Hey Gerry! Happy birthday! (you kept that one quiet!)
The Bible itself, as we have it today, seems to be a product of gradual and incremental change over centuries. Where a revolutionary new preacher or teacher suddenly arose like Amos or hosea, he seems to be forming and framing his arguments within a known and established tradition - either expanding upon it or reacting to a situation arising within it.
God seems throughout to be using human beings with their own intellects and experiences to teel the story - not laying down something beyond human imagination of experience. And yes, our own personal experience and abilities will colour how we view these accounts in turn. in short, God works through us, not for us, sometimes.I agree entirely with the first paragraph. It's something I've been grappling with since I was a teen. Although, I'd like to add that religious documents are also framed within the context of the society in which they were produced, as well as within religious tradition; as a result these ideas reflect society'
( ... )
Hiya ! It's very kind of you to send us goodies. It is lso a shame I don't get paid till the 11th. Next Wednesday. Send yr postal addy by IM and I shall see that you get a cheque.
But in terms of a debate, yes, I think it's a good idea to see what other ideas other people have.
For me, the Atheists could clean up tommorrow if they did certain things. There was a Christian Aid Week this year - I have yet to see Atheists or even Humanists go and get one together.
And although I am an active Green party member, I also find a lot of expression for my beliefs in the URC - the United Reformed Church, to give it it's full title.
If He did, then surely He would be a lot more progressive. Science and Medicine were held back for centuries by the views of very powerful religious men; the scientists and medical elite at the time would also have been working with God's guidance, that is if God works through anybody.The Religious Establishment tends to be made up of people who 'have it made
( ... )
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply. I've been getting some grief out of my system, but I feel much better for it.
The Religious Establishment tends to be made up of people who 'have it made'. The real progressives in this field were people who were outside and on the fringes. the Minor Prophets, Jesus and His apostles , these were all 'persona non grata ' as far as the Establishment were concerned.Oh, yes. I understand that the established church wouldn't have welcomed many changes. That's what I don't like about organized religion. It seems to be almost the reverse of progression, as it's so easy to silence new voices and ways of viewing things, when you have such power - progression can be such a slow process
( ... )
Comments 3
Happy birthday! (you kept that one quiet!)
The Bible itself, as we have it today, seems to be a product of gradual and incremental change over centuries. Where a revolutionary new preacher or teacher suddenly arose like Amos or hosea, he seems to be forming and framing his arguments within a known and established tradition - either expanding upon it or reacting to a situation arising within it.
God seems throughout to be using human beings with their own intellects and experiences to teel the story - not laying down something beyond human imagination of experience. And yes, our own personal experience and abilities will colour how we view these accounts in turn. in short, God works through us, not for us, sometimes.I agree entirely with the first paragraph. It's something I've been grappling with since I was a teen. Although, I'd like to add that religious documents are also framed within the context of the society in which they were produced, as well as within religious tradition; as a result these ideas reflect society' ( ... )
Reply
It's very kind of you to send us goodies. It is lso a shame I don't get paid till the 11th. Next Wednesday. Send yr postal addy by IM and I shall see that you get a cheque.
But in terms of a debate, yes, I think it's a good idea to see what other ideas other people have.
For me, the Atheists could clean up tommorrow if they did certain things. There was a Christian Aid Week this year - I have yet to see Atheists or even Humanists go and get one together.
And although I am an active Green party member, I also find a lot of expression for my beliefs in the URC - the United Reformed Church, to give it it's full title.
If He did, then surely He would be a lot more progressive. Science and Medicine were held back for centuries by the views of very powerful religious men; the scientists and medical elite at the time would also have been working with God's guidance, that is if God works through anybody.The Religious Establishment tends to be made up of people who 'have it made ( ... )
Reply
The Religious Establishment tends to be made up of people who 'have it made'.
The real progressives in this field were people who were outside and on the fringes. the Minor Prophets, Jesus and His apostles , these were all 'persona non grata ' as far as the Establishment were concerned.Oh, yes. I understand that the established church wouldn't have welcomed many changes. That's what I don't like about organized religion. It seems to be almost the reverse of progression, as it's so easy to silence new voices and ways of viewing things, when you have such power - progression can be such a slow process ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment