Do you dare?

[Akita Suggagaki]

Maybe it's because your point of view is weak, because you haven't made a strong case for it.

I am not here to argue it but to gather like minded community.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not here to argue it but to gather like minded community.

Derf is gun-shy of terms like "Dare." So, when he sees it, he think there's an "agenda" underfoot. Fortunately, I know better.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I must add a thought on the emotional comfort many of us derive from tradition, what we know, what we are used to, what feels like home.
At least I feel that way much of the time. And yet, that inclination gets overridden by, I think, What Gregory or Nyssa called epectasis, a reaching, stretching out, yearning for God. St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Epektasis (ἐπέκτασις)- The soul’s eternal ‘straining toward’ God”.

Kind of like a the captain of a ship in the comfort of home and harbor with the call of the sea within him. That voyage beyond the harbor also takes some daring, some leaving the comfort of beloved familiarities. But I think that is what Paul Ricoeur called the "Second naivete", going back to the familiar scriptural narratives and images with greater appreciation because of a wider view, a broader hermeneutic.

 

[public hermit]

At least I feel that way much of the time. And yet, that inclination gets overridden by, I think, What Gregory or Nyssa called epectasis, a reaching, stretching out, yearning for god. St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Epektasis (ἐπέκτασις)- The soul’s eternal ‘straining toward’ God”.

I completely agree. Like children who are continually seeking to understand, we should keep seeking and keep finding. I agree with Nyssa: since God is infinite/eternal, there is no limit to what we can learn and experience. There is no top-out by which we become static, bored, and fall away (which was Origen's account of the fall of souls). The kingdom of God is made of these (*Jesus holding a child on his knee*).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Truth hurts when it deals with reality, and such hurt is necessary, but freeing. Falsity hurts BECAUSE it moves us away from reality, and it enslaves.

I agree. And I cannot help but remember many years ago in my first class on Old Testament. I was shocked that it need not be taken literally, and toss in the Documentary theory, etc. I remember one guy got up and left the class and left the seminary all together I think. But I felt as though my heart was unchained and my mind freed to think without fear. It expanded God for me.

So I never felt as though I was being unfaithful to God or belittling scripture. Rather, taking a deeper dive. And even that can seem dangerous at times because it might shatter all we thought we knew.

 

[Derf]

Derf is gun-shy of terms like "Dare." So, when he sees it, he think there's an "agenda" underfoot. Fortunately, I know better.

Funny, since he admitted his agenda in the post you replied to.

 

[Derf]

I agree. And I cannot help but remember many years ago in my first class on Old Testament. I was shocked that it need not be taken literally, and toss in the Documentary theory, etc.

"It" seems overly broad as a pronoun there.

I remember one guy got up and left the class and left the seminary all together I think. But I felt as though my heart was unchained and my mind freed to think without fear. It expanded God for me.

So I never felt as though I was being unfaithful to God or belittling scripture. Rather, taking a deeper dive. And even that can seem dangerous at times because it might shatter all we thought we knew.

If the scripture were meant by God to be taken literally, and you knew it, would you feel that to be chaining your heart?

 

[Rose_bud]

I must add a thought on the emotional comfort many of us derive from tradition, what we know, what we are used to, what feels like home.
At least I feel that way much of the time. And yet, that inclination gets overridden by, I think, What Gregory or Nyssa called epectasis, a reaching, stretching out, yearning for God. St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Epektasis (ἐπέκτασις)- The soul’s eternal ‘straining toward’ God”.

Kind of like a the captain of a ship in the comfort of home and harbor with the call of the sea within him. That voyage beyond the harbor also takes some daring, some leaving the comfort of beloved familiarities. But I think that is what Paul Ricoeur called the "Second naivete", going back to the familiar scriptural narratives and images with greater appreciation because of a wider view, a broader hermeneutic.

Thank you Akita, this resonates.

For me, the question, Who are you really? emerged from what I reflect on as a "spiritual pull" a place of deep and introspection, driven by an unrelenting need for answers. This question was born out of a personal crisis, that ked to a crisis of faith, this challenged my previous understanding of God and forced me to confront my own arrogance. I had once thought I had a firm grasp on my beliefs and who God is, but the foundation was shaken, leaving some convictions intact while others vanished like dust in the wind. Paradoxically, I've come to find comfort in the tension between knowing and not knowing Him. This space of uncertainty is where I experience the authentic searching of "my soul for the Divine". There is an element of wonder and awe to be able to ask, Who are you really? and being surprised by His magnificence. At times the magnificence is discovered in the academic pursuit, at other times the practical and at other times just the stillness of His Presence.
What's interesting is that my initial hermeneutic is Pentecostal, which I had set aside to engage other different perspectives, but of late I find myself drawn back there. Rediscovering this again through the writings of Craig Keener, Spirit hermeneutic, reading Scripture through the lens of Pentecost.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Funny, since he admitted his agenda in the post you replied to.

As long as he's a fellow Christian, which he is, and he's not here on CF to troll us with a misanthropic bent as so many ex-Christians used to do, then I don't care what his questions are, even if his 'Post-Exilic- twist isn't something I subscribe to.

Besides, we Christians need to do a better job of addressing, and knowing about, the biblical challenges we all have facing us today. It isn't enough to simply extol the evangelical formula of "the Bible says so" in order to defend or explain the contents of the Bible so as to make it believable.

So, if Akita wants to explore all the myriads of critical topics that I'm mostly already aware of, I don't see any agenda there. He's just asking questions and wants to have fellow Christians who understand and whom he can talk to.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

a personal crisis,

Crisis, tragedy and suffering, our very own crosses. They may be hard t account for but I think they most often bring us some kind of wisdom.
God is amazing. We find and still search. We are already there and also not yet. Finding our identity in the jungles of our interior lives is breathtaking. Scripture, stillness, ritual, prayer, action, they all have their moments. At one moment one is my answer. But then, the next moment it seems empty and I must try another. It seems to be a dynamic unending journey of discovery.

Thanks for you openness.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, if Akita wants to explore all the myriads of critical topics that I'm mostly already aware of, I don't see any agenda there. He's just asking questions and wants to have fellow Christians who understand and whom he can talk to.

There you go. There is so much that we might be aware of but find myself asking, "Hey wait a minute, what was that all about again?" So I am looking for reflection.

 

[Clare73]

I respect your opinion on this. I just happen to have a different view.
The goat sins are 100% sins of omission: not caring for sick, poor, immigrant, refugee, widow, orphan, prisoner, etc. These are sins that I struggle with, and I know they are very serious.
I don’t think that parable is talking about biblical interpretation, though.
Edit: perhaps I should have asked a question instead of making statements.
At face-value the parable of the sheep and goats is about caring for the sick, poor, etc.
Do you have another interpretation where it can be about biblical interpretation?

That difference between sheep and goats is also the only means of salvation; i.e., faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin.
The sheep have true faith. . .the goats have no faith, or they have a counterfeit faith.
Their fruit, or lack thereof, demonstrate whether they have true faith or not.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Our hermeneutic and our beliefs about scripture matter to us as thinking human beings. But even as a non-literalist I can open the Genesis creation accounts and be moved. What most of us really seek is an encounter with God. That encounter can be emotional as well as intellectual. I think though that the deepest part is beyond intellect and emotion. A part of our being that transcends all that, but then is also nurtured by our thoughts and feelings. If there is a disturbance in either our thoughts or feelings we seek to resolve it. Some times that takes a bit of a change of mind and heart, conversion again. Or, as Rosebud said, dwelling in that "space of uncertainty" resting in the" tension between knowing and not knowing Him". Waiting, watching, seeking.

Regardless of who wrote Genesis or their original intention, regardless of how the first listeners understood it, when I read it, it becomes extremely personal. God then uses it to speak to me. Sometimes I can feel a moment of divinity and sometimes not. But then my "feeling" is only one small aspect of revelation. It is my emotional, somatic response. Then I need to process the whole experience through my intellect. What a challenge that can be when a powerful experience of God is found in the space of uncertainty. Then is is like just gazing out at the stars on a clear night realizing I am looking into infinity or maybe better to say indeterminality, vast and awesome. The it seems best just to remain silent and still and let it all seep in deeper.

 

[Clare73]

Yes

Perhaps, but sometimes those who claim to be Christian don't always understand the Bible very well either and they make all sorts of crass, obtuse and inflated attempts to explain what the Bible means, only to end up creating a new sectarian denomination. The funny thing is, each denomination, while disagreeing with the others, each claims, "WE HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT!!! LISTEN TO US!!! WE HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT!!! LISTEN TO US!!!"
And who dares to cite the obvious? .... I DO!!!

Actually, the biblical writers such as John suggest that on some level, the "credibility" of what it is they're sharing is a reason for belief, along with the work of the Holy Spirit (and that of the leaders of Christ's Church who have written our New Testament).
One believes it because, as Paul says, they've "heard" the Gospel message, and this is always through the Church, which the Scriptures are an expression of.

The church is the body of Christ, all those of saving faith.

 

[Clare73]

Why do you think a broader view needs a "safe place"?

Why would anyone think an internet open forum is a "safe place"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There you go. There is so much that we might be aware of but find myself asking, "Hey wait a minute, what was that all about again?" So I am looking for reflection.

The great thing about studying the Documentary Hypothesis, along with the combined critical acumen of the Minimalist position regarding the entirety of the Old Testament, is that it causes us Christians to have to think harder about how we justify our truth claims about our Sacred Book and about how we might also apply critical thinking to the Documentary Hypothesis and the Minimalist position.

Philosophically speaking, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we owe it to ourselves to evaluate everything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The church is the body of Christ, all those of saving faith.

Right. The Church is the body of Christ, all those of saving faith. I don't think I denied that. In fact, I didn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would anyone think an internet open forum is a "safe place"?

Why would anyone be looking for people to pick on and repeatedly criticize, and nothing but that alone, on a public forum?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

truth claims about our Sacred Book and about how we might also apply critical thinking to the Documentary Hypothesis

Ya, so our claim, and that included minimalist "documentarians" is that the Bible, even as it is, somehow mediates God's revelation in a unique way.
I am afraid I must admit that for me, maybe the Bible is not so unique. But I also must say that I am still holding on to the uniqueness and substitutability of the Gospels. It becomes a question now of Christology. Can a deeper understand be had of Jesus of Nazareth as a historic figure who is also the incarnation of what we call God. He who in his person, life and actions discloses God in a unique and personal way?

That is far more important than to me than Adam and Eve. Yes, I know. Some will tie him to Adam and Eve, their fall as the primary reason for his incarnation and death. But there again, we are talking about further exploration and reflection on Christology. Someone here said that the fall narrative pretty much accounts for the situation we find ourselves in. We all seem "fallen". And yet we are all also post-Christ.

We have lot of scriptural quotes we can throw around. But that all seems so superficial to me. We have to go deeper. But we can't do it all at once. Let the Spirit guide us theme by them.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why would anyone be looking for people to pick on and repeatedly criticize, and nothing but that alone, on a public forum?

Because they themselves are insecure and feel threatened?