Artemus Prime

But you just made an absolute statement... if absolute truth is false, then so is your statement... but that makes absolute truth true! Logically, any way you look at it, there must be some sort of absolute truth. What is subjective is our interpretation of truth. What we understand to be true can be stretched, twisted and changed - but always, the absolute, real truth is there to be discovered. Agreed!...The following comes from my good friend Dr. Mark Linville from his work What is Truth? (co-authored by Paul Copan): "When we are willing to ask serious questions about morality, we find that we don't really believe that moral values are relative. Just ask yourself: 'Do you right now believe that it is okay to murder or to be murdered?' You might think: 'Well, some people have thought so.' But the question is: 'Do you--not other people--right now have any doubt about the wrongness of murder?' This is the place to begin--not what other people have alleged. So we do not have to waste our time talking about what we both accept as true. We can, instead, begin discussing the real issue--namely, which viewpoint best accounts for the existence of objective moral values."

Perfectly understandable, trust me...I got a call from my wife while I was here at work yesterday; she had broken down on the side of the road, and needed me to come get her...I definitely can relate to crash landings! Just let me know whenever you would like to get started...I'm reading through both books, along with my commentary, as we speak (type?)...

I agree. Something that I do like about the Emergent Church is that it appeals to those who would normally not feel comfortable in a traditional church, such as Punks and other sub-cultures. I'm a bit confused as to why this quality would be one that you do not like...isn't it a good thing that they're getting some sort of exposure, rather than nothing at all?...

...either Psalty the Singing Songbook, or Patch the Pirate?...I know for me, this was pretty much the main staple of my Children's Church/S.S. years growing up, and I was just wondering if anyone else was at all familiar!

it would not have been wrong for her to say that had it been in a context of taking very matter of fact principles in the bible and me disregarding them as God's will for me when they are clearly the will of Him for everyone....then she would have been right on. unfortunately that was not the case that I am aware of..... Alright, although going by the rest of her statement (the beginning of which I quoted) it seems that is exactly what she's doing...speaking of a matter-of-fact Biblical principal...the fact that our freedom in Christ still has "limits," as it were, it is not to be used as a misinterpreted "freedom" to act however we wish (cf. Galatians 5:13-18).

"Considering one's self instead of God's wants for your life is evil. It's selfishness. Selfishness is a sin..." This is the only point I was trying to make; the simple fact that the above quoted sentiment is a correct statement, and that it rather worried me that (unless I misunderstand your point,) you were attempting to say that here Bibs was incorrect, when in fact the opposite is true. That's all...

The following is from G.K. Chesterton's essay "Christianity and Rationalism," taken from Haw, George, ed. The Religious Doubts of Democracy. London: MacMillan, 1904: "... For instance, Mr. Blatchford and his school point out that there are many myths parallel to the Christian story; that there were Pagan Christs, and Red Indian Incarnations, and Patagonian Crucifixions, for all I know or care. But does not Mr. Blatchford see the other side of this fact? If the Christian God really made the human race, would not the human race tend to rumours and perversions of the Christian God? If the center of our life is a certain fact, would not people far from the center have a muddled version of that fact? If we are so made that a Son of God must deliver us, is it odd that Patagonians should dream of a Son of God? The Blatchfordian position really amounts to this--that because a certain thing has impressed millions of different people as likely or necessary therefore is connot be true. And then this bashful being, veiling his own talents, convicts the wretched G.K.C. of paradox! I like paradox, but I am not prepared to dance and dazzle to the extent of Nunquam, who points to humanity crying out to a thing, and pointing to it from immemorial ages, as a proof that it cannot be there. The story of a Christ is very common in legend and literature. So is the story of two lovers parted by Fate. So is the story of two friends killing each other for a woman. But will it seriously be maintained that, because these two stories are common as legends, therefore not two friends were ever separated by love or no two lovers by circumstances? It is tolerably plain, surely, that these two stories are common because the situation is an intensely probable and human one, because our nature is so built as to make them almost inevitable. Why should it not be that our nature is so built as to make certain spiritual events inevitable? In any case, it is clearly ridiculous to attempt to disprove Christianity by the number and variety of Pagan Christs. You might as well take the number and variety of ideal schemes of society, from Plato's Republic to Morris' News from Nowhere, from More's Utopia to Blatchford's Merrie England, and then try and prove from them that mankind cannot ever reach a better social condition. If anything, of course, they prove the opposite; they suggest a human tendency towards a better condition. Thus, in this first instance, when learned skeptics come to me and say, "Are you aware that the Kaffirs have a story of Incarnation?" I should reply: "Speaking as an unlearned person, I don't know. But speaking as a Christian, I should be very much astonished if they hadn't."

There seems to be a lot of thinly veiled relativism floating around this thread..."what's true for me, may not be true for you" is an incorrect assessment, especially in regards to the Christian faith.

Yeah, that sounds good...let me take some time and read through Corinthians myself, if you want we could work through it together. I know this is off OP, but I also left you a comment at your Myspace page ...I'm usually on the PC from 2:00 till around 7:00 EST...that's about the only time I have to be on the 'Net, seeing as my wife and I can't afford it at home (yet!)...talk to you soon

Shalom Bibs, No, haven't read the book, but we LOVE DeGarmo and Key's music! I, too, am a huge fan of theirs...I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Aaron Benward not too long ago (formerly of the CCM duo Aaron Jeffery)...so that was much fun! I've never heard of the book, though...what's it about?

Greetings! Sorry it's been a touch, I needed time to gather my thoughts (not to mention, resources!) I would definitely pick up Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible. It is pretty much invaluable!...I know what you mean in regards to being a kid in a candy store....I'm currently working my way through both Jeremiah and the book of Ruth, and How to... has become a vital guide for when I read Scripture, from now on!... I think (other than the various other quotes I've already listed) the best bit of the whole book (at least as far as reading/correctly interpreting the OT) goes is as follows, from Third Edition, Chapter 6, pg. 118-119: "The crucial hermeneutical question here is whether Biblical narratives that describe what happened in the early church also function as norms intended to delineate what must happen in the ongoing church. Our assumption, shared by many others, is this: Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative (i.e. obligatory) way--unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way." I believe this "solves the problem," as it were, that so many around WB have--put bluntly, taking so much of OT Scripture out of context! Glad to see you're keeping with it! Talk again next time, A.P.

The crucial hermenutical question here is whether Biblical narratives that describe what happened in the early church also function as norms intended to delineate what must happen in the ongoing church...our assumption, shared by many others, is this: Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative (i.e. obligatory) way--unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way." (Taken from Fee and Stuart's How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Third Edition, Chapter 6, pg. 118-119).

I think one of my favorite things about this passage (12:10-20) is that it could be best summed up with Sarai (soon to be Sarah) saying, "You want me to do what?!"...I love the fact that this is basically "Abram the Pimp!"...what this does show us, however, is that the will of God will reach its end, either through us or in spite of us!

OK. But I don't feel that my answer will be much different, Dan. I know from personal experience, based on facts and not simply ideals, that my Heavenly Father loves me as an individual loves an individual. Doesn't make sense but it is a fact. And wrapped up in that answer is another fact. What I know about God's love for me is not exclusive to me or it would make even less sense. That love applies individually to all my brothers and sisters in Christ who together make up the church. Each one of us is loved as an individual. And, dare I say it without stirring up too much controversy, I know that God loves individually all those who are oppressed or poor or caught up in an environment of hopelessness and need. How do I know? How does any born again Christian know? Well, to start with that love for the poor and the oppressed and the bound is inherently the Spirit of God. It says so in scripture. But even more than words, many of us have experienced the feeling of God's love as the Spirit of God takes over our emotions when we meet a need. It is a one-on-one individual meeting through us of God's love for somebody in need as an individual. When coming across such a situation, and more than that, creating opportunities to do so, the Holy Spirit takes over our emotions. My heart and yours and anybody else of the same persuasion leaps out to meet that need with a love that could only be an expression of God's love to that person in need as an individual. There is nothing corporate about God's love, nor need we put limits on our understanding of our Heavenly Father's love by suggesting his incapacity to be anything less than loving to us all as individuals. Sure, our Heavenly Father's love for so many at the same time becomes a group pouring out of the Spirit, but not one of the individual concerns is lost in the process. That is why I thought that the thread you introduced with reference to Song of Songs was so relevant. It is all about individual love and a reminder of how individual our Heavenly Father's love is for us as individuals. Lots and lots and countless numbers of us, but all individuals in the matchless and boundless love of God. A great post, and I agree with you...

I think one of my all-time favorite concerts was back during my Open House when I graduated from High School in 2000...all my friends pooled together to get me front-row tix with backstage passes to see Skillet on their Invincible tour! That's still some of the most fun I've ever had, even though my ears were ringing for like three days afterward!