http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1543 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:00:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1543#comment-1113 steve Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1543#comment-1113 <i>How is marrying an atheist good for a Christian?</i><br /><br />I'd like to ask Theo, how is marrying a Christian good for an athiest? Sure I guess it wouldn't be a problem if Christianity didn't "get in the way." But wouldn't that just be practical agnosticism on the part of the Christian partner? So marrying a Christian is okay for the athiest as long as the Christian's belief system includes atheism as an equally valid viewpoint? But what sort of Christianity is that?!?! I wonder how well that shoe would fit on the other foot?<br /><br />About the<br /><br /><i>...according to Christian cosmology, at the end of the world, when my name is not "found written in the book of life," I will be "thrown into the lake of fire." Seems pretty straightforward to me.</i><br /><br />Nothing in the Apocolypse is straight-forward, which is why so little Christian theology comes thence. Coopting the hermeneutics of Tim LaHaye (of "Left Behind" dispensationalist fame) may suit Theo's argument right here, but it otherwise seems a bit disingenuous. You're arguing with a <a href=http://www.revolting.com/1.2/chick/chick.html>Jack Chick</a> tract, not actual Orthodox Christianity.<br /><br />G'nite ;-) How is marrying an atheist good for a Christian?

I'd like to ask Theo, how is marrying a Christian good for an athiest? Sure I guess it wouldn't be a problem if Christianity didn't "get in the way." But wouldn't that just be practical agnosticism on the part of the Christian partner? So marrying a Christian is okay for the athiest as long as the Christian's belief system includes atheism as an equally valid viewpoint? But what sort of Christianity is that?!?! I wonder how well that shoe would fit on the other foot?

About the

…according to Christian cosmology, at the end of the world, when my name is not "found written in the book of life," I will be "thrown into the lake of fire." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Nothing in the Apocolypse is straight-forward, which is why so little Christian theology comes thence. Coopting the hermeneutics of Tim LaHaye (of "Left Behind" dispensationalist fame) may suit Theo's argument right here, but it otherwise seems a bit disingenuous. You're arguing with a Jack Chick tract, not actual Orthodox Christianity.

G'nite ]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1543#comment-1114 steve Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1543#comment-1114 <i>If Revelation 20:15 doesn't mean that people whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into a lake of fire, what does it mean?</i><br /><br />I take it to be as literal as I do the idea of God having breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life. Which is to say, not literally at all. That is not to say that I don't think Rev. 20:15 is true. It's just that it must be viewed in concert with "everything else" we know about God from all other scripture, wherein, your protestations notwithstanding, God reveals himself to be patient, loving, & gracious. I therefore infer that any candidate for fire-lake dumping must have so steadfastly resisted every grace of God, and for so long, that such a one would no longer be recognized as either human or conscious (since both are gifts, graces, of God). Moreover, since I have noted high levels of both humanity and conscious functioning in you, I maintain that you have yet to qualify. So, if "you" ever do get thrown into the lake of fire, it won't really be "you" at all (at least not the one we all know and love). [Ack! And I don't mean to sound passive-agressive here :-) I'm really answering according to my best current understanding.]<br /><br /><i>Do notice also that I've not co-opted Tim LaHaye's wacky eschatology.</i><br /><br />I didn't say eschatology, but rather meant the lesser accusation of coopting his hermeneutics--the idea that we can interpret Revelation to mean actual, knowable, predictable future historical events. Again, I'm not saying Revelation is false, but merely noting that interpretation thereof outside of consensus of other Scripture, human reason, and the traditions of the Church, is bound to be either wrong, silly, irrational, downright detestible, or any combination thereof.<br /><br />As to judging between Jack Chick and Christian Orthodoxy, all I can add to Jerry's comments is Jesus' statement that, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35) It may be hit-n-miss with orthodoxy (in fairness), but it's ALL MISS with Chick.<br /><br />TTFN If Revelation 20:15 doesn't mean that people whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into a lake of fire, what does it mean?

I take it to be as literal as I do the idea of God having breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life. Which is to say, not literally at all. That is not to say that I don't think Rev. 20:15 is true. It's just that it must be viewed in concert with "everything else" we know about God from all other scripture, wherein, your protestations notwithstanding, God reveals himself to be patient, loving, & gracious. I therefore infer that any candidate for fire-lake dumping must have so steadfastly resisted every grace of God, and for so long, that such a one would no longer be recognized as either human or conscious (since both are gifts, graces, of God). Moreover, since I have noted high levels of both humanity and conscious functioning in you, I maintain that you have yet to qualify. So, if "you" ever do get thrown into the lake of fire, it won't really be "you" at all (at least not the one we all know and love). [Ack! And I don't mean to sound passive-agressive here I'm really answering according to my best current understanding.]

Do notice also that I've not co-opted Tim LaHaye's wacky eschatology.

I didn't say eschatology, but rather meant the lesser accusation of coopting his hermeneutics–the idea that we can interpret Revelation to mean actual, knowable, predictable future historical events. Again, I'm not saying Revelation is false, but merely noting that interpretation thereof outside of consensus of other Scripture, human reason, and the traditions of the Church, is bound to be either wrong, silly, irrational, downright detestible, or any combination thereof.

As to judging between Jack Chick and Christian Orthodoxy, all I can add to Jerry's comments is Jesus' statement that, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35) It may be hit-n-miss with orthodoxy (in fairness), but it's ALL MISS with Chick.

TTFN]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1543#comment-1115 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1543#comment-1115 Jack Chick and orthodoxy. You ask "which one is right and how do I know?" Well, forget right, because that would require ditching atheism, so let's settle for orthodox interpretations, where orthox interpreations are the guiding vision for understanding scripture that has had the most continous influence on Christian history and thought. <br /><br />I don't know how Steve will approach this if he does, but we've already been over the points I'm about to introduce and I doubt you'll find our reasoning valid, but that's what's keeping Haloscan in business on this site so what the heck:<br /><br />An orthodox Christian can point to a steady development of doctrine via the Councils and Church Fathers; hence how I defined orthodoxy as being the set of principles that have consistently guided the Church over time, rather than the solipsistic opinions of a single Christian. Jack Chick's sense of history, is shall we say...interesting, having read some of his anti-Catholic propaganda. An orthodox Christian interprets Scripture in the light of previous interpreters, and while there are different ways of interpretation, you'll find within the orthodox circles a good deal of concordance on key issues. I know you point out many divisions within Christianity, but within Catholicism and Orthodoxy there is a strong set of common reference points in interpretation. If we did not have such a set of common points, we could not unify efficiently enough to persecute heretics and infidels, which is another aspect of Christian history you often mention. ;)<br /><br />I know you consider such reasoning by way of tradition invalid, but that is the gold standard for orthodoxy, and that is the answer for how you tell between an orthodox Christian and a ravingly sola scriptura fundamentalism like Mr. Chick. If you find both equally untenable, well, that may partly explain why you are an atheist!
I don't know how Steve will approach this if he does, but we've already been over the points I'm about to introduce and I doubt you'll find our reasoning valid, but that's what's keeping Haloscan in business on this site so what the heck:

An orthodox Christian can point to a steady development of doctrine via the Councils and Church Fathers; hence how I defined orthodoxy as being the set of principles that have consistently guided the Church over time, rather than the solipsistic opinions of a single Christian. Jack Chick's sense of history, is shall we say…interesting, having read some of his anti-Catholic propaganda. An orthodox Christian interprets Scripture in the light of previous interpreters, and while there are different ways of interpretation, you'll find within the orthodox circles a good deal of concordance on key issues. I know you point out many divisions within Christianity, but within Catholicism and Orthodoxy there is a strong set of common reference points in interpretation. If we did not have such a set of common points, we could not unify efficiently enough to persecute heretics and infidels, which is another aspect of Christian history you often mention.

I know you consider such reasoning by way of tradition invalid, but that is the gold standard for orthodoxy, and that is the answer for how you tell between an orthodox Christian and a ravingly sola scriptura fundamentalism like Mr. Chick. If you find both equally untenable, well, that may partly explain why you are an atheist!]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1543#comment-1116 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1543#comment-1116 Since Theomorph doesn't seem to use trackbacks, I'll use my own comments to tell people that <a href="http://theomorph.blogspot.com/2004/11/contentions-legal-and-philosophical.html">he has responded to this post</a>. It's seems the "old" Theo is back. Thus this post is far more coherent, intelligent, and vitriol-free than the last few. he has responded to this post. It's seems the "old" Theo is back. Thus this post is far more coherent, intelligent, and vitriol-free than the last few.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1543#comment-1117 theomorph Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1543#comment-1117 Steve--<br /><br />If Revelation 20:15 doesn't mean that people whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into a lake of fire, what does it mean?<br /><br />Do notice also that I've not co-opted Tim LaHaye's wacky eschatology. I mentioned one verse and said nothing about premillennialism.<br /><br />Second, if Jack Chick's view is different from that of "Orthodox Christianity," which one is right and how do I know?<br /><br />I've seen plenty of different interpretations of the Apocalypse, but it's pretty clear from reading the book of Revelation as a single piece of literature that this thing is depicting a purified, post-Satan, post-sin world. People like me get thrown into a lake of fire (Rev. 20:15) and are not allowed into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27). This is the end of history, which for the Jews had been rather cyclical. Christianity opened up that cycle and put a definite possibility of hope for a purified world at the end. That's probably why Rev. 4:1 describes it as "what must take place after this."<br /><br />Also, that new linear conception of history that came out of Christianity has widely been considered pretty darned important for the development of Western civilization. An unmistakable feature of that conception, though, is that all heresy, heathenism, atheism, and false religion (i.e., all non-christian religions) will be stamped out eventually. Despite the friendly Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, Christianity has almost always been either aggressive or passive-aggressive (the latter probably annoys me more) about its self-image of eventual triumph over the rest of the world at the expense of the rest of us.
If Revelation 20:15 doesn't mean that people whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into a lake of fire, what does it mean?

Do notice also that I've not co-opted Tim LaHaye's wacky eschatology. I mentioned one verse and said nothing about premillennialism.

Second, if Jack Chick's view is different from that of "Orthodox Christianity," which one is right and how do I know?

I've seen plenty of different interpretations of the Apocalypse, but it's pretty clear from reading the book of Revelation as a single piece of literature that this thing is depicting a purified, post-Satan, post-sin world. People like me get thrown into a lake of fire (Rev. 20:15) and are not allowed into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27). This is the end of history, which for the Jews had been rather cyclical. Christianity opened up that cycle and put a definite possibility of hope for a purified world at the end. That's probably why Rev. 4:1 describes it as "what must take place after this."

Also, that new linear conception of history that came out of Christianity has widely been considered pretty darned important for the development of Western civilization. An unmistakable feature of that conception, though, is that all heresy, heathenism, atheism, and false religion (i.e., all non-christian religions) will be stamped out eventually. Despite the friendly Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, Christianity has almost always been either aggressive or passive-aggressive (the latter probably annoys me more) about its self-image of eventual triumph over the rest of the world at the expense of the rest of us.]]>