Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
if everyone agreed perfectly, i don't think we'd stand a chance. God is still speaking in this world. we would be foolish not to listen. it is our task to discern, to listen, to try to work towards building communities, relationships, and lives that somehow point to God's truth and love. That the task is difficult and contentious is not a sign of failure. we rarely agree on what human rights are, but few would say that that's a good reason to stop trying support some sense of them.
|
Now explain this rationally, without very abstract metaphors. How can you explain the existence of God without an <i>a priori</i> belief in God and/or an <i>a priori</i> belief that the Bible is <b>literal</b> fact?
Quote:
|
This is one of the few times when i take one Gospel at nearly total priority over the others. The appearance stories in Matt, Luke, Acts, and John are almost certainly late additions to the tradition. they are valuable to study, but i do not believe that they are a solid basis for doctrine. That the tomb is empty is the most basic declaration that death has been broken. The message that the followers who deserted Christ are to rejoin him in Galilee is the proclaimation of forgiveness that begins the Church. We who abandon God, who leave his Son to die on the accursed cross, are invited back to Him. Mark, in and of itself contains the doctrine necessary to preach the Good News. if we're really being honest with ourselves, the reason the tomb is empty is because he probably never made it there. the victims were left for the vultures and dogs. In spite of it all, we are told Christ is risen, we should not fear. We, his betrayers, are told that we are to rejoin him in Galilee and begin the work of ushering in the Kingdom.
|
You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true, nor that anything in the Bible is true. That is circular reasoning, and fundamentally flawwed logic. As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to logically discuss the existence of God. I read this as an emotive response that is lacking in reason outside of the scope of using the Bible as a fundamental book of truth because you say that the Bible is a fundamental book of truth.
Though poetic and highly asthetic, where's the substance behind the language? How can we have access to this world you're discussing without those fundamental assumptions that you're making?