tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116061197431654169..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Loftus on theological differencesVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160951723453320282006-10-15T15:35:00.000-07:002006-10-15T15:35:00.000-07:00If any event in history can be rationally denied, ...If any event in history can be rationally denied, even if the event has actually occurred, this might inspire at least a bit of scepticism about sceptical denials of certain events... {amused g}<BR/><BR/>Somewhat similarly, if the solvency of 'interpretation by present light' cooks the modern Christian goose, it cooks the modern sceptical gander as well. On the other hand, if a modern sceptic may respectably consider his interpretation by present light to be something worth believing about what happened (or didn't happen), then in theory a modern Christian may have a similarly respectable case despite being a modern interpreting from his own present standpoint. A post hoc explanation of incorrect interpretation which is provided in universal terms, cuts universally.<BR/><BR/>It still comes down to the actual analysis on a case-by-case basis, by responsible individuals, to whatever degree they can do it. Some responsible persons on both sides of the aisle have concluded, from the state of the evidence, that the Bible was not intended (for whatever reason) to be a systematic theology text. If we can agree on that, then we can go on to disagree about the reason(s) for that, without appealing to universal solvencies which would undermine our _own_ conclusions if actually applied.Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160614779424328862006-10-11T17:59:00.000-07:002006-10-11T17:59:00.000-07:00VIC: God has, in my view, left pieces of the truth...VIC: God has, in my view, left pieces of the truth around, and for our own good has refused to tell us how they fit together.<BR/><BR/>ED: Since you admit you lack knowledge of how "pieces of the truth fit together," how can you be certain that situation is "for our own good?"<BR/><BR/>If that's your "view" then it's no more impressive than say, other "views," constructed of "pieces of the truth."<BR/><BR/>For instance on the question of "hell" and your proposal to remain agnostic about the eternality of the punishment, Talbot whom you cited, is not agnostic over that question, is he? He's a universalist. <BR/><BR/>Neither was C. S. Lewis agnostic over that question, though he seemed to vacillate in places when he wrote The Great Divorce. Late in life Lewis responded in a letter to the question of whether or not he was a universalist, saying he was not one, primarily because of the evidence of the "dominical sayings" of our Lord ("dominical" refers to the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels). Jesus spoke of "eternal punishment," told people to "fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell," added mention of "the unforgiveable sin," and allegedly spoke in a parable about an unbridgable gap between the rich man named Dives--suffering an unquenchable thirst in Hades--and the poor begger named Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. In that sense Jesus expressed and respresented many of the apocalyptic/eschatological beliefs of his day, as held by Jews (i.e., Jews who were not Sadducees).<BR/><BR/>What "pieces of the truth" do those words of Jesus represent to you? And if various means exist to reinterpret such words of Jesus, what ELSE in the Bible might not be interpreted in different ways? <BR/><BR/>*For instance, speaking of different interpretations, one might argue that the road to salvation as preached by the historical Jesus of Nazareth differed from the road to salvation as found in the writings of Paul and in the final written Gospel (John).Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com