V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Wonderful thread!
I think it’s shameful that Christians ever attached themselves to the views of Bishop Ussher (he of the house of that name?) Stephen Oppenheimer, a scientist insightful into many fields, has very interesting things to say about Gen 1 and 2. Most of Gen 1 according to him represents a point which was as far back as Bible compilers could remember and Adam and Eve represent humanity from that point on.
Many scientists have ruined science by abandoning the concept of working hypotheses (of which you can have any number at a time).
I don’t think Hindu and Buddhist writings are regarded as revelation.
Many points of “apparent” conflict e.g over creation can be reconciled in logic by use of approximations (more caused, more causing).
It’s essential to have the Holy Spirit and the time honoured deeper level interpretations if hoping to make use of the Bible.
Speaking for myself, I don’t think God intends for us to conduct a “beauty parade” and congratulate ourselves for having the beliefs that “knock other beliefs into a cocked hat”.
We may have reasons for counselling someone who is already a member of the household of faith from embracing the occult, or a perversion (if it ever occurred) or taking a retrograde philosophical step. That doesn’t translate to the Church minding other people’s affairs (which, mimicking Islam, it was co-opted to do by the British Empire in order to put the Hindus in what it saw as their place - with continuing results).
The motive of travelling abroad to evangelise must always be examined, as to whether it is truly God’s will for the person proposing to do it, at that time. Ditto the content of any message one might spread.
As to pantheism, if God is so giving of Himself at the same time as being unutterably more than sufficient in Himself, that He not only wants to give of Himself but that it should even gain an identity beyond Him, that is mind blowing and to me doesn’t contradict Him being all-sufficient unless one insists in reducing the latter to something simplistic and literalistic.
How many Christians when catechising their fellows bother to tell them this?
Some Christians’ foibles about non-Christians’ superstitions - and even things that aren’t superstitions - are in themselves superstitious.
I would love to know when Indra lived!
I find kdbueno’s definition helpful.
I think it’s shameful that Christians ever attached themselves to the views of Bishop Ussher (he of the house of that name?) Stephen Oppenheimer, a scientist insightful into many fields, has very interesting things to say about Gen 1 and 2. Most of Gen 1 according to him represents a point which was as far back as Bible compilers could remember and Adam and Eve represent humanity from that point on.
Many scientists have ruined science by abandoning the concept of working hypotheses (of which you can have any number at a time).
I don’t think Hindu and Buddhist writings are regarded as revelation.
Many points of “apparent” conflict e.g over creation can be reconciled in logic by use of approximations (more caused, more causing).
It’s essential to have the Holy Spirit and the time honoured deeper level interpretations if hoping to make use of the Bible.
Speaking for myself, I don’t think God intends for us to conduct a “beauty parade” and congratulate ourselves for having the beliefs that “knock other beliefs into a cocked hat”.
We may have reasons for counselling someone who is already a member of the household of faith from embracing the occult, or a perversion (if it ever occurred) or taking a retrograde philosophical step. That doesn’t translate to the Church minding other people’s affairs (which, mimicking Islam, it was co-opted to do by the British Empire in order to put the Hindus in what it saw as their place - with continuing results).
The motive of travelling abroad to evangelise must always be examined, as to whether it is truly God’s will for the person proposing to do it, at that time. Ditto the content of any message one might spread.
As to pantheism, if God is so giving of Himself at the same time as being unutterably more than sufficient in Himself, that He not only wants to give of Himself but that it should even gain an identity beyond Him, that is mind blowing and to me doesn’t contradict Him being all-sufficient unless one insists in reducing the latter to something simplistic and literalistic.
How many Christians when catechising their fellows bother to tell them this?
Some Christians’ foibles about non-Christians’ superstitions - and even things that aren’t superstitions - are in themselves superstitious.
I would love to know when Indra lived!
I find kdbueno’s definition helpful.
