I’m just saying I have my views. Which is that the Zombie Apocalypse, is the most probable - end times, tribulation model. But I also believe in restraint. Unless it is open season, regarding ANY theological and philosophical topic.
After all, we either have HEARD or KNOW, what the Orthodox positions are. But the UNORTHODOX positions - must ALSO be represented.
I’m just saying I won’t cast the first stone. After all. I’m sure zombies have feelings too.
So let me paraphrase Jesus. He who is without sin, let him or her - present an unorthodox position first. If nothing else, it breaks the ground - for the zombies to present their viewpoint.
I find your views to be intelligent and fair and I’m glad you are a prominent member of the forum. I do find the ZA intrusions, used as a means for stifling the views of others, to be a pita.
But then, I’m sure that I in my entirety am considered a pita by some…
No, Dave. I don’t use zombies, to stifle the views of others. I respect unorthodox views. After all, I’m a member of the Theosophical Society in America. And I been to tons, of their guest speakers - presenting unorthodox views.
But I also think, my zombie viewpoint deserves EQUAL consideration. But if others present their unorthodox views first…then it’s usually an opening, to see how the zombies - do or don’t fit in - with their perspective. Or if some political element, might trigger the Zombie Apocalypse
If I listen to their viewpoints and arguments…then they should also listen to - and consider mine. What’s so MIND BOGGLING about zombies anyway? Philosophers find them, a favorite topic of conversation. It’s like we are sipping tea, in a Zen temple. And seeing how ONE unorthodox viewpoint, might relate to - contrast with - or trigger…another unorthodox viewpoint.
Well, as you’ve mentioned a few times, the ZA is an end-times tribulation model.
As such, I don’t how it fits in any thread that is trying to present a view not even related to end times.
I think we have an eschatology department on the forum - would it not make most sense to post ZA (Apocalypse!!!) in THAT department, rather than in threads dealing with, say, When God Became King?
(Theosophy - a major theme in the cult classic novel “LIttle, Big” by John Crowley.
If I recall correctly, Chad brought up the topic of everything being complete - in Christ. You said you wouldn’t follow the shinning object. I said I would, if a few zombies could tag along.
In other words, do we view a completion prophesy perspective of Chad …and Christians seeing zombies in the tribulation - as forward or backwards looking in time?
Then Davo began a “dialogue”. And he and I continued the dialogue - for a spell. That’s how I remember and see things - via this thread. And I continued later, the “dialogue” with Chad…and now you.
As far as Theosophy goes, I’m a member chiefly for using - their extensive library resources. But I also agree, with their 3 general objects. But I don’t side with theosophical or esoteric views - as such. Here are their Three Objects:
To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.
To encourage the comparative study of religion, philosophy and science.
To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in humanity.
These three Objects form the foundation for the work of the Theosophical Society (TS). However, they can be interpreted on many levels.
But questions can be raised, via this “dialogue”…Deep ones, mind you. Like:
But any book of Revelations, as a prophesy being complete in 70 A.D. - raises many open questions. Like my Protestant mom, now deceased at 92.5. years…was born with the gift of prophesy. WHY?
Is prophesy still alive and well, in Christians and the church today? We have the Marian prophesies, of the Roman Catholic Church. And the prophesies coming from church members, of the Charismatic movement.
If different Christians see the Zombie Apocalypse, as happening during the tribulation…how does this fit, into a 70 A.D. everything is complete model? Do you just IGNORE it, because it doesn’t fit your model? Or say it’s un-biblical, when it doesn’t really CONTRADICT, anything - in the book of Revelations?
I might have to break, for a few hours. So we can continue any “dialogue” later.
Those are all good questions with which I have no problem at all.Alas, like most of us, I don’t have unlimited time to go down every rabbit-hole that comes along (I like going down the rabbit-holes, don’t get me wrong), so some themes that I find interesting I have to leave alone in order to pursue what are for me, more pressing claims to what mental time I have.
I’m just saying - all things in their place.
Cool. Le’t’s stop the “dialogue” for a spell, and give folks a change - to savor the exchange. In the meantime, perhaps folks can read this (I assume, excellent book) of N.T. Wright. Or at least read the reviews on Amazon. And get a copy free, via their local - public library…inter library loan program. Good for the U.S. And the equivalent in other countries.
Randy, the exchange is quite straightforward. Dave asked davo and MM about the inherent coincidence between a given idea “in the quote he shared” that was put forth in the text involved. Both davo and MM (me) gave a response.
You seem to have a ongoing problem with this view, which I have no problem with, but it is just an opinion. Your zombie idea is from my point of view well considered. And also just an opinion.
Hi Chad. The different between you, Davo and myself - is Sola Scrpitura. Which means you try to understand Christian truth, from the Protestant text alone. Which many here do. But I get Christian truth from Prima Scriptura and Sacred Tradition as the lens - to understand Holy Scripture. So right of the bat, we would have a difference of approaches.
As far as Zombies goes, I believe the Zombie Apocalypse, tribulation prophesies - are real. But that doesn’t necessarily mean, we understand them literally. Or if they are literal, that they are cast in concrete. Much might depend collectively on us.
My understanding is that you where the sola scripituria guy, but in understanding, you where the orthodox RC guy, so yes we can settle this between the protestants and the Catholics / orthodox Christians.
No. I shy away from RC theology. But embrace elements of EO theology. See Anglo-Orthodoxy.
Unlike the Roman Catholic church which maintains that interpretive authority is the prerogative of the church’s Magisterium, Orthodoxy holds that interpretive authority belongs to the church in its historical entirety. This is the “conscience” of the church or “Holy Tradition” which includes, first and foremost, the Scriptures, then the seven ecumenical councils, the writings of the Fathers, the canons of the church, the liturgy, iconography, etc. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church tends to view Scripture and Tradition as separate sources of revelation (two source theory), Orthodoxy sees Tradition as an organic whole (one source theory) which includes Scripture. Tradition, then, functions as the hermeneutical lens through which we understand the Bible. It is a safeguard against the kind of free-for-all interpretation that permeates many mainline churches today. When approaching Scripture, it is better to trust the collective wisdom of the ages than the myopic vision of contemporary individuals or groups.
One cannot help but to hear, in all of this, echoes of historical Anglican theology which organically unites “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason” over against the tendentious voices of modern Biblical revisionism. And let us not forget the Oxford Movement which appealed to the Vincentian canon (from Vincent of Lerins, c. 434) as a criterion for interpreting Scripture in matters of essential faith and practice: Faced with numerous conflicting interpretations, we hold fast to that which has been “believed everywhere, always, by all” (often summed up in the formula, “universality, antiquity, consent”).
No, it won’t be settled. WHY, you may ask? Because I am a professional researcher. Having done that for decades, in academia and work. And can bring to the table, all the professional arguments - that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians can bring up. And what arguments - the Protestants muster up.
But - more importantly…I have a unique style. Which uses psychological principles (after all, I have a graduate degree in the area)…If I study a person’s answers, I can usually predict how they respond.
And I don’t always engage, in an academic format. It’s actually a cross between academic, Socratic (asking the right questions), marketing (usually using direct response, copywriting principles) and stand up comedy.
It may never be settled. But I promise “to make it entertaining and engaging” - so to speak. But on another forum thread - chiefly devoted to the topic.
Surprisingly, Dave saves the most devastating argument for #55 where he points out sola Scriptura’s Achilles’ heel: the doctrine is not explicitly found in Scripture. Therefore you need an outside authority to confirm the doctrine, which in turn violates its very principle. To say it another way, sola Scriptura cannot be proved by Scripture alone.
Nevertheless, collectively, these 100 arguments build an airtight case against sola Scriptura which should trouble any Protestant. After all, it only takes one to topple the whole sola Scriptura tower.
Perhaps if you opened up a topic thread…I might stop by and sit a spell. And we can ponder such questions…like why did God allow the RC and EO churches…to continue in “error” for 1500 years…until the Protestants “uncovered the truth”. But - more importantly - how important is this topic to YOU? Enough to open another thread on it? To continue it here, is equivalent to someone starting a duel - at Chuck E. Cheese’s.
“The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.”-- Paulo Coelho
As much as I don’t understand Randy’s humor, I am with him on this one. That is, Sola Scriptura is faulty, in my opinion just as those who believe it think those who do not, are faulty.
So it is very difficult to harmonize Christianity with a different set of presuppositions.
As for the ZA, I find it highly inprobable on scientific grounds. But, something more mild like a parasitic species invading our brain and causing animalistic violent behavior is not so far out there, nor would a chemical type labotomy. We are starting to understand the brain enough to know where certain behaviors stem from and how they interact and feed off each other. The brain is actually not one unit but 6-8 (memory may be off hence thecase6-8) units each with their own say in the matter governed by one unit that can theoretically override the others. Though this part if the brain seems to do a poor job, as you witness nearly everyone addicted to something, wether it be drugs, sex, gambling, assault, rage, hate, video games. Many do not feel morally wrong by their addiction because it isn’t on the taboo list. Some people cannot function without caffeine, and prescriptions drugs from adhf, depression, etc, do not differently from their street counterparts asside from being “prescribed”… Eye opening if you study it without confirmation bias.
BTW, the above is not to make anyone feel guilty, for I doubt they would anyway, just saying we have lots of hypocrisy on the matter from the religious the non religious alike.
If this is important to Chad, then he can resurrect it. And I always posed these questions - for non-orthodox positions discussed here:
Is the winner the one who has the “best” argument?
And if so, WHAT is the “criteria” for judgment and WHO is the jury.?
If one wishes to embrace Sola Scripturea…and come up with a view, that VERY FEW agree with - or buy into…So be it. And if turns out to be “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”… then God has made, a colossal failure to communicate.
At the end of the day, it’s a matter of faith. Either in something established or an RYO (roll your own) brand of theology.
But when tragedy comes knocking. Or disease or death comes to visit. That’s the TRUE test, of our theology and philosophy.