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

I always thought it was 'I Am That I Am'.

Which we could all say about ourselves, I guess.
 

ER, have you read The Shack? I just finished it. I'd be interested in your take on it and the theology it presents.
 

I love "The Shack" and I think it represents my own thinking very well. Great story, and a great way to discuss profound things.
 

I love that Wisom makes a sustained, meaningful appearance and that she interacts with Mack. I love that Papa (God the Father, to those who don't know the book), is a black woman first to rattle Mack's unexamined assumptions and concept of God, and that Papa then appears as an older man when Mack, as it was put, needed a father.

Here's might seem like an odd way to say what I like about "The Shack." It's a piece of writing that's critical of it. Everything this writer sees as a negative, I see as a positive, especially that both John Shelby Spong and St. John of the Cross (!!!) are mentioned in mild derision:

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes
/spirituality/lighthousetrails/
08/7-shack.htm
 

I have both a pantheistic, and panentheistic strain in me, BTW. On the other hand, I think the whole concept of theism is debatable. As a Christian, I know that Jesus prayed to God, pointed to God, and tended even to deflect the adoration of others away from himself and to God. Jesus had better spiritual vision than I do, of course, but the example he left for me, as a follower, to follow, is to LOOK, SEE, TRUST.
 

And now I am off to judge some news stories for a press association in another state, which I mean to start Monday. Of course, I volunteered to do so not expecting the dishevelment of my house and life by a dang water leak. It's always somethin' ain't it? :-)
 

In response to billy's question of,"As for theology, how do you go about determining who is right?", I would say , first you die....
 

Just a heartbeat away from Deism! :-)
 

:-) The thing that probably keeps me from deism is that I'm a Christian. :-) Jesus clearly was a theist. The purely and simply orthodox would say he was a Meist!
 

I Am?

"Exodus 13: Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

14: God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

15: God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, [c] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

b. Exodus 3:14 Or I will be what I will be
c. Exodus 3:15 The Hebrew for LORD sounds like and may be derived from the Hebrew for I am in verse 14."

Let's see, 'I Am' = 'Que Sera, Sera' and 'I Am' = 'Lord', word play and humor? Intersting, was God teasing Moses?
 

In response to billy's question of,"As for theology, how do you go about determining who is right?", I would say , first you die....

And if you die believing the wrong theology? I'm reminded of the bit from the south park movie where the true religion is revealed. You might find this amusing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdDU1iYuRwY

Surely though there are some truths though. If we assume god exists, then he either used evolution or he did not. How does theology actually address that question - how do you determine what is correct. That is more what I was getting at.
 

"And if you die believing the wrong theology?"

While it is true that some small fraction of Christians (primarily fundies) believe that proper belief gets them into heaven, in fact the vast majority of orthodox Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) believe that nothing we think, believe, or do earns us salvation. We Calvinists call this concept "unconditional election."

I'm glad to be the one to introduce you to a more mature theology, Billy. Your homework is to start with the concept of salvation by grace alone. I'm sure wikipedia has some articles.

(But did you really think anyone here was going to espouse the notion salvation by works?)

As for how we determine what is correct, it isn't really that complicated, which is why I assume your question is rhetorical. But if it isn't, we use the same tools that people use when they want to determine which political ideology is correct, or what particular foreign policy is correct, or what particular interpretation of an historical event is correct: debate, discussion, argumentation, research, study. We weigh the evidence. Added to that are tools particular to religious study: meditation, worship, and prayer.

But, you are probably going to counter, not everyone agrees about what is correct. So what? Since when has that ever been a measure of something being right or wrong? The fact that people disagree with each other on religious issues proves nothing, other than that none of us have the whole truth and our understandings are all flawed in some way.

Absolute certainty about anything is an illusion, though there are, unfortunately, plenty of people (both religious and non-religious) who still worship at that shrine.
 

What Alan said, basically.


Re, "If we assume god exists ..."

If all one can do is assume God exists, one likely has not met God.


Re, "then he either used evolution or he did not."

Mmmm, I don't know. That smacks of a false dichotomy. I think God used both evolution, and not-evolution, as well as some things we don't know about and haven't thought of.

Re, "How does theology actually address that question"

My own theology does not. I am here now, and that's dang near all that matters.
 

Billy said: "And if you die believing the wrong theology?"

I would profoundly surprised if indeed "My" theology was "The" correct one. I'm just hoping that there is enough love and grace to cover my ass when I'm found to be errant, that is of course if there is any entity that cares or if there is one even there.
 

Uh oh. Somebody is probably gonna have how one can have faith, ,yet have major doubts.

That's what gets me about the anti-God people. I mean, to remain unconvinced, or untouched, is one thing. To doubtfully believe is one thing. To doubt, but want to believe, is one thing.

But to self-fully claim knowledge that quite simply isn't possible, and to declare before the Cosmos "I am that I am" -- that's the ultimate declaration of independence from all other possibilities.

And it's wack, I tells ya. Plumb wack.
 

Hi Alan,

I am aware of concepts of salvation, but as you are aware, there are concepts other than yours too - that's not what I want to get into though.

My question would be though - you seem to go about investigation in a way that I agree with. That is not theology based though. What I was getting at are notions that some people have to run thigs like evolution through some sort of theological check before they will accept it. Howeve, evidence for evolution is there regardless of theology. So, how does theology actually demonstrate any truths? What standards of verification does it possess?

As for prayer, how is that verifiable? Do you believe that god god really did tell bush and blair to invade Iraq? How would you verify this?

ER,

I dont thing Evolution or creationism is a false dichotomy. Maybe there is a definition problem here. Either god uses it in a darwinian way or he does not. If theology says he does not, I have to reject the theology
 

Hi ER-

Been a while since I commented here, but I've been reading your posts with interest.

You said:

"Truth is in the search for it."

Alan said:

"But, you are probably going to counter, not everyone agrees about what is correct. So what? Since when has that ever been a measure of something being right or wrong? The fact that people disagree with each other on religious issues proves nothing, other than that none of us have the whole truth and our understandings are all flawed in some way".

You say "so what". But the problem is, the Bible is supposed to be God's Word to man. It is supposed to be "The Truth", as far as anything can be said to be. Doesn't the fact that so many people disagree about it cast doubt on that? People disagree massively about most things, but the Bible isn't supposed to be "most things". Wouldn't you expect there to be less disagreement?
 

Re, "I dont thing Evolution or creationism is a false dichotomy."

Well, Billy, you didn't SAY "evolution or creationism." You said "he either used evolution or he did not."

You will not see me defending what I think you mean by "creationism." Not many people around here would. Forgive me if the question doesn't interest me much.

Prayer? You want to talk about prayer? Maybe we can sometime.


Re, "the Bible is supposed to be God's Word to man."

Well, not quite. Not every Christian on the planet holds the Bible up as an idol, which, actually, contradicts some of the advice IN the Bible.

One, Billy, again, you're assuming an awful lot about me, and others, because we dare express faith, and and a certain kind of fealty, in Christ. I swear: The UK must be positively overrun with blockheaded fundamentalists.

Two, keep some of your powder dry, man. I call youjr approach Argumentum add all-of-em? LOL Actually, I know your comments are just drive-bys, and you're just taking pot shots. You should make sure you have the right kind of ammunition.
 

Sorry, the following was meant to be directed to Jonathan, not Billy:

Re, "the Bible is supposed to be God's Word to man."

Well, not quite. Not every Christian on the planet holds the Bible up as an idol, which, actually, contradicts some of the advice IN the Bible.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Billy wrote, "you seem to go about investigation in a way that I agree with. That is not theology based though."

Sure it is. If one is doing such study and investigation to learn more about God, God's ways, and God's relationships to humankind, it's certainly theology. I don't know any other definition of "theology" unless you are using it in a different way.

Billy wrote, "What I was getting at are notions that some people have to run thigs like evolution through some sort of theological check before they will accept it. "

Some people. Not me. I can't answer for them. You'd have to ask them. What gave you the impression that I was one of those people? If you did not believe that I was one of those people, why bother even asking the question?

Billy wrote, "Howeve, evidence for evolution is there regardless of theology. So, how does theology actually demonstrate any truths? What standards of verification does it possess?"

How does history demonstrate any truths? What standards of verification does it possess? How does sociology demonstrate any truths? What standards of verification does it possess? How does psychology demonstrate any truths? What standards of verification does it possess? How does art demonstrate any truths? What standards of verification does it possess?

Not everything field of study is a science.

"As for prayer, how is that verifiable?"

If what you're trying to ask is how do I verify that what I pray for comes true, then again, it's time for you to mature in your understanding of prayer.

Prayer is not a giant gumball machine in which one deposits a prayer and God sends you a happy treat.

Though, do some people believe that is the case? Sure they do. Do I care? No I do not. Do I think they're right? No I do not. Do I care that they're wrong? No I do not.

You may have noticed that many, many times in these discussions we all ask you, "Who exactly do you think you're arguing with??" Because the things you say are simply fundie talking points. Now I know they're a loud and boisterous crowd, but Christian fundamentalism has a relatively short history. It is not orthodox, it is not traditional, and it is not even close to being a majority of Christian thought, in spite of how loud they shout. So, may I politely make a suggestion?

Stop reading fundie sites and do some real reading. I find it rather incredible that someone who is clearly as bright and well-read as you are seems to be willing to settle for learning about Christianty seemingly through reading only the very dregs of what passes for Christian "thought" in some circles.

Start with Calvin's Institutes. Barth is good too. The various Niebuhrs. I'm sure other folks here could give you a good reading list as well. In addition, I would also commend to you the study of important statements of faith and confession. The Westminster Catechism, the Barmen Declaration, the Heidelburg Catechism. All are good reading and would give you a thoroughly orthodox, historical, and centuries-old traditional understanding of Christian thought, instead of the childish God-as-Angry-Santa bullshit you seem to have picked up from the fundies. If you're serious about understanding Christianity, even as a purely academic exercise, then you need to do some real reading.

"Do you believe that god god really did tell bush and blair to invade Iraq? How would you verify this?"

No, I don't. How would I verify that? I wouldn't even try. Why would I want to? I can't think of any reason why I would be interested in either the claim or it's verification.

Jonathan wrote, "You say "so what". But the problem is, the Bible is supposed to be God's Word to man. It is supposed to be "The Truth", as far as anything can be said to be. Doesn't the fact that so many people disagree about it cast doubt on that? "

OK, again, it is also time to mature in your understanding, Jonathan. :) Non-fundies do not believe God put pen to paper and wrote the Bible. Men, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. The Holy Spirit is not some great marionette that dictated the Bible word for word to these men. Inspired means something different than "forced through telepathy to write things word for word."

The Bible is steeped in the cultures and times in which the books it contains were written. Those books were written in various languages, by men with lesser or greater faculties with those languages. Different books, in fact even different parts of different books were written for different purposes, by different authors, and to different audiences.

And you're surprised that there is disagreement over some of the details?!

I'm not.

Is there any text in existence that doesn't require interpretation? Even the reading of modern novels benefit from an understanding of the context in which they are written. Heck, even watching The Dark Knight benefits from understanding the impact of 9/11, the Bush era, etc., etc. And that's a relatively simple work, made over 6 months, by a small group of people, near to our present context. And I've seen people actually suggest that it is a pro-Bush piece!!! LOL

And you're surprised that there is disagreement over some of the details in the Bible?

I'm not.
 

Oh, I have GOT to get this on a bumpersticker!

Keep Your God-as-Angry-Santa Bullshit Away from My Jesus!

LOL. As usual, Alan, you done good. I love it when you get annoyed and let yer inner seminarian at bat.
 

Thanks. Always happy to provide some levity. :)

But that seminarian comment is hitting below the belt. ;)

My inner seminarian is a chemist. :)
 

LOL
 

Well, Billy, you didn't SAY "evolution or creationism." You said "he either used evolution or he did not."

They are mutually incompatable, so it has to be one or the other. I did qualify my statement in the Darwinian sense. Theistic evolution has no evidence to support it.

Sorry, the following was meant to be directed to Jonathan, not Billy:

Yeah, I didn't think I said that, but your answer kind of makes Jonathan's point (you dont even agree on the bible).


Sure it is. If one is doing such study and investigation to learn more about God, God's ways, and God's relationships to humankind, it's certainly theology.

But that's the point, how do you verify your theology. If you cant, why trust it?
Are you then claiming that gods interactions are testable?

Some people. Not me. I can't answer for them. You'd have to ask them. What gave you the impression that I was one of those people? If you did not believe that I was one of those people, why bother even asking the question?


I didn't ask you. I was saying more what I meant about the question I posed on Lee's blog - you just seem to have answered assuming the question was addressed at you.

How does history demonstrate any truths? .... What standards of verification does it possess?

Who says art demonstrates truth? Many of these you mention open themselves up to falsification in one way or another, but my question was about theology, so could you tell me how theology reveals any truths?

As for prayer, that's not really an answer as to how you can demonstrate it works. You can convince yourself that any outcome is an answer to prayer, so how do you know it is actually answered?

You keep accusing me of arguing against a point you dont hold, but you are doing that with me here. You dismiss that which you call fundie sites (generally I stay away from them, it's the fundies that come visiting me). They dismiss you if you are not one of them (and its not just YECs who are fundies). So to get back toi the question, how does theology sort anything out?
 

Re, "They are mutually incompatable, so it has to be one or the other."

That seems to be an article ... of ... faith of yours. Not one of mine.

Re, How does theology sort anything out?

It doesn't. Theology just sits there. It's like science that way. Science just sits there until human beans use it.

Virtually everything the practice of science has ever determined, if not literally eveything the practice of science has ever determined, is revised, extended, fine-tuned, otherwise modified or rejected after further critical examination.

Same with the practice of theology.
 

To clarify:

If by creationism, you mean, as Wikipedia puts it, "In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution," then, obviously, it IS incompatible with evolution, by definition. And I agree.

But, see a broader discussion of creationism here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Not all of those ideas are mutually exclusive of evolution.
 

Say ER your statements about theology just laying there, have caused me to come up with a little sound bite for those evangelical athiest who believe relgion, in and of itself, is so distructive.

"Relgion doesn't kill, people kill!"

Wait, have I heard something like that elsewhere?
Well maybe that should be added to the bumper sticker list.
 

OK, OK, make that Religion.
 

"Jesus doesn't kill people. People killed Jesus."

"... and some people kill people in Jesus's name."

There's two bumperstickers yer not likely to see.
 

"As for prayer, that's not really an answer as to how you can demonstrate it works. You can convince yourself that any outcome is an answer to prayer, so how do you know it is actually answered?"

I can, can I? And you seem to have convinced yourself that you know my mind. Amazing how that happens. LOL

Anyway, who said I did? What part of "God is not a giant gumball machine was unclear?" ;)

" Many of these you mention open themselves up to falsification in one way or another, but my question was about theology, so could you tell me how theology reveals any truths?"

Asked and answered. Re-read my previous answer. No sense repeating myself. I guess there's no reason to read any stories because there's no way that even novels, say, Dickens, Hawthorne, Twain, could possibly reveal any truth because you can't test them scientifically.

Science doesn't do anything to reveal truth either, BTW. Knowledge, yes. Facts, sure. But it is a common misconception that science is about the search for truth.

Anyway, once you start reading some real theology, perhaps you'll start seeing how theology sorts things out.