Liberal Theology and Traditional Lds Apologetics

[smac97]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The whole point of seeing things as non literal is to question the literal requirements you describe.  In other words, if someone who opposes the Church on many things, and refuses to join the CHurch on those grounds, gets exalted, then you were wrong about your literalness need.  

"If."

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Podcasts are not my thing because they move so slowly, and it is hard to analyze arguments when you don't have them in writing in front of you. But I will try to listen to them as well!

I'll eventually get the transcripts out, if you want to wait for that.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Podcasts are not my thing because they move so slowly, and it is hard to analyze arguments when you don't have them in writing in front of you. But I will try to listen to them as well!

Pete Enns is not a liberal theologian!

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Pete Enns is not a liberal theologian!

You got the wrong guy.

I think @churchistrue said that 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'll eventually get the transcripts out, if you want to wait for that.

Sounds good 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

A succinct summary.  Thank you.  In calling for historicity, I am not calling for "historical evidence" per se.  Whether Jesus Christ was the Son of God is not really an empirically testable question, after all.  One must accept it on faith.

However, rejecting the categorical necessity for the historicity, the "literal truth," of Jesus having actually lived and actually done the things ascribed to Him in the scriptures, has huge ramifications.  In order for Him to effectuate our salvation, He must have actually lived, actually led a sinless life, actually atoned for our sins, actually died, actually resurrected, actually ascended to His father.  To reject the need for the historicity of these things is to deny His role as our Savior and Redeemer.  

Fables, parables, etc. have value irrespective of their historicity. On the other hand, Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of His historicity. Historicity matters when we consider some other scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. An imaginary/figurative Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

I should further clarify here that the question of the need for historicity is separate from evaulating the measure and types of evidence we rely on to accept Him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

So that last paragraph is what I have been saying all along 

Thanks for putting it succinctly 

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.  It sounds like we more or less are in agreement on this issue.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, we both BELIEVE he lived and died for us and because of that belief we can conclude that it must have literally happened.

I would say that I believe it happened, and that its literal reality/historicity is a vital component of my belief.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The belief itself is not based on historical evidence. That's all I have been saying this entire thread.

Well, there is some historical evidence.  The Bible.  The Book of Mormon.  

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Our belief that he is our savior with all the ramifications are based on it really happening.

Of course.

I'm glad we've found some common ground.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But it is the BELIEF that he is our savior that drives the historical conclusion that he must have lived and done all of the things that the scripture say he did.

Okay.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Therefore if it never actually happened we would still have the belief that it did, with all the actual benefits we have in our lives, the peace, the Fellowship and all that goes with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But we would be in error.  

Quite a difference, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Pete Enns is not a liberal theologian!

How would you classify him or how would you define liberal theologians? Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there is some historical evidence.  The Bible.  The Book of Mormon.

For what? I was talking about the object of belief, the atonement.

You keep moving the goal posts in the middle of the kick.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

Well, there is some historical evidence.  The Bible.  The Book of Mormon.

For what?

The historicity, the historical reality, of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.  It sounds like we more or less are in agreement on this issue.

I would say that I believe it happened, and that its literal reality/historicity is a vital component of my belief.

Well, there is some historical evidence.  The Bible.  The Book of Mormon.  

I'm glad we've found some common ground.

Okay.

But we would be in error.  

Quite a difference, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

In "error" where "what really happened" is impossible to ascertain?

Like Pascal, I'll take that wager all day and twice on Sunday.

I am expressing faith in my testimony that the atonement happened.

And if God wants to judge me with the billions who have never even heard of Christ that is fine with me, because they then are "in error" as well.

I thought we came to earth to walk by faith, and that is exactly what I believe I am doing.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

 

Quote

Therefore if it never actually happened we would still have the belief that it did, with all the actual benefits we have in our lives, the peace, the Fellowship and all that goes with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But we would be in error.  

Quite a difference, then.

In "error" where "what really happened" is impossible to ascertain?

"In error" if "it never actually happened" but we believe it did.

I don't want to believe in fairy tales, fabrications, frauds, etc.  I want to believe in what is true and real.  This is why I cannot get on board with the "Inspired Fiction" theory, and in fact find it hugely problematic.  It seeks to erase the distinction between truth and falsity, between reality and fabrication, and then say that the distinction doesn't matter.

As for whether "'what really happened' is impossible to ascertain," I'm not sure what you mean.  What quantum of evidence are you using to define "ascertain{ing}" what "really happened"?  

Quote

Like Pascal, I'll take that wager all day and twice on Sunday.

Oh, same here.

Quote

I am expressing faith in my testimony that the atonement happened.

Okay.

Quote

And if God wants to judge me with the billions who have never even heard of Christ that is fine with me, because they then are "in error" as well.

I don't know what you are saying here.

Quote

I thought we came to earth to walk by faith, and that is exactly what I believe I am doing.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2020 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The historicity, the historical reality, of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's a title/ name.

The atonement is what matters.

Now I predict you will say I am deriding the name of the Lord

So as an atheist, you decided impartially, that there was sufficient historical evidence that the death of someone 2000 years ago could save you from your sins and simultaneously prove the existence of a God who would have that plan, all from what it says in the Bible, as opposed to all the other scriptures of all the people on earth?

That's what it would take to have the historical argument alone be capable of having others believe in the atonement on history alone.

And then you prayed about your historical conclusion and God told you you get the golden ticket?

That is what it would  take to make the historical argument strong enough to cause belief in the atonement. 

On the other hand one has the spiritual experience first-a testimony experience.

THEN one concludes it must have ALSO "really happened"

The first path is the rational and historic path, based on rationally and history.

The second is the spiritual path primarily, then concluding that it must have really happened to make the spiritual path "true".

I can't imagine anyone taking the first path.  

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

The historicity, the historical reality, of Jesus Christ.

That's a title/ name.

The atonement is what matters.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote

Now I predict you will say I am deriding the name of the Lord

No.  I will say that you seem to be spoiling for a fight.  Let's take a step back.

Quote

So as an atheist, you decided impartially, that there was sufficient historical evidence that the death of someone 2000 years ago could save you from your sins and simultaneously prove the existence of a God who would have that plan, all from what it says in the Bible, as opposed to all the other scriptures of all the people on earth?

First, I am not an atheist.

Second, I am not sure what you mean by "impartially."

Third, I am not sure what you mean by "sufficient historical evidence."

Fourth, acceptance of Jesus Christ is principally, ultimately, and overwhelmingly a matter of faith.

Quote

That's what it would take to have the historical argument alone be capable of having others believe in the atonement on history alone.

I don't know what you mean by "the historical argument alone."  

And I have never advocated belief in the Atonment "on history alone" (I'm not even sure what that means).

Quote

And then you prayed about your historical conclusion and God told you you get the golden ticket?

Earlier you spoke of "deriding."  Ironic.

Quote

That is what it would  take to make the historical argument strong enough to cause belief in the atonement. 

Again, I don't know what you mean by "the historical argument."

As for "belief in the Atonement," I advocate the general precepts set forth in Moroni 10:3-5.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2020 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't want to believe in fairy tales, fabrications, frauds, etc.  I want to believe in what is true and real

So you believe in invisible humans who make invisible spirit babies out of intelligences which are eternal, are sent here to be tested on what? How logical they are to make up a rational belief about invisible beings, and that we all will pop back into, life after our bodies ave decomposed to dust, even though no living person has ever done that?

How could you possibly believe those ideas are NOT "fairy tales, fabrications, frauds, etc. ", based on rationally alone?

I am not sure this discussion is worth the time.

We have made no progress at all.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

"If."

Of course, "if", that was the entire point.  If one is to assume that a literal belief is a necessity, then there can be no "ifs".  But there are.  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course, "if", that was the entire point. 

I'm not sure about that.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If one is to assume that a literal belief is a necessity, then there can be no "ifs". 

I quite disagree.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But there are.  

I agree with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.

I quite disagree.

I agree with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well ok then.  There doesn't appear to be any need or any purpose to believing literally.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well ok then.  There doesn't appear to be any need or any purpose to believing literally.  

I quite disagree.

[Nevo]

On 6/11/2020 at 6:37 AM, smac97 said:

Historicity matters when we consider some other scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value.

Interesting that you use a statement that Jesus almost certainly never uttered to emphasize the importance of historicity.

Quote

John’s presentation is inconceivable historically in its description of Jesus’ proclamation of himself as Son of God and his use of the 'I am . . .' phrase to introduce himself and his role. 

— D. Moody Smith, "Jesus Tradition in the Gospel of John," in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2036. See also, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X19890490.

 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Quote

Historicity matters when we consider some other scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value.

Interesting that you use a statement that Jesus almost certainly never uttered to emphasize the importance of historicity.

Quote

John’s presentation is inconceivable historically in its description of Jesus’ proclamation of himself as Son of God and his use of the 'I am . . .' phrase to introduce himself and his role. 

— D. Moody Smith, "Jesus Tradition in the Gospel of John," in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2036. See also, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X19890490.

 

Not really.  First, there is huge amounts of wiggle room in "almost certainly never uttered."  

Second, I can't locate the quote you are attributing to Mr. Smith in the linked article.

Third, Mr. Smith's opinion is empirically untestable.  

Fourth, whether Jesus said this specific phrase or not, "historicity" of Him as the Son of God and Savior of the world actually existing remains a necessity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nevo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, I can't locate the quote you are attributing to Mr. Smith in the linked article.

Sorry, the linked article is a separate piece that argues that the Gospel of John is a forgery. "Mr. Smith's opinion"—which is the standard view of critical New Testament scholarship—comes from the book I cited.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well ok then.  There doesn't appear to be any need or any purpose to believing literally.  

Some people need it and others don't.  I would refer  you to the Perry Scheme again to see what he might say about this.

https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry-positions.html

I can't begin to tell you the intellectual and spiritual bliss that can happen when you know that all these historical issues are fluff in the wind and irrelevant to living the absolutely best paradigm that has been given mankind by the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

To be able to understand these principles in a philosophical way is a great blessing in my life- and it frees me completely from these apologetic wars about Joseph, Blacks and the Priesthood- and 99% of all that goes on on this board, and I have tried over the years to express that to these fine folks.

I believe that what we worship is at it's most basic level- "family values" as the highest good of mankind, given to mankind that we may have joy and live in peace.

Following the commandments are simply a source of joy because they are the most basic and simple ethical system devised to promote the raising of children in peace, and one could even see them "as" evolutionary- that these principles have evolved simply because they work to produce healthy and happy families. 

Wittgenstein speaks of "seeing as" when he puts forth his famous rabbit/ duck analogy

What is this a picture of?  A rabbit or a duck?   You can see it both ways.  Witt.'s point was that we can often see propositions as meaning one thing or another, and switch between either reading.

I believe there are at least two readings possible of the gospel, and neither one is wrong, and those readings have been the subject of this thread.

My reading has enabled me to see our philosophy as worship of the IDEAL HUMAN and God simultaneously, of seeing the Godhead simultaneously as the Ideal Family, unified by love and purpose.   For me, what I worship is the Ideal Family with man and woman sealed and most importantly, committed to living that ideal.

You have the ying and yang, male and female, sealed as one as co-creators of worlds without end, in their children and in the world they create for them.  Hopefully it will end in a Zion society unified as one people, together as a family.  That is one of the purposes of genealogy for me- the understanding and PROOF of the belief that all humanity is one family.  The more one studies genealogy the more one sees that.   The more one goes to the temple, one practices seeing those "names" as human beings like us with the same wants and needs

But of course it is also the temple that teaches us all these principles through the journey of Adam as Everyman and Eve as Everywoman as well, as they learn symbolically the rules of life that are needed to create first an ideal family and then- as would follow - the ideal society.

This church is pure bliss if one can see it that way.  There is no one or nothing to threaten or "make afraid" when we "see it as" the ideal philosophy as well as the best possible way to present a paradigm of the nature of God.  There is no argument that is more valid than the one I present - no paradigm "better" than the one I postulate as the "best" for me!!

And what of "the spirit"?   Who is it that speaks to my heart in the deep night of despair?  Who is it that comforts me in incalculable loss?  Is that voice inside me- perhaps my unconscious mind speaking to me out of survival needs to inject the right chemical into my brain to ensure that I contribute to society for one more day?

Even atheists believe in the "still small voice" but do not "see it as" I do.

I know with certainty- which is a psychological state like all others- I believe-  that that voice is outside of me.  It tells me to do things which I would never have thought of doing- and some how "magically" things work out right simply by following it.  Yet again, straight Alma 32- "experiment on this and see if it works" - and IT WORKS!  At a certain point, nothing else matters about "where" that voice is- I have learned that if I follow it, in the big picture, everything works out.

That is where the pragmatism comes it- we find out that the spirit "works" regardless of if we see the rabbit or the duck, the as yet not incarnate Spirit of God or the unconscious mind, or something else- belief in that simply "works"

And then we have Perry Scheme where commitment to a paradigm becomes the highest state.  In my life I have found my  to the church as an organization of people committed to my same ideals, as one of the highest privileges I have experienced.

And so I can stand up at the pulpit on Sunday and, seeing the rabbit and not the duck, and say fearlessly and truthfully before God angels and witnesses that "I know the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the truest church of all" and absolutely mean and be totally committed to that statement.  I can see things literally- could God have done it that way? Absolutely- or I can see them philosophically with the same lack of effort that it takes to see the rabbit or the duck. 

It could be either, and the joy in my life tells me the verbiage in the final analysis makes no more difference than if that picture is of a rabbit or a duck.

For me though, the philosophical way of seeing is much easier than worrying about all those "ifs".  Six day creation?  Evolution?  Invisible people?  Mumbo jumbo gets me higher in heaven?  Joseph marrying alrady married women?  Racism coming from supposedly perfect prophets?  Meh.  Of no consequence.  There is always my way out. 

It's the best way of life mankind can imagine

Because I know the philosophy is sound and the spirit really "is"- whatever that is- I live fearless and joyful before God, until I get on this board and try to convince these folks to think the same way. 

I want to make it easy for all, but I guess most are used to making it hard and want to keep it that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Sorry, the linked article is a separate piece that argues that the Gospel of John is a forgery. "Mr. Smith's opinion"—which is the standard view of critical New Testament scholarship—comes from the book I cited.

And the basis for this is . . .?  The assertion is not self-evidently valid.  It's conclusory.  How did he get there?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, whether Jesus said this specific phrase or not, "historicity" of Him as the Son of God and Savior of the world actually existing remains a necessity.

You talk about "wiggle room" and want to prove the historicity of the atonement???  Isn't that what it means to see him as "the Son of God and savior of the world"?

Give me one shred of historical evidence that shows that the death of one man forgave MY sins.  Absurd.

You play right into the atheists arguments by insisting on historicity.  Why you do that is a mystery to me.

What is the first thing an atheist will say?  "There's no objective evidence that God exists", and of course they are right.

They miss the point and so do you.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

Fourth, whether Jesus said this specific phrase or not, "historicity" of Him as the Son of God and Savior of the world actually existing remains a necessity.

You talk about "wiggle room" and want to prove the historicity of the atonement??? 

No.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Isn't that what it means to see him as "the Son of God and savior of the world"?

I invite you to re-read my statement.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Give me one shred of historical evidence that shows that the death of one man forgave MY sins.  Absurd.

Still spoiling for a fight, eh?

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

You play right into the atheists arguments by insisting on historicity.  Why you do that is a mystery to me.

Then feel free to move on.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the first thing an atheist will say?  "There's no objective evidence that God exists", and of course they are right.

I'm okay with that.  There's no objective evidence that He does not exist, either.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

They miss the point and so do you.

Again, feel free to move on.

Thanks,

-Smac