full well may not transpire, and pray in a way that might lead people to discredit God?

That's a good question, Emmet. I'm still pondering this myself because I see examples of both in scripture so it may take some time to sort out. Perhaps others will see things more clearly.

[Guest]

Hi, JC,

Thank you for your response.

My point here was merely to demonstrate the fact that it doesn't take a scholar to be an expert on something.

I agree, if we are speaking of formally-trained scholarship. I will mention, though, that people may be less likely to develop some aspects of expertise without the format of formal training. This could be a function of practical difficulty (like language study), or an issue of personal disinterest, or an incidental matter of lacking acquaintance with a particular aspect (important though it may be).

I agree... but I'm asking you for examples. Did God not leave us anything objective?

Oh - so that wasn't a rhetorical question?


Shlamaa,
Emmet