Please login or click here to join.
Forgot Password? Click Here to reset pasword
 |  |  |  |  |  |
Posts: Joined: 1st Jan 1970 | I think I answered that, John. If you can show me how life came from lifeless matter and where the matter came from. Show me how chaos, left unattended, produces perfect order. And, if they ever discovered the fossil of a giraffe with only a half-developed neck, I might pause for thought. |
Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 18:54 on 19th September 2008 Hi Sue and John: Hope you are well today. Thanks for keeping this thread alive. I've been reading the postings every day since my last one, but there are so many and so many citations to read that I wanted to give it a good read before I responded. I've just typed all my responsed offline and will be cutting and pasting, so I hope you don't think I'm horning in too much. lol
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 18:58 on 19th September 2008 On 16th September 2008 16:18, John Ravenscroft wrote:
I think we had this conversation before in the previous thread, but here’s a little more about the subject. Yes, you are right, contradictory stuff for sure in the scriptures, even among Christians’ interpretations, yes!! The piece I put up about Biblical interpretation is a Catholic perspective – the official church teaching is that the scriptures, while being the inspired Word of God, are not to be interpreted literally, but to be presented in light of the gospel message and using state of the art biblical criticism. This utilizes translations taken from the oldest extant Greek and Hebrew texts, rather than the Latin vulgate, as well as scientific and archaeological evidence that can shed light on the original context of the writings. Some Christian denominations take a more literal, fundamentalist view, these are just different spins on the same message, some valuable, some not, in my opinion. Many of these denominations, but not all, have softened the fundamentalist line a bit and concentrate on the forgiving and merciful love of Christ, his death on the cross for our sins, and His (and ours eventually) resurrection to everlasting life. There are serious divisions in the Body of Christ (aka, the church – aka, all believers in Jesus and his saving message). I think of poor Jesus' prayer in the 17th chapter of the Holy Gospel According to John, and his prayer the night before his crucifixion. He’s praying for all believers here: “I pray not only for these but for those who through their teaching will come to believe in me. May they all be one, just as Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world will believe it was you who sent me.” I'm pretty convinced that it's these serious divisions that led to all the bloodshed, hatred and hypocrisy that drive so many, not only away from the church, but from God. IMHO that's why, after 2,000 years, the world is not yet evangelized. If you haven't guessed by now, I am Catholic, but first and foremost, Christian. I have a lot of evangelical Protestant friends and when we discuss our faith, we try to concentrate on the one thing we have in common, which is the only thing we need – and that's Jesus. We really do have a lot to learn from one another and putting aside differences is essential to spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. That's why I was so emphatic in the first thread that this not become an "Us vs. Them" dialogue about religion or denominational differences. When I find my faith challenged by engaging like this, it's through prayer that I try my best to work it out. The entire concept of faith in Christ and what it means to the world is incredibly complex. There are no easy answers.In your search, John, to discover "why prayer?" "why this fascinating concept of God?" - You won't find answers the secular and freedom from religion circles. You don't like CS Lewis, but maybe you need to try John of the Cross or St. Augustine or John Paul II, or other Christian writers. Of course, it starts with the premise that there is a God, if you leave that out, you're essentially wasting your time. But you remarked that you've left that door open a crack so to speak, to that remote possibility, although you have not seen any “evidence” that shows God exists. By now you must realize that the breakthrough, that revelation of the God that you acknowledge just might be out there, won't be in the conventional, scientific, concrete proof that you seek. If that's your expectation, then again, you're wasting your time. I don’t doubt that there are still visionaries in the world, and that some people have a deeper sense of the sacred, but the “theophanies” - burning bushes, transfigurations, etc. are few and far between. And of course, that brings us back the square one again – we believe through faith (which you may see as blindness, believers see as vision) and faith, a grace from God, is a choice.
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 19:05 on 19th September 2008 On 16th September 2008 19:24, John Ravenscroft wrote:
Yes, the virgin birth flies in the face of our understanding of reality, but believers are open to the possiblity that God can and does bring things about according to His will, that defy physical reality as we know it. You could say the same thing about resurrection from the dead. I only mention this, not to begin another dialogue about what Christians believe - these are the two bedrock beliefs of Christians - but to respond to what you posted, John.
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 19:14 on 19th September 2008 On 18th September 2008 00:06, John Ravenscroft wrote:
Creationism vs. evolution. Should both be taught in schools? I think so, but both should be presented as human beings’ attempt to explain how we got here and let each student decide for himself. And not just the origin of species, but the origin of everything. The one who takes the evolution side should not be branded as evil and heretic. And the one who takes the creationist side should not be branded as wacko and superstitious. But in a free country, both theories should be presented, but neither espoused. I myself subscribe to both – I don’t dispute scientific evidence, nor do I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days. Evolution – well, for me, the jury’s still out on that one. But I DO BELIEVE without a doubt, that it all originated with an intelligent designer, AKA God!!! I think it’s very dangerous in a free society to ban either view from being taught. I think that’s why there’s such a high percentage of people who want to see creationism or intelligent design taught in the schools. We only need look at history, in both the church and secular worlds to see the damage banning ideas causes. Either side can argue, well then we’re not presenting the “truth.” That’s one thing in the Bible that I wish Jesus had made clear when Pilate asked the question – “What is truth?” Do you ever wonder why either the scriptures did not record Jesus’ answer, or did Jesus leave the question unanswered for us to discover?
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 19:18 on 19th September 2008 On 17th September 2008 11:06, John Ravenscroft wrote:
As for why it seems that the scriptures he cited are untrue – believers believe that God has a plan – a plan of creation, a plan of salvation. He answers prayer according to His plan. Why when believers get together and pray in Jesus name that someone be cured and they’re not. I don’t know, I can only trust. But there is a great difference in being “cured” and being “healed.” Do you know that difference, John?
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 19:21 on 19th September 2008 On 18th September 2008 06:53, John Ravenscroft wrote:
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 19:24 on 19th September 2008 On 18th September 2008 16:40, John Ravenscroft wrote:
|
| Ruth Gregory Posts: 8072 Joined: 25th Jul 2007 Location: USA | quotePosted at 19:31 on 19th September 2008 On 19th September 2008 16:08, Sue Ryder wrote:
|
John Ravenscroft Posts: 321 Joined: 21st Sep 2007 Location: UK | quotePosted at 00:25 on 20th September 2008 Yikes! There's a lot here to discuss - but it's late so I'll leave most of it until the morning. However, I did want to respond to this, Ruth: The piece I put up about Biblical interpretation is a Catholic perspective – the official church teaching is that the scriptures, while being the inspired Word of God, are not to be interpreted literally, but to be presented in light of the gospel message and using state of the art biblical criticism. This utilizes translations taken from the oldest extant Greek and Hebrew texts, rather than the Latin vulgate, as well as scientific and archaeological evidence that can shed light on the original context of the writings. I'll respond with a brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27pDmWOO73c&feature=related Do you think Harris has a point or two, Ruth? |
Follow PicturesOfEngland.com on social media and help share the beauty of England....
