Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

"We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we . . . have claimed Christianity is the only way"

I would run, not walk, away from any group that teaches such an ignorant and foolish thing. The Bible notes least 100 times that Jesus is the only way.

That isn't what makes it true, of course. But it does mean that it is a view that all Christians should hold. To say otherwise is to mock the cross.

The ones who claim Christianity isn't the only way are the ones who have stepped away from the path (if they were ever on it). They are either too ignorant or too timid to defend Christianity.

If you want a list of many of the the verses that point to Jesus' exclusivity go to www.str.org and search for "100 verses" at their Store page. Or you can just read the Bible. :-) It is hard to miss the theme.

Happy New Year, everyone!
 

P.S. "What a friend we have in Jesus" is a great song. The last time I heard it was when the maid at our "hotel" in Kenya was singing it as she worked. It was touching to see someone so full of joy who sang hymns as she worked.
 

Ha! I would run -- and I have run -- from any church that declares that it has the only way.

By the way, so to speak, "Christianity" is NOT the only way, as you noted; Jesus is. Neither Christianity, nor the Church, is the keeper of Christ; Christ is the keeper of the Church, and those pats of Christianity that are His.

The substance of faith is not lists of Bible verses selected to back one's doctrines, brother.

Neil, what do you think of this?

"We affirm that the Path of Jesus is found wherever love of God, neighbor, and self are practiced together. Whether or not the path bears the name of Jesus, such paths bear the identity of Christ."

The first sentence, to me, acknowledges that the Jews, before Jesus, were "saved" by faith is the Provision yet to come. The second sentence, to me, acknowledges that all who are saved, that is, all who love God and love their neighbor as themselves, are saved andc enlivened by the Provision as it was made at the Cross.

But people of good faith and good conscience can disagree.
 

Hi ER,

I'm not sure what to make of that part given the illogic of the rest of the quote. By their reasoning my view is correct, because the path He provided me was orthodox Christianity that says Jesus is the only way. But by their reasoning my view is also incorrect because they say that other paths are valid.

"The second sentence, to me, acknowledges that all who are saved, that is, all who love God and love their neighbor as themselves, are saved andc enlivened by the Provision as it was made at the Cross."

I'm not sure I follow which came first in your view. We fail horribly at loving God and our neighbor, so we need Jesus' sacrifice in our place. Of course we should aim at those things, but one would have to be mighty self-righteous to claim they have attained it. I don't know if I've ever obeyed those commands to God's standard of perfection for ten minutes straight, even as a Christian.
 

I said nothing about perfection. However, I think I would argue that wherever love of God and love and neighbopr are practices at all, the spirit of Christ is represent -- and was present in the OT admonitions to love God and love neighbor, and is present now in any situation where one loves God and loves nighbor as one loves oneself. The capacity to love God and neighbor, feeble, incomplete, deep, poor or grade, itself is made possible by the enlivening spirit of Christ. I think Christians have more fodder to work with in figuring it all out, but that's not to say that non-Christians, by definition, cannot be enlivened by Christ, who, as the Logos, existed at the Creation.
 

Forgive tupos; fingers are numb from smoking a post-hoppin' John and goose-scaldin' cigar outside ...
 

I guess the question is whether people have to knopw the name of jesus in order to have a real relationship with Gopd made possible by and through Christ. I don't think so.
 

Back to the cigar porch ...
 

Neil,

C.S Lewis explained universal salvation very well in his writings. I'm surprised you are not familiar enough with the concepts to address them seriously.

The path of Christ is a state of mind which the person cultivates in themselves because they know that it is the right way...even if they do not know that the name of Jesus is attached to it, and even if they do it in the name of another deity.

They might be mistaken on the particulars, but they hear and follow the voice of Jesus (my sheep hear my voice, and I know them).

Yeah, it sounds kind of weird to me too, but no more weird than any other theological argument.

And no less strage than counting Bible verses that support your position(I half expect lightning and transylvanian-tinged laughter:"Blah! 100! 100 wonderful Bible verses proclaiming the exclusivity if Christ! Ahh-ha-ha-ha)

Anyway, you have certainly quoted enough C.S. Lewis that I would think you've read his arguments and should know enough about them to not treat the subject so dismissivly.
 

Oh, I don't mind a little dis ... no. I'll wait. This could develop into a real rousing, useful discussion! :-)

I loves me some Jesus. And I loves all my brothers in the Lord -- those who know the Lord, and those still finding their way along The Way! I just wishes some of 'em who "knows," wasn't so all-fired insistent that their way is The Way. Jesus is The Way. The ways to Jesus are many.

All those who call upon the Lord, I believes, will be saved! Those who FAKE it -- the ones He never knew who called him "Lord, Lord" -- well, that's up to God's grace, too. Those are different from the ones who gets the details wrong -- as though any of us could ever get any of 'em right!
 

"Jesus is The Way. The ways to Jesus are many."

I agree with your first point, of course. But if your second point means that Wahabi Islam is a way to Jesus, for example, then I'll strongly disagree.

Teresa, I'll respond to your points this once and let you have the last word. I'm not expecting a new venue to make dialogue any more fruitful but wanted to offer these for other readers.

Re. 100 verses: Of course, all you need is one verse for something to be true. My point is that any Christians arguing against the exclusivity of Jesus have a lot of 'splaining to do. This isn't a topic that the Bible is subtle about.

I've seen false teachers try to dismiss John 14:6 (and can't even get that right), but their bigger error is assuming that is the only verse addressing Jesus' exclusivity. It is just another example of their gross ignorance of the Bible.

I'm quite familiar with Lewis (I'm in the middle of The Great Divorce and enjoying it). He was a brilliant man, but his views on universalism were wrong and unbiblical. He was great, but not God. I have posted on universalism recently and didn't feel the need to hijack ER's blog with something more lengthy.

Re. the path of Christ and Jesus saying his sheep hear his voice: That is a significant misinterpration of the passage. Not sure how you came to that conclusion or why you'd share that since you don't believe it.
 

I will caution Neil, and any one else, not to EVER say the likes of this in this thread: "why you'd share that since you don't believe it."

Do NOT presume to speak for another.

Re, ' "Jesus is The Way. The ways to Jesus are many."

'I agree with your first point, of course. But if your second point means that Wahabi Islam is a way to Jesus, for example, then I'll strongly disagree.'


Then we disagree. For if the rocks cry out out, and if God can raise up stones as children of Abraham, then YES, Wahabi Islam, or the Lions Club, or the Ku Klux Klan, or a Saturday night drunk at the end of a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, can -- and such like DO -- lead to Christ.
 

Why do you keep the power of Christ -- I should say, try and fail to -- keep the power of Christ in a box, Neil? Not a smart-aleck question, but a sincere one.

Why do you insist that salvation is a club and that one must pass some kind of muster to be admitted? Thast flies in the face of the whole thing.
 

"I will caution Neil, and any one else, not to EVER say the likes of this in this thread: "why you'd share that since you don't believe it.""

ER, Teresa is quite open with her rejection of Christianity. But don't worry, I won't be addressing her points any more.

"Why do you keep the power of Christ -- I should say, try and fail to -- keep the power of Christ in a box, Neil?"

The premise of your question is flawed (sort of like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?").

I don't keep his power in a box and couldn't even if I tried. I try to share what He said in his word as accurately as possible. He put a lot of effort into getting that into our hands. I will put it over the words of man any day, especially when the words of man are in such contradiction with the Bible.

"Why do you insist that salvation is a club and that one must pass some kind of muster to be admitted? Thast flies in the face of the whole thing."

Again, your premise is flawed. I'm not insisting on this. I'm merely stating what the word of God teaches over and over. If you think I've misinterpreted it then please share that. I'm a big fan of God's grace. My definition of the "whole thing" comes from the Bible.

In addition, I never said you had to pass some kind of muster. We are only saved by grace, through faith and not by works.
 

This would be an interesting discussion, except that I have been here before, done this before, and ER, I'm telling you, there will be no satisfactory end to this. I will certainly not deny that Neil accepts the validity of his point of view; nor will I deny his place in the great family of God. The problem, of course, is that Neil sees himself as God's bouncer. Since he knows all those 100 verses, and their correct interpretation, arguing that point will get no one anywhere. Furthermore, any other discussion will be fruitless, because we will come back to quoting the Bible again (John 14:6, Philippians 2:11 - whatever it may be) and we shall run around and around, never closing in on the real topic - discovering our faith, and how to live that faith in a dynamic way creates differences. There is no one interpretation of the Bible; there is no one interpretation of any single verse in the Bible; stringing together Bible verses does not create an argument, but is proof texting, only showing that one can navigate a concordance real well. It isn't thought, it isn't wrestling with the text in the context of really struggling with the meaning of faith for us, in the here and now. Neil has answers, ER, and those of us who insist that it isn't about answers, but about living the questions, and living the questions, and being satisfied that there aren't any final answers - well, we're just wrong, false teachers, not real questions, passive/aggressive, etc.

This is where this is leading, so I thought I would just jump ahead to the end for you.
 

Re. putting Christ's power in a box: To put it another way, if anyone put it in a box (by your defn.) it was God.
 

E.R,

Fair is fair, Neil's right in his own way. I don't believe the Bible as he does.

So, from his own point of view, I should not be able to find any value or wisdom in it.

Reminds me of all the Sunday-school classes I ended up sitting alone on the chair outside of the Sunday-School room. Some teachers liked the questions, and some just side-lined anyone who bogged down their charge through the appointed lesson plan.

Personally, I think I learned more about God during the quiet alone time than anything they would have tried to teach me. :-)
 

From Neil: "I don't keep his power in a box and couldn't even if I tried. I try to share what He said in his word as accurately as possible. He put a lot of effort into getting that into our hands. I will put it over the words of man any day, especially when the words of man are in such contradiction with the Bible."

So, where did the Bible come from? Did God sit down and write it? Was it dictated like the Holy Q'uran to Muhammed? What makes the Bible "God's Word" for you - is it the words on the page (translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, of course) or is it the Holy Spirit taking the lifeless words on the page and giving them life as we see how the inform our lives?

What constitutes a word of "man"? Since the Bible was written by human beings, I would also assume that it is a "word of 'man'"; since the "Word of God" is actually the living incarnate Word Jesus Christ, not some dusty book edited and copied and translated over and over again, I wonder how you deal with that reality (since it, too, is Biblical, even more basically Biblical than your one hundred verses proving the exclusivity of Jesus).

I would be interested in your answers if it weren't for the fact that I know you don't think I'm really a Christian. Having an answer for every inquiry isn't faith. I'm not sure what it is, really.
 

"Furthermore, any other discussion will be fruitless, because we will come back to quoting the Bible again . . ."

Yeah, you sure wouldn't want to bring the Bible into a discussion of theology - which this post was about.

Because then we wouldn't be "closing in on the real topic - discovering our faith, and how to live that faith in a dynamic way creates differences" . . . whatever that was supposed to mean.

P.S. You said you weren't interested in my answers to the other questions so I'll pass on them.
 

I should have written "and how living that faith in a dynamic way creates differences". Forgive me for typing fast.
 

Re, "Teresa is quite open with her rejection of Christianity ..."


Well, she has nevder exhibited such here, and, even if she had that doesn't mee she rejects Jesus. And evden if she did THAT, I wouldn't insult her or dismiss here thoughts out of hand -- not even her thoughts about the Lord.
 

"Teresa is quite open with her rejection of Christianity ..."

Once again, Neil is right, in his own way. Since I'm not a Christian, but a Deist, I suppose that someone could draw the conclusion that I "reject Christianity". Indeed, being raised a Christian, and not being one anymore sort of implies a form of rejection.

Since I vocally and roundly oppose fundamentalism, I suppose I can be seen by some as an enemy.

And since I haven't been able to discern a line of reasoning in any of the many Christian doctrines I've tried that justifies the absolutism of some people...

...and since I've been sort of a pain in asking inconvenient questions about how one evaluates truth claims in order to elevate one doctrine above another...

It's easy to see how a person could interpret that as a "rejection of Christianity".

But I don't actually reject Christianity in the way the comment seemed to imply.

But before we were told to "run and not walk" away from ER's expression of the philosophy,

we were talking about peace and good-will toward men, were we not?
 

BTW, ER, how is the goose coming along?
 

In a world of rival truth claims, there is no way to step outside and determine which of these in fact is correct. It is far better to accept that they are not "truth claims" at all, but equally open, live options for living a fully human life. Choosing does not involve any ultimate decision; nor does rejecting others involve any dehumanization. I can celebrate the faith of a deist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or the non-faith of an atheist because I can see the attraction of each, not just for others, but for myself as well. Yet, I cannot escape the conclusion that for me, the best choice is the choice I have made. This is not a truth claim, but the simple decision to live one's life in the full knowledge of the contingency of pretty much everything we do and say and think.

For some reason, this makes Neil's head explode. For me, it is a way to live without denying others their humanity, their religious beliefs, and keep myself from getting too haughty.
 

ER, thanks for the food for thought with this post. I'm going to do one of my own on it soon.

It occurred to me that the pluralistic Christian perspective is not only incoherent and oxymoronic but also rather arrogant.

After all, while couched in inclusivistic language it is actually a rather prideful position. They say that while other religions worship a different god (say, Allah) that they are really following Jesus.

But do pluralistic Muslims pat us on the head and say, "Go ahead and worship Jesus. That's OK, because we know you are really following Allah (even though Allah and the true God of the Bible have radically different natures)."

Of course not. So why treat them so smugly by implying that whether they agree or not they are really worshiping our God?
 

"For some reason, this makes Neil's head explode. For me, it is a way to live without denying others their humanity, their religious beliefs, and keep myself from getting too haughty."

No, it just makes me think you lack critical thinking skills and can't do any better than straw man arguments.

Really, do you think it is "true" that I deny others their humanity or their religious beliefs? See my previous comment and ask yourself who is truly haughty. I treat people of all religions with respect.

Just ask my Hindu, Muslim and agnostic employees. I just don't patronize them and claim that they are really worshiping Jesus whether they like it or not.

Of course you'll say that none of write are truth claims, so I'll go back to ignoring you.

See you all. Feel free to stop by in a couple days for my post on this.
 

WOW. Neil, if I were not a Christian, your comments on this thread alone would have persuaded me to run, not walk, from it. INCREDIBLE.

But, hey, we all overargue in the heat of an argument. I really didn't expect THAT, though. You actually quit making sense, which, I'll admit, is rare for one so beholden to logic. Hee hee.

Re, 'But do pluralistic Muslims pat us on the head and say, "Go ahead and worship Jesus. That's OK, because we know you are really following Allah (even though Allah and the true God of the Bible have radically different natures)."

'Of course not. So why treat them so smugly by implying that whether they agree or not they are really worshiping our God?'

Well, 1., I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks and 2., what you see as treating them "smugly," actually is the Gospel of Christ, which saves people in spite of their sin and themselves. It's really not a matter of listing "us" versus" them.

If "Christianity" were to cease to exist, and all that remained on this planet were "Islam," the Gospel of Christ would persist! By whatever name, by whatever label, by whatever myth, story or fable, salvation through Christ would remain! So, let the artifice that pretends that "Christianity" has anything to do with it crumble!
 

The goose is scalded is drying in the icebox! The hoppin' john was good (I doubled the ham and bacon!) :-)
 

Teresa is a deist.

Heck fire, I don't even think one necessarily has to be a theist to be a Christian.
 

I'd just like to point out that my Muslim friends DO think Christianity and Judaism all worship the same God.

Can't speak for all Muslims, of course, because that would be silly. Just the few moderate Muslims I know cosider the God of Abraham to be the same as the God of Abraham and both of those are the same as the God of Abraham.

Stunning, I know.
 

Not stunning to me. God is the God of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Hagar and Ishmael.

I can see the source of this confusion, though. The Commandment DOES say "thou shall have no other gods before me" -- so, really, there is a historical basis in our faith tradtition for Neil's apparent belief in more than God.
 

dang it: "belief in more than one God," I mean. My two typing fingers aren't limbered up yet.
 

Just one last thought. Neil implies that I seem to believe that other religions worship the Triune God of Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in the integrity of other religious beliefs, including their claims about divinity (or lack thereof). I do not see them as truth claims, any more than I do my own; they are what they are, and why would I want to steal that from them in an arrogant demand they are really something else?

I am not interested, in the end, in what those of other religious traditions believe, because I am focused more on making sure what Christians believe, on what I and we believe. The arrogance, really, the smugness, comes in the declaration that all other religious traditions are false, that even deviance in Christian faith statements from some arbitrary orthodoxy is somehow wrong, and could lead the holder of such beliefs to a bad end. This is one instance where Mao's dictum, "Let a thousand flowers bloom" seems to me to be warranted. I trust in God's grace to make up the difference.
 

I confess that I don't undersatgand yer first graf, mainly because I'ved never quite "got" this "truth claim" thing that you and Neil have haggled over before. It's like some sort of logic jargon. :-)

I do agree with yer second graf.
 

I hope you undersatgand.

Sigh.
 

Typos, like shit, happen.

I shall try to keep my explanation as simple as possible. TRUTH (as I tend to type it), is the claim that some sentence transcends the contingencies of language, culture, and even time itself, transparently holding meaning without need of translation, or even interpretation. Certain post-modern philosophers (above all, the recently deceased Richard Rorty) insisted this is an impossibility. TRUTH, in his understanding, is a surd, an empty concept the claim to which adds nothing to the value of any statement. How much more powerful is the statement, "Jesus is Lord", if one says it is TRUE, than if one were to say, more simply and honestly, that such a sentence guides the thoughts and actions of me and others like me?

The question of TRUTH is, in a phrase first used by the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, a language game, played with certain rules. While fruitful of a certain amount of interesting thought from Descartes through Hegel, in the end, it proved itself self-contradictory, and no longer really adds anything to our discourse to insist that our words are transparent of some eternal reality.

Neil insists this position is a truth claim, thus self-contradictory. I, on the other hand, insist that "truth" (or "TRUTH") is not a game I play, so his criticism is nonsensical. Furthermore, and more fundamental to my criticism of his position, his claims about the fundamental need to adhere to various doctrinal statements separate from any claim they might have on our lives are equally nonsensical (not the less because I used to hold such a position myself); how is it possible to claim that some statement, written two millenia ago in a dead language, can have any transparency at all? How is it possible to understand something without first understanding it? That is nonsense of the most basic point here.

This is not to deny the on-going need to understand what it means to be a Christian; nor is it to deny the need to put that understanding in to words, sentences, paragraphs for other people to consider. It is merely to deny any transcendent validity to those words, sentences, paragraphs and books - even if they have deep meaning for me, and others who so believe.

Karl Barth put it best. He was asked once what he would do when he got to heaven. He said the first thing he would do would be to seek out his long-dead nemesis and theological interlocutor Friedrich Schleiermacher, so that the two of them could sit and talk and laugh about how much both of them got wrong. That is my position, and I will stick with it.
 

ER,

Truth is that which corresponds to reality.
 

That's like saying truth is that which corresponds to truth. In other words, it's not saying much at all. No offense! But I think the concept is too big to sum up so tidily.
 

"That's like saying truth is that which corresponds to truth."

No, it is actually saying that truth is that which corresponds to reality.

It is significant that you replaced "reality" with "truth." You are on the right track.
 

Actually, I'm trying to point out that these words -- "reality" and "truth" -- are empty without other words, lots of them, and so they are as interchangable in such a sentence as the "A" block and "B" block are interchangeable in the gibberish a toddler strings together with his play set.

I hate to bring down to this -- or UP to the, depending on one's perspective-- but:

What is truth?

What is reality?

They are not concrete concepts.
 

Two things here, one of them brief, one of them a tad longer.

So, if Jesus is the truth, as stated in the Fourth Gospel, is Jesus the sum total of reality?

Second, what Neil states is what is known, philosophically, as the correspondence theory of truth. The problem, of course, with this is that it limits the nature of truth to what is verifiable. Philosopher Karl Popper disposed of verifiability as a logical fallacy, as it requires an infinite regress, as well as the assumption that all possible cases of a particular "truth" having been surveyed, which is impossible in an open, expanding universe. We will never see every swan to verify the truth of the statement "All swans are white", in other words.

In simpler terms, the correspondence theory of truth squares with David Hume's division of what we call "truth" in to the results of reason or logic; fact - what I call events that can be plotted on a graph; and value, or moral assertions. Hume is, in some ways, the godfather of post-modernism, because he dissected the corpse of truth before anyone knew it was dead. Inside, he found these three things, and saw how they were useful, but not related in any way.

By removing these three elements, Hume discovered that truth was, in fact, an empty concept. It might be factually accurate to say "The element H2O freezes at zero degrees centigrade", but to elevate this to the status of "truth" ignores the fact that this is a description that could be written other ways, in other languages, other contexts, using different scales of measure, all of equal validity without themselves being equivalent.

In the same way, while logic certainly is a useful tool for getting from point "A" to point "C", by its very nature (as worked out by philosophers from Aristotle through Hegel and even Heidegger), it is limiting. This does not mean that it does not arrive at correct conclusions; it only means that the conclusions of any logical argument are limited to being correct within the context of the parameters set by the argument itself. They have no validity, no truth, outside that context.

Finally, moral reasoning certainly seems to deal with truth, deeply felt and honestly meant. Yet, as there are as many distinct ways to reason morally as there are human beings, and there is no way to adjudicate various moral claims - there is no objective judge, so "standpoint of the angels" as Hegel called it - we are left with the unsettling conclusion that moral claims, while certainly intense and demanding, are not universal or transcendent, the hallmarks of "TRUTH" in western philosophy since the Ionian philosophers first decided that all of reality was really fire.

In his book Critique of Scientific Reason, German philosopher Kurt Hubner identifies four distinct theories of truth - correspondence, coherence, evidential (operationalism), and pragmatic. All of them have strengths and weaknesses, yet again, we are left with the problem that there is no way to adjudicate the various claims. Far better to set aside the whole question of truth as some transcendental ability human language and thought has access to, and deal with the world as it is, wrestling with the contingency we all face.

I hope I haven't gotten all philosophical on you and confusing.
 

Well if one little tribal God of a small people from a small place is the only way to....Heavan..afterlife...salvation... whatever.... Then does it matter which tribal God we choose?
Of course it does everybody knows the Great Mystery of the Cheyenne and his emmissary to the People, The Sweet Medicine, is the only way to embrace the medicine of the cosmos. What's the difference between Cheyenne and Jew? One had an alphabet and the other didn't.
So the first tribal God to write a book wins?
 

Neil states that "truth" correspnds to reality...and yet, if that were true, then the people who push for Intelligent Design and have to cite flawed "studies" to prove the effectivness of Abstenance-only sex ed, or those who insist that the laws of physics must change from one location to another (in order to dismiss scientific evidence tha tthe univers is more than 6000 years old) would not need such mental gymnastics to reconcile "reality" to their religious beliefs of the "truth".

They would simply acknolwdege the truth and give up false beliefs...and would be able to do so with their faith intact.
 

Geoff: Philosophical, yes. Chewy. Nougaty even. But not confusing.

Yes! "the conclusions of any logical argument are limited to being correct within the context of the parameters set by the argument itself. They have no validity, no truth, outside that context." Yes!

DrLobo: The Indians who heard the Christian message and said, "Yes, we know the Great Spirit," GOT IT.

Re, Jesus. Truth? My Truth. Yes. Many others' Truth, as well.

"The Way"? In the sense that his ealiest followers seemed to have meant it? Yes. Yes!

"The Way" as in The Only Way? I'll accept that. His way is The Only Way. But there are many tributaries of faith that fold into that Way.

How that can be interpreted as cheapening The Way is beyond me. It enriches it.
 

"No, it is actually saying that truth is that which corresponds to reality. "

Nice to see someone has finally defined truth after centuries of debate. Even better to see that they've done so in a way that easily fits on a Cracker Jack box, but it doesn't really mean anything.

What about unreal things, they can't be true? So fables and myths can't impart a truthful message about the world?

And don't even get me started about mathematics and/or quantum physics. "Reality" ain't all it's cracked up to be these days. LOL
 

"DrLobo: The Indians who heard the Christian message and said, "Yes, we know the Great Spirit," GOT IT."

"GOT IT", maybe not.

Is the way of Sweet Medicine on Jesus' path, or the Way of Tao etc., or are they on Sweet Medicine's path? Much of what we see in the gospels about the coming of Christ is forshadowed in Greek, Egyptian, and Middle Eastern Religions. After all the Magi who showed up in Bethlehem looking for the Jewish Messiah were Pagan Astrologers not Catholic Priest (regardless of whether the Magi are historical or metaphorical they were included in the Gospel for a reason).
 

Well, I went looking for the 100 verses. But I couldn't find them. I mean, I got into the site, found a bio of someone who wrote something with that name, but no book in the store or actual list.

So anyway, I was going to do a look up of the verses in the Five Gospels put out by the heretical Jesus Seminar to see if those Seminarians thought these were statments by Jesus himself.

I ended up looking up just a few mentioned elsewhere. All were labled "No Not Jesus" and were shown to contradict what the Seminar had determined to be Jesus's words.

Curious isn't it.
(forgive me if I post this in two places)
 

I'd put a link to the STR site but it is one of those things where you have to go to their "store" page first and if you aren't logged in the link won't work. Again, see my first comment for the directions.

I listed about 10 of them on this page - http://www.4simpsons.com/Jesus%20is%20the%20way.htm

It is illuminating that you would take the Jesus Seminar seriously but not the words of the Bible.

"Nice to see someone has finally defined truth after centuries of debate. Even better to see that they've done so in a way that easily fits on a Cracker Jack box, but it doesn't really mean anything."

Sorry to rain on your smug response, but I can't take credit for the definition. The good folks who put out dictionaries addressed it for me long ago. So did Jesus (see the Pilate dialogue in John, John 14:6, and more).

Actually, the concept of truth being that which corresponds to reality is abundantly clear to most people, except those who, in their rebellion, abuse their intellect to rationalize away the obvious.

"So fables and myths can't impart a truthful message about the world?"

No one said the messages couldn't impart a truth. Using that reasoning one would dismiss the parables.

Nice way to try and dismiss the obvious.

"So the first tribal God to write a book wins?"

Of course not. The first group that was inspired by the real God to write about the real God "wins."

I'd write more and come back, but you all have convinced me that truth can't be known. So why waste time reading what any of you have to say?
 

Try this link - maybe it will work - https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommerce/458059143?store_id=1161&product_id=1362&VIEW_PRODUCT=true
 

Neil, yours is a poor world indeed that cannot exist without something called truth, or perhaps TRUTH, in it. What is left? Why all sorts of things, like living together without worrying who is right and who is wrong, who is saved and who is damned. Tossing TRUTH out as so much cultural baggage frees us to no longer worry whether or not we are in touch with some transcendent reality or not, and start worrying about poverty, injustice, war, and all those other mundane problems people so concerned with TRUTH have dismissed as beneath notice for far too long.

In Neil's world, in the end, TRUTH is really only something singular. Something REAL. Perhaps the only real thing there is. Neil is, in other words, more a Platonist than a Christian, despite arguing that truth is correspondence with reality. I suppose it all depends on whose reality.
 

Neil said:

"Actually, the concept of truth being that which corresponds to reality is abundantly clear to most people, except those who, in their rebellion, abuse their intellect to rationalize away the obvious."

You mean like those who say that the eye is "irreducably complex" even though there are numerous examples of primative eye structures that effectivly show that the eye is NOT "irriducably complex?"

Or people who say that flagellum are irreducably complex even though primative variations of the flagellum componants are observable in nature and prove that they don't qualify as "irreducibly complex?"

Or maybe you mean people who claim that there are no observed and recorded instances of speciation when there are actually numerous documented cases of speciation?

Those must be the people you ment.

People who can't twist reality around to match a hamstrung interpretation of the Bible.
 

Neil said: "It is illuminating that you would take the Jesus Seminar seriously but not the words of the Bible."

Lets see, if the 100 scholars of the Jesus Seminar are not reading the Bible, just what are they reading? So are you saying that they are wrong because they do not take the "words" to mean what you take them to mean?

I'll tell you Neil, what is illuminating is that you read into my comment only what you wanted to be there, Is that they way you read the Bible as well? Did you not even noticed that I refered to them as a "heretical group". Nope, you missed that and jump right into my statement with both feet.
 

OK it's 200 scholars not 100.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html
 

For all yer caterwauling about "truth," Neil, aren't you really after confirmation in Scripture, and elsewhere, of what you've already decided is the Truth? I can't imagine any other reason for you to be so hostile to ideas that ... don't ... fit ... your ... own.
 

Oh, and why else be so dismissive of the Jesus Seminar unless you're mortified at the idea that anyone who might come to conclusions about Scripture that you haven't?
 

I am going to do something surprising here, and perhaps unwarranted, and come to Neil's defense. I think we have ganged up on him a tad, and while his arguments certainly provide many opportunities to drive several convoys of trucks through the holes, the same can be said for all of us. I do not deny there are limits to any interpretation of reality - religious, scientific, philosophical - and that all fall short of coming to grips with the complexity around us. We deal with what we have access to, and what we have access to is severely limited by time, space, experience, and our ability to reason it all out. Neil's position, while one I do not and cannot adhere to, has a certain legitimacy, if for no other reason than it serves him well. That we disagree with him should be an object lesson for him in the possibilities open to other human beings to be fully human while sharing none of his preferences.

I think, however, that Neil's preference is to disregard our arguments, to slap labels, etc. on us and our arguments, and go off to his own site and write about how we are leading heretical lives. That makes me sad, really, because the opportunity for all of us to learn and grow, to face the limits of our own point of view, is always lessened when we are not confronted with the reality of difference. That was the reason I first started visiting Neil's web log this summer; my treatment at his and other's hands may have turned me off to the practice, but I still feel there is something to be gained from the dialogue we have here.

The problem is one I remember well from seminary. The threat to our sense of ourselves is deep when our faith is challenged. The simple truth is - we might be wrong, and to our eternal damnation, if we are. When confronted by the possibility that everything we think we know and believe might just be wrong, the reaction is very often hostile, and there is nothing surprising about that. The trick, and it is just a trick, is not to take oneself, or one's beliefs, so seriously that a challenge to them becomes a challenge to one's integrity. Of course, as one who has suffered such personal attacks, I think it usually descends to that level far too easily and quickly, but that is not necessarily how it should be.

I do hope Neil comes back, and expounds more on his position, and responds to the criticisms that have been put up here. If we have interpreted him wrong, he should let us know how; if ours are straw arguments, as he claims, he should let us know in what way.
 

Seconded.