All comments

A non-believer's lament...

Tim: Re: A non-believer's... (11 weeks ago)
ponderer: Re: A non-believer's... (16 weeks ago)
ponderer: Re: A non-believer's... (16 weeks ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Sailhammer (21 weeks ago)
fresno dave: Re: Sailhammer (21 weeks ago)
john doyle: Re: Sailhammer (22 weeks ago)
fresno dave: Re: The Lost World of Genesis... (22 weeks ago)

Chiasm and inclusio

fresno dave: Re: Chiasm and inclusio (21 weeks ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Chiasm and inclusio (22 weeks ago)

Guerrilla Worship - Liverpool Flash Mob

The world has moved on.: Re: Guerrilla Worship -... (23 weeks ago)
Syndicate content

creation

College professors host viewing of Expelled

The academy launches irrational hostility toward reputable scientists who dare to attribute intelligent design to biological structures. 

Inerrancy debates on Mike Macon's blog

This is a preliminary summary of the ongoing discussion on Mike Macon’s blog regarding the scriptural inerrancy, as well as some personal commentary.

The Creation Narratives as Thought Experiments

In 10 principles for reading the Bible in a postmodern context, Andrew proposes that contributors to an emerging post-evangelical theology adopt Principle 2 - "Let’s pretend it’s not inerrant." He suggests that we "set aside claims to the predetermined inerrancy and sanctity of the Bible, at least insofar as such claims force upon us standards of truthfulness that conflict with criteria of thought that we are not prepared to abandon in other areas of discourse (scientific, historical, literary, social, etc.)." Adopting Principle 2 "allows us to read the Bible as the unbeliever reads it; it helps to defamiliarise the Bible for us, which will be an essential aspect of the deconstruction process…" In the Genesis 1 as True Myth post we’ve been trying to make literal sense of the Biblical creation narratives. What if instead we were to read Genesis 1-3 in light of Principle 2?

True Myth and the Aesthetics of Belonging

Like anyone who has to write in order to find out what he is thinking, I can only say what I hope this piece will be. If it goes the way I hope it might, it should have more than a nodding acquaintance with the True Myth thread. What will become apparent quite quickly, and might as well be confessed now, is that I have done very little study of the history or essential nature of myth as a literary form. Which is not to say that my affection for myth and respect for its role is stylistic, rather that this respect arises from a sense of how deeply we are, individually and socially, susceptible to and in deep need of mythic narrative.

Genesis 1 as "True Myth": 5 Possibilities

It’s been said that evolutionary atheists and evangelical creationists alike read the Bible with a crude literal-mindedness that fails to acknowledge the literary riches embedded in the text. The creation narrative of Genesis 1 is perhaps the prototypical case. Instead of interpreting it either as the purportedly factual exposition of events as they unfolded or as a primitive legend that’s simply not true, the reader is encouraged to regard the creation narrative as a “true myth.” What could it possibly mean, this seemingly oxymoronic notion of a “true myth”? Here are some possibilities; there may be more.

Haydn, God, and Creation

In our community gathering of this Sunday past, at one point we stood around one of five worship stations where we gave focused attention to God who is Eternal Word, Trinity, and Creator by listening to a high-volume rendition of Joseph Haydn’s, The Creation, Chorus and Trio No.14. “The heavens are telling the glory of God,” shouts the chorus in full-voiced opulence, and the trio explains more fully that thus “the word gets out through all the world, sounding in every ear, stranger to no tongue.” The orchestral colouring of crisp brass and tight percussion add a sense of emphatic punctuation that even the best grammatical exegesis can hardly match. It was, for most of us there, one of those moments. “Epiphany” is not too strong a word.

A Doctrine of Sin for People Who Don't Know the Word

Sin’ is a word that not very many people seem to understand outside of the church these days. As a matter-of-fact, ‘sin’ is often associated with positive things (i.e. ‘sinfully delicious’). But the Bible makes it very clear that sin is a BIG DEAL. One of the primary reasons for the Incarnation was for God to deal with sin.

So, what is ‘sin’? What is ‘Original Sin’? Are traditional definitions of these terms still useful and relevant? How do we communicate the concept of sin to the people around us with any meaning?

Syndicate content