narsil wrote:Well, like Emery said it was probably a love it or hate it dialog, I think I see which side you fall on SB. And I was going to talk a bit more about how I think churches have changed and how culture has changed, but I think Emery said it pretty well,it's the message and not it's delivery that he has issues with, and that really hasn't changed at it's core. But still, SB, I promise there is much more than fluff going on with the changes from modern thinking to postmodern thinking in our culture, but it's a slower process out in the more rural areas (which I assume is where you are), and I think that Norton and I's churches, being right outside of Atlanta, are seeing it much sooner than you probably will. It's definitely not something that you are going to start hearing less about.
Now with that said, I think I missed anything like an actual response to what part of the arguement "fails miserably on many levels." I'd like to hear more about that part.
ScottBarger wrote:What if redemption wasn't as much about fixing our sin as enlightening our perception of goodness?
ScottBarger wrote:I knew that comment was coming! Others have made the Buddhism comparison before. I will say that if there is any truth to Buddhism at all, then I believe it is God's truth. Now to clarify my previous post...
I was not saying that redemption has nothing to do with the problem of sin, I was just commenting that I felt that it was more than that. We evangelicals tend to make redemption all about our personal deliverance from the consequences of sin. I think the Bible paints a broader picture than that. I was also responding to a conversation that has developed because of the most C&A Podcast, namely, how do we know God is good?
On a side note, I am a far cry from a traditional Calvinist. I am part of a faith tradition that leans heavily in that direction, but I personally think it is a broken system.
NH Baritone wrote:I'm aware of the "why God is good" discussion. And the follow-up about "badness" still stands. Are there things that are bad in one context that are not bad in another? For example, is homosexual behavior in the context of temple prostitution and idol worship a bad thing, but in the context of a loving, committed relationship possibly a blessed thing?
So which of Calvin's 5 points are you happy with, and which one's are you shying away from?
And with such a variety of denominations available, why do you still link yourself to a "broken system"?
ScottBarger wrote:Because my loyalty lies with the community to which I belong, not to the theological system espoused by our faith tradition.
ScottBarger wrote:NH Baritone wrote:I'm aware of the "why God is good" discussion. And the follow-up about "badness" still stands. Are there things that are bad in one context that are not bad in another? For example, is homosexual behavior in the context of temple prostitution and idol worship a bad thing, but in the context of a loving, committed relationship possibly a blessed thing?
I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking this within the greater context of human cultures or within the more specific context of biblical instruction? Within the broad context of human culture there is obviously many things that are moral/immoral depending on cultural context (and I believe that the Bible allows for this kind of culturally determined moral variation). In terms of Biblical instruction, I think that there are obviously moral absolutes (marital infidelity is bad) but what that looks like might be culturally derived.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest