Seeking Fundamentalist Response

[Radagast]

I believe that there was a real historical Jewish minister who lived on the eastern shore of the Midteranean during the height of the Roman Empire.

Well, that doesn't make you Christian. Even Muslims believe that.

I believe that he was the ancient one, that was the original logos- the original thing that ever was.

Are you saying that, like Christians, you believe that Christ is God?

What made you interested in Christianity from Platonism?

I think he said "Neoplatonism" (as in Porphyry and Plotinus).

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

Are you saying that, like Christians, you believe that Christ is God?

I am saying that, as a Christian, I believe Christ is God.

 

[Silmarien]

When I first got into the church I alluded to my interest in other faiths and suggested that I didn’t belong. I was told exactly the opposite. I am treated as though I do belong, because I do. I simply take seriously experts in the field who suggest that the construction of the canon was politically motivated. I look at all the early Christian doctrines critically, as pieces of historical evidence which might tell us more about Yeshua’s teachings. I am not convinced that the folks who constructed the canon made all the right calls. Critical schaorlahip suggests they almost certainly did not, and the only scholars who disagree are the ones who already have their conclusions before they look at the evidence. My undergrad degree is in science and I have a hard time thinking that type of bias gets you anywhere real. But that’s why I’m here, to see if someone can change my mind. I’ll go into more detail on why I find the critical scholarship on gospel dating convincing in my next post, wherein I’ll reply to all the challeneges above.

What denomination did you grow up in? I don't necessarily disagree with you on anything here--I'm not interested in biblical inerrancy and I can't really justify the idea that the Church Fathers got everything right, but from a theological perspective, the possibility that God would provide a genuine divine revelation and then allow it to get twisted entirely out of shape strikes me as equally absurd. I prefer to follow the moderate biblical scholars rather than either the liberal or conservative extreme, since I find both sides to be very reactionary. So my question to you would be whether you're simply denying inerrancy or letting your rejection of it define your approach to Scripture in a way that leaves you with an equally lopsided view. This latter has been my experience with liberal scholarship in general.

What made you interested in Christianity from Platonism? I’ve read about historical examples, but I’ve never actually dialogued with someone whose made that jump before. Did your Platonism lead you to Christianity? Or does it represent a departure from which you’re now thinking about returning?
(by the way, what exactly do you mean by Platonism? what platonic texts have influenced you? Have you ever read Parmenides?)

Yes, I've read Parmenides. I started out as an atheistic existentialist with pantheistic leanings, but eventually was won over by the religious side of existentialism. I've been fascinated with Christianity for a while, started investigating it more seriously, and then got distracted by a lot of Catholic natural theology instead.

My major influences are Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, various different mystics from multiple traditions, Plato and Plotinus, Advaita Vedanta, a handful of different Christian Platonists and Aristotelians (particularly the Thomists), and several modern Neo-Aristotelian atheistic philosophers. I identify primarily as a Platonist because I view Nietzsche as the great anti-Platonist, and if I am no longer with Nietzsche, then I am instead with Plato. Mostly I would categorize this as the belief that a variety of the things we associate with the mind, such as awareness and moral intuitions, are not products of the material universe but can be attributed to the underlying nature of reality. I'm not kidding when I say I'm Christianized, though--I've flirted pretty seriously with the fullblown nondualism that shows up both in Vedanta and Neoplatonism, but I think I've decisively rejected it at this point. (That's because of the existentialism: I see any metaphysics that doesn't leave room for free will as fundamentally flawed, and unfortunately, very few actually do.)

So yeah, I was not really a Platonist who afterwards became interested in Christianity. It was specifically my engagement with Christianity that led me back to the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. This is probably why my relationship with Christianity is so tempestuous right now--it's exerted so much influence over me every step of the way, going all the way back to my anti-theistic days, that I'm incapable of viewing it objectively. So I have no idea what to really make of it. I do know that my underlying approach is fairly Platonic, though, so I've settled on that label.

I think he said "Neoplatonism" (as in Porphyry and Plotinus).

She.

 

[Radagast]

I am instead with Plato. Mostly I would categorize this as the belief that a variety of the things we associate with the mind, such as awareness and moral intuitions, are not products of the material universe but can be attributed to the underlying nature of reality

Neoplatonism is really incompatible with Christianity, but the things you mention are all things where Christianity and Plato find common ground.

"It's all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!" -- C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

She.

I knew that. That was a slip of the finger, not of the brain.

But sorry.

 

[Silmarien]

Neoplatonism is really incompatible with Christianity, but the things you mention are all things where Christianity and Plato find common ground.

"It's all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!" -- C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

I think that depends on how we define Neoplatonism. I'd say that any tradition that stresses humanity's ability to approach God through our own efforts is incompatible with Christianity, but a Neoplatonist can drop that belief and become Christian. (And many did!) Do you cease to be a Neoplatonist if you do that? I don't think so--I see Platonism as a philosophical paradigm rather than a religious tradition, so I would not draw sharp lines between what does and doesn't count.

I'm definitely on the Christianized side of the spectrum, so I don't think there's any incompatibility there. It's the rejection of miracles that I still have trouble getting around, and that's obviously a modernist prejudice.

I knew that. That was a slip of the finger, not of the brain.

But sorry.

Hahaha, no worries.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

Neoplatonism is really incompatible with Christianity, but the things you mention are all things where Christianity and Plato find common ground.

I think what I'm failing to understand is how one can define any absolute limits to what Christianity is and isn't. Can you explain your method to me? My suspicion based on your replies is that for you it's Biblical fundamentalism. If so I'm curious why you find that so convincing. Understanding your method I think will allow me to better tailor my replies so that there's less animosity. I recognize that some of this is my fault, but please know that nothing I've said has been intentionally offensive, this conversation has shown me that my social context in the liberal world leads to a certain insensitivity. As I am the one who sought you out I'll certainly take responsibility for any tension that has emerged in response to my invocation of this thread.

I prefer to follow the moderate biblical scholars rather than either the liberal or conservative extreme, since I find both sides to be very reactionary. So my question to you would be whether you're simply denying inerrancy or letting your rejection of it define your approach to Scripture in a way that leaves you with an equally lopsided view. This latter has been my experience with liberal scholarship in general.

She.

Thanks to you Silmarein for creating a more congenial presence. Can a theoretical dialogue ever be full without the presence of a feminine perspective?

---

More complete reply coming still to all still unanswered posts. Just want to make sure my research is tighter this time around. Will answer the personal questions posed by Silmarein too. Thanks again for engaging me, I'm very happy I brought this discussion to this forum

 

[Radagast]

I think that depends on how we define Neoplatonism

It's been a while since I read them, but I'm trying to draw a distinction between (1) Plato and (2) the Neoplatonism of Porphyry and Plotinus (although, confusingly, Augustine makes no such distinction when he discusses them).

Christians, Jews, and Muslims have all flirted with Neoplatonism over the centuries. From a Christian point of view, anything more than flirting is heresy.

As Christians, we can't label the universe as inherently bad (after all, Jesus made it). And we don't fill the gulf between God and humanity with multiple intermediate entities. Only one entity bridges the gap -- the God/man Jesus.

On the other hand, Christians up until Thomas Aquinas tended to rely very heavily on Plato for a philosophical basis.

I'd say that any tradition that stresses humanity's ability to approach God through our own efforts is incompatible with Christianity

That too.

 

[Radagast]

I think what I'm failing to understand is how one can define any absolute limits to what Christianity is and isn't. Can you explain your method to me? My suspicion based on your replies is that for you it's Biblical fundamentalism. If so I'm curious why you find that so convincing.

There are several religions. Christianity is one of them. Christianity was codified long ago in the Nicene Creed, and it relies on the Bible as a source of truth. Outside of that, you've got a different religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentalism" (usually that word serves only as an insult). But if you mean it in the sense of the document published a century ago, I'm proud to wear the label.

 

[Silmarien]

It's been a while since I read them, but I'm trying to draw a distinction between (1) Plato and (2) the Neoplatonism of Porphyry and Plotinus (although, confusingly, Augustine makes no such distinction when he discusses them).

Yeah, that's not a distinction that would have existed in antiquity, and there are definitely modern scholars who would challenge the prevailing categorizations. See, for example, Lloyd Gerson.

I would point out that viewing the universe as inherently bad is more of a Gnostic doctrine than strictly a Platonic one. There's definitely a rejection of the physical that can pop up in Platonism as well, but evil seems to only really be equated with the material world by Plotinus insofar that evil arises when people focus on the material instead of the higher realms. That seems compatible as long as you don't slip into Gnosticism, though I'm not really convinced that a Platonic style mysticism is the most authentic expression of Christianity.

Demiurges are probably a no-go, but Plotinian metaphysics don't see to really include that. At least not literally. You have the One, the first emanation of Logos, and the second emanation of Psyche. Obviously it's hierarchically different than the Christian Trinity, but the conceptual similarity is really interesting. (Unless Plotinus borrowed it from Christians in Alexandria, but Logos goes all the way back to Heraclitus, so it's probably authentically Greek.)

Platonic philosophy would obviously have to be modified in some ways to fit the Christian revelation, particularly in terms of the relationship between God and the universe, since I don't think the term "Creation" could be applied to the Neoplatonic take on it, but I think there's a lot of synergy there. (Though I'm somewhat sympathetic to Radical Orthodoxy and intrigued by the idea that it was no coincidence that Christianity was timed perfectly to take advantage of Platonic speculation, so I may be biased.)

 

[Radagast]

I would point out that viewing the universe as inherently bad is more of a Gnostic doctrine than strictly a Platonic one. There's definitely a rejection of the physical that can pop up in Platonism as well, but evil seems to only really be equated with the material world by Plotinus insofar that evil arises when people focus on the material instead of the higher realms.

You challenge me to re-read The Enneads. My vague memory is that Plotinus was more negative about the physical world than Plato. And the "emanations" don't sit well with Christianity (although medieval Jews accepted them). Plato's Timaeus was much respected by the early medieval Church, though.

You have the One, the first emanation of Logos, and the second emanation of Psyche. Obviously it's hierarchically different than the Christian Trinity

Christianity has a flatter hierarchy. The Logos is fully God, and through the Logos God connects directly to us. Only two levels there.

Unless Plotinus borrowed it from Christians in Alexandria, but Logos goes all the way back to Heraclitus, so it's probably authentically Greek.

Plotinus may indeed have been influenced by Christians.

The Logos concept comes into Christianity via Philo, though. The gospel of John opens with the idea that the Philonian Logos is the closest thing available for describing Christ, and then outlines the differences (... the Logos was God ... the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us ...).

Platonic philosophy would obviously have to be modified in some ways to fit the Christian revelation (which is of course precisely what happened), but I think there's a lot of synergy there.

Indeed.

 

[Silmarien]

You challenge me to re-read The Enneads. My vague memory is that Plotinus was more negative about the physical world than Plato. And the "emanations" don't sit well with Christianity (although medieval Jews accepted them). Plato's Timaeus was much respected by the early medieval Church, though.

Yeah, I think you might have missed my edit above, since I was specifically thinking about the emanations. I'd say the relationship between God and the world is one of the biggest differences between the Abrahamic religions and Platonism (and probably Vedanta as well). The Platonic One strikes me as too passive to really be thought of as a creator--reality is just the eternal result of the One's inner activities. And I get the impression that Vedanta works similarly, though it's more ambiguous there.

And that's a really serious difference that's going to have an effect on how we view things like agency and intentionality.

Christianity has a flatter hierarchy. The Logos is fully God, and through the Logos God connects directly to us. Only two levels there.

Yes. That's what I meant by "hierarchically different."

Though interestingly, I once saw someone posit the Trinity as the answer to why this world does not appear to be the best of all possible worlds. They said that maybe the best of all possible worlds that God could be expected to create because of his nature was the internal divine world that is the Trinity.

I'm not sure how orthodox that is (though I don't think it violates "begotten, not made"), but it was an intriguing answer to an old question.

 

[Radagast]

Yeah, I think you might have missed my edit above, since I was specifically thinking about the emanations. I'd say the relationship between God and the world is one of the biggest differences between the Abrahamic religions and Platonism (and probably Vedanta as well). The Platonic One strikes me as too passive to really be thought of as a creator--reality is just the eternal result of the One's inner activities.

Indeed. Plato himself, in the Timaeus (as distinct from the Neoplatonists), seems to describe what is recognisably creation, but it is still very impersonal.

And I get the impression that Vedanta works similarly, though it's more ambiguous there.

Well, the majority view, as I understand it, is that there was no creation - the universe is merely an illusion. The theistic minority view (द्वैत वेदान्त) seems similar to Plato, though (and may have been influenced by him).

And that's a really serious difference that's going to have an effect on how we view things like agency and intentionality.

Indeed.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

I want to start somewhere that I believe we can agree. I am sure we all place value in epistemological consistency, yes? We all have a norm, and we judge the truth of a given statement relative to this norm. A person will consider x to be true if, and only if, x coheres with their preferred norm. A person can make changes to their norm mid discussion in such a way that makes their own belief system incoherent with itself, which is what it means to be irrational. Therefore we all desire to pursue a consistent norm, to actually be rational. So far so good? I expect we would all agree that Christianity demands a consistent norm to which the believer must constantly subject herself. I suspect also that we will agree on this; that it is the willingness to subjectification that determines whether or not one believes. Put simply, one only believes in something if he subjects himself to it, not only when it’s easy to do so, but especially when it isn’t. The measure then of both belief and of faith is the extent to which the devotee is willing to sacrifice. Are we on the same page? We believe in Christ only insofar as we are willing consider anything which contradicts Christ to be false.


So if Christ is truly our norm then we truly believe in Christianity, yes? The question then becomes who is Christ? And how do we know? I am aware that my understanding of Christ differs from His usual conception in popular Christianity. If it turns out that I’m wrong, then perhaps I’m not actually a Christian. Perhaps I’m worshiping something else and foolishly calling it Christ. I am convinced that I might be wrong, and so that is why I am seeking out criticism. However, if it turns out that I’m right, it may be that the popular conception of Christ is the misguided one. I would not be pursuing this interlocution if I did not believe that there is very good evidence for letting go of the popular Biblically-inspired conception of Christ, just as there were very good reasons of separating from the Catholic Church 500 years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentalism" (usually that word serves only as an insult). But if you mean it in the sense of

the document published a century ago, I'm proud to wear the label.

This is helpful in establishing a list of beliefs you affirm, but it does not establish the norm by which you affirm them. Why believe these things? How do we know? What I’ve gleaned from reading up on this document is that it was funded and edited by a group of biblical literalists. Is that how you consider yourself? Is this what you believe to be the only source of knowledge about Christ? Do you think that everything in the Bible is literally true by its simple virtue of being in the Bible? Or rather, do you think that it's being in the Bible means it is the literal word of God, and that therefore all other words and statements are subject to it? If so, why do you think this? Does the Bible itself make this claim? (Because if it does, I’ve never found it there). If not, does your conviction that the Bible is the word of God come from something beyond the Bible? If so what?

(Interesting to note that this document seems to be explicitly Anti-Roman Catholic, --and presumably anti-Orthodox-- despite your indication that the Nicene Creed was somehow central to proper ‘Christianity’. Do you think that the church fathers who produced the Nicene Creed were genuinely Christians? If so, why not practice Eastern Orthodoxy? Or Roman Catholicism? You must know that many practitioners of both of these faiths are very offended by Protestant usage of the creed, believing that you’re taking it out of its proper context. Specifically in reference to the line 'one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Isn't it true that Early Church Fathers believed, as do Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians today, that there are other sources of knowledge of Christ? For instance, the founding church documents, the sacraments, and mystical experiences? Or am I way off base about that? If so, doesn't Biblical Fundamentalism represent a departure from Orthodox Christianity? I was told so this weekend by a Catholic Priest, who considers obsession with the Bible a form of Idolatry.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why Protestants reject the Council of Nicaea.)


(You may be interested to know that I affirm the Creed wholeheartedly. Yet I, like you, also believe it means something different than do the Roman and Eastern forms of Orthodoxy.--although it's worth noting that they interpret it in radically different ways from one another, even within their own traditions)


I can tell you that my norm is a literal relationship I have with the living Jesus, for He is beyond death. I have encountered him several times in visions and in Dreams. When I am in His presence there is no question as to what is true and what is false, for the indubitability of his Word (presence) simply takes president over every occurrence. I judge the validity of a truth claim on the basis of whether or not it agrees with my direct experience of Him. Yet my humility leads me to realize that the movement of the spirit is mysterious, and very well might be different in different Christian contexts. I think it’s very possible that the various extra-biblical Catholic doctrines like Purgatory and complete Sanctification were genuine truths God revealed to the adherents of that tradition. Must any one of us posses a means of knowing everything that anyone else can know about God? I am perfectly fine believing that Christ appears in different ways to his different followers. I do not fear finding out that my image of Christ is not somehow the supreme form of ‘Christianity, because my faith is not defined as better than (or in protest against) anyone else’s. I simply love of Christ who is my master, seek His true nature, and keep in mind that I might always be wrong. Why is this improper? Is it because I reject Biblical Inerrancy? I honestly can’t see other reason why you’re insisting my faith isn’t valid.

I prefer to follow the moderate biblical scholars rather than either the liberal or conservative extreme, since I find both sides to be very reactionary. So my question to you would be whether you're simply denying inerrancy or letting your rejection of it define your approach to Scripture in a way that leaves you with an equally lopsided view. This latter has been my experience with liberal scholarship in general.

I see your point, and do sometimes run into problems with the extreme liberalness of the scholarship. The biggest example is that my dramatic mystical experiences have convinced me that there really is a miraculous nature to this historical figure, and so I become acutely aware of the frequent presumption in the liberal academy that all supernatural claims are simply primitive psychology. I suppose the difference between my approach and what you’re articulating is that I don’t simply seek to be moderate, but to unify poles which otherwise would be diametrically opposed. I call it radical centrism. In the beginning it seemed that, coming from a secular perspective, engaging in Christianity at all was a conservative endeavor, so doing it in a liberal way seemed only natural. Now that I’m in it I’m craving a more conservative side to myself. Hence being here and seeking the fundamentalist response. I’m going to dive into Conservative scholarship at some point, but I’d like the way in to be based in relationship first. I’m seeking out a conservative mind I can really respect to lead me down the literary rabbit hole.

There is othing wrong with asking question, are you prepared for the answers that go against what you believe?

Yes. I’m sure I’m wrong about something because I’m not currently in the Father’s Kingdom. I am quite literally dying to figure out what it is I’m so wrong about. For example, maybe my sense that the Father’s Kingdom is something we know by eliminating misunderstanding (‘know’ in terms of procedural knowledge, ‘to know’ meaning to do, to achieve intercourse with - to ‘know’ in the biblical sense’). I am intentionally trying to figure out what I believe that’s wrong, and would not be investing so much of my time in doing so unless I had expected my arguments to be ripped apart. I hope it’s apparent but I genuinely do love my enemies. Honestly Radagast is my favorite wizard in Middle Earth and has been for some time.


More complete response still to come.

 

[ubicaritas]

I'm a liberal Christian myself, but I am not drawn to Gnosticism. Mostly because I believe the scholarship points to a much later dating for the Gnostic gospels than to the generally accepted "canonical" ones.

I actually do think many religions have similar features and do similar things for people. But Christianity is not necessarily a religion in the conventional sense. This is something Luther himself stumbled upon, but it's really only been amplified fully in the last 70 years or so by Protestant and some Catholic theologians. The only thing I have found similar to this is Pure Land Buddhism, which is also critical of religion.

BTW, I see nothing particularly odd about a Protestant believing and confessing "one holy catholic and apostolic church". Catholicity is part of the Lutheran self-understanding. We just don't understand that in terms that Romans do, of a hierarchical organization headed by one man.

Your impression of Lutheran faith as disembodied isn't completely accurate . While we emphasize faith, we do not understand faith in the way other Protestant churches do, as an act of an autonomous will. There is a great modern hymn called Borning Cry and I think that speaks more to the Lutheran understanding of faith and how we relate to God. We see faith gifted to us and embodied in our sacraments, where we believe God is physically present, albeit in a mediated way. We do not understand it as merely a theoretical notional type thing at all.

I do not view Christianity as a practice, that is true. I think that idea opens the door to spiritual abuse and delusion. I think the very idea of practicing religion is foreign to to true Christianity, a pietist affectation. I'll be honest, I pray infrequently and I attend church sporadically (once or twice a month now). But I am a Christian. Why? Because it's not about what I do but what about Christ did for me.

 

[Tolworth John]

I’m sure I’m wrong about something because I’m not currently in the Father’s Kingdom. I am quite literally dying to figure out what it is I’m so wrong about

Sometimes over thinking about simple things so complicates things.

May I suggest that you re read John chapter 3 and pay particular attention to verses 16-20.

Jesus is saying that those who 'believe' in him have eternal life and that those who don't are 'already condemned'.

All you need to do is work out what and why you believe.

May I suggest checking out the christianityexplored web site for a churc in your area running this course. It is easier to talk to someone rather than post on forums.

 

[Liza B.]

.
I was able to tell right off the bat, you were a student at a very liberal seminary.
You have managed to express very succinctly what it is you have been taught.

It is for this reason I feel safe in saying, I do not believe anyone will be able to either change your mind, or enrich your understanding.

I believe you have been given more than enough information to last you for the rest of your life.

May God Bless you in your journey.

I sense a lot of Bart Ehrman in there. I can't really argue with it. So I will just agree with what is said above.

 

[Liza B.]

What denomination did you grow up in? I don't necessarily disagree with you on anything here--I'm not interested in biblical inerrancy and I can't really justify the idea that the Church Fathers got everything right, but from a theological perspective, the possibility that God would provide a genuine divine revelation and then allow it to get twisted entirely out of shape strikes me as equally absurd. I prefer to follow the moderate biblical scholars rather than either the liberal or conservative extreme, since I find both sides to be very reactionary. So my question to you would be whether you're simply denying inerrancy or letting your rejection of it define your approach to Scripture in a way that leaves you with an equally lopsided view. This latter has been my experience with liberal scholarship in general.



Yes, I've read Parmenides. I started out as an atheistic existentialist with pantheistic leanings, but eventually was won over by the religious side of existentialism. I've been fascinated with Christianity for a while, started investigating it more seriously, and then got distracted by a lot of Catholic natural theology instead.

My major influences are Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, various different mystics from multiple traditions, Plato and Plotinus, Advaita Vedanta, a handful of different Christian Platonists and Aristotelians (particularly the Thomists), and several modern Neo-Aristotelian atheistic philosophers. I identify primarily as a Platonist because I view Nietzsche as the great anti-Platonist, and if I am no longer with Nietzsche, then I am instead with Plato. Mostly I would categorize this as the belief that a variety of the things we associate with the mind, such as awareness and moral intuitions, are not products of the material universe but can be attributed to the underlying nature of reality. I'm not kidding when I say I'm Christianized, though--I've flirted pretty seriously with the fullblown nondualism that shows up both in Vedanta and Neoplatonism, but I think I've decisively rejected it at this point. (That's because of the existentialism: I see any metaphysics that doesn't leave room for free will as fundamentally flawed, and unfortunately, very few actually do.)

So yeah, I was not really a Platonist who afterwards became interested in Christianity. It was specifically my engagement with Christianity that led me back to the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. This is probably why my relationship with Christianity is so tempestuous right now--it's exerted so much influence over me every step of the way, going all the way back to my anti-theistic days, that I'm incapable of viewing it objectively. So I have no idea what to really make of it. I do know that my underlying approach is fairly Platonic, though, so I've settled on that label.



She.

Are you a philosophy student by chance? Because if you are not and this is just a hobby, I'm mighty impressed. Well, I'm impressed anyway.

I'm passingly familiar with this stuff and have great respect for it, but I'm an intuitive thinker and not a logical, linear thinker. I know that makes philosophy students weep with despair. I'm sorry.

 

[Silmarien]

I see your point, and do sometimes run into problems with the extreme liberalness of the scholarship. The biggest example is that my dramatic mystical experiences have convinced me that there really is a miraculous nature to this historical figure, and so I become acutely aware of the frequent presumption in the liberal academy that all supernatural claims are simply primitive psychology. I suppose the difference between my approach and what you’re articulating is that I don’t simply seek to be moderate, but to unify poles which otherwise would be diametrically opposed. I call it radical centrism. In the beginning it seemed that, coming from a secular perspective, engaging in Christianity at all was a conservative endeavor, so doing it in a liberal way seemed only natural. Now that I’m in it I’m craving a more conservative side to myself. Hence being here and seeking the fundamentalist response. I’m going to dive into Conservative scholarship at some point, but I’d like the way in to be based in relationship first. I’m seeking out a conservative mind I can really respect to lead me down the literary rabbit hole.

Well, moderate scholarship doesn't necessarily mean a compromise halfway between inerrancy and extreme liberalism. I would consider any Trinitarian Christian scholar who approaches Scripture as a historical text a moderate--their belief that Christian tradition got enough right doesn't prevent them from viewing things critically. I'm not sure if you've read anything by Larry Hurtado--I've got a couple of his books on kindle but mostly just read his blog--but he's someone I would put in this category.

You would need to explain how you're planning on unifying poles that are diametrically opposed, though. You can't really simultaneously reject and accept something like inerrancy of Gnosticism, unless you want to end up with a position that's literally insane. On the other hand, affirming the Nicene Creed is not unique to fundamentalism, so you do not need to move to the opposite extreme if you're just looking for non-secular voices.

Are you a philosophy student by chance? Because if you are not and this is just a hobby, I'm mighty impressed. Well, I'm impressed anyway.

I'm passingly familiar with this stuff and have great respect for it, but I'm an intuitive thinker and not a logical, linear thinker. I know that makes philosophy students weep with despair. I'm sorry.

I have a B.A. in philosophy, but at this point it's just a hobby, haha.

And not all philosophy is logical and linear. There are philosophers out there who reject rationality.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread

From The Kitchen Sink
to Christianity and World Religion

as This is a More Fitting Forum

for this subject
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[cloudyday2]

This is simply untrue. It pains me to say it for Kierkegaard is one of my favorite writers, but here he is mistaken. Do you know anything about the Bahagavd Gita? Th message Is clearly that Arjun enters into a personal relationship with Krishna, and that readers must as well if they are to attain Moksa - “Knowing me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and penances…he finds peace”.

It seems like you are shoe-horning the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita to match Christian Protestantism. I've only read it once, but I saw something very different. Devotion to God is one of the three types of yoga mentioned, so I see where that might seem to be the whole message.

Here is what I recall from a lecture I watched. What binds us to redeath/rebirth is karma, and the only escape from karma is action without attachment to outcome. The three types of yoga (including devotion to God) are ways to live without creating karma (either good or bad) and therefore escape reincarnation.

FWIW, and I'm not an expert at all. (And to be honest, I don't understand the whole karma thing. I'm only repeating what I remember the lecturer saying, and I might have remembered some of that wrong.)