From: xcpslf@decsrv.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (stephen l favor)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mr. Newton's definition
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:02:24 GMT
Reply-To: xcpslf@oryx.com
Organization: Oryx Energy Co., Dallas, Texas.

In article <la9ssaINNakr@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
|> (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
|> 
|>  You obviously know very few christian theologians.  You are not allowed
|>  to doubt that the bible is the word of god, and you are not allowed to
|>  doubt christ is the son of god.  You are to simply have faith that these
|>  assumptions are correct. Post on christian newsgroups and most will agree
|>  that you must have faith in these.  If my views are a fantasy, then we
|>  are all being tricked by Descarte's evil demon.

I've been through two years of seminary and would be called moderate in most
circles.  For the most part, I accept the New Testament as authoritative
because I have studied its history and believe that the greatest majority of
it was written by people who knew Christ or His teachings intimately and who
lived at the same time as He did.  There are many arguments about this
stance that have merit; the blind rejection of them all is simply inadequate.
I think that the majority of theologions would say that your claim is
naive since I think "the bible is the word of god" equals "God dictated
every word to the authors."

I accept Christ as God's Son because that is how I interpret Scripture; 
therefore, the only faith involved is that my evaluation of the Biblical
writings is correct.

|> I obviously know very few christian theologians? I think it
|> bit presumptuous for you to say that. I'll just mention one,
|> a man who taught philosophy and theology and was noted by
|> Publisher's Weekly as one of the most important thinkers of
|> the 20th century: Paul Tillich.

A good man.  Where is he now?

|> The fact is that although it is ever so boringly easy to
|> pick on zealous christian fundamentalists and the fact is
|> that zealots tend to post more than moderates, modern
|> christian theology as I understand it is not concerned with 
|> apologetics towards inerrancy, virgin births, etcetera,
|> and most of all does encourage doubt.

For the most part, any study of theology comes up with a core of
unquestionables.  The number of doctrines in this core is larger
when you're talking fundamentalists and smaller with the liberals.
Inerrancy remains a significant issue in the since of defining its
meaning, which is very hard to do.  Inerrant in what way?  There
are obviously errors in spelling and grammer, and there are obvious
places where someone has done some editing.  Etc., etc.

|> I think if you had any understanding of modern christian
|> theology (by modern I mean anything since say, 1945),
|> you would not attempt such sweeping generalizations as
|> you previously posted.

Actually, a study of the history of biblical interpretation including
pre-christian Judaic commentaries is of more benefit.  The factions
in christianity tend to move in circles with the current phase thinking
they have something new.  For example, compare the charismatic movement
of the 80s with the radical reformers around the time of the Reformation.

In doing so, you can learn about and hopefully avoid the mistakes that
both fundamentalist and liberal types of interpretation have made over
and over again.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism