If they are very wise, they might get it right.... a few of them, after a very long time, and with the admixture of many errors.UncleBob wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:59 amOr, that they do believe that scripture is reliable but don't agree with your specific hermeneutic. Oh, and...Adam Z wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:44 amUncleBob wrote:I'm not saying that all progressive Christians are monolithic in their ideology. Of course there is going to be some variance. When I say that they hold a low view of scripture, that's deductive reasoning. They won't say "I hold a low view of scripture" but this is the logical result of the things that they say that they do believe. Earlier in this conversation I referenced their Axiom #2 from the page you linked to. You cannot both affirm the teachings of Jesus AND say that his teachings "provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life". That statement is entirely contradictory, and this is just low-hanging fruit that I'm plucking here. If you affirm the teachings of Jesus, then you must also affirm that it is only through Christ that man can be reconciled to God. Therefore, either they don't really affirm the teachings of Jesus, or they only affirm some of the teachings of Jesus, and they have not defined the standard by which they go about determining which of his teachings are worthwhile and which should be ignored. The logical conclusion here is that they do not believe that scripture is reliable. They hold a low view of scripture, without implicitly saying it.What is universal about Progressive Christians and what they teach? Is this what all progressives teach or is it what some teach? Maybe this is just what some fundamentalists say they teach? I read Fred Phelps teachings once.. is that what all fundamentalists teach? Where is the universal standard of what progressives teach? The only standard I found is from this website: https://progressivechristianity.org/wha ... istianity/...well, from the Philosophy Thread...You cannot both affirm the teachings of Jesus AND say that his teachings "provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life".No one here is going to call Del a progressive! Just sayin'. Plus, this was a common view held by the early Church--maybe there is room in The Church for views that do not follow the specific, narrow definition that you used; who knows! Maybe they could even be right!Del wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:59 pmI am slowly reading Plato's Dialogues.
He is easy to read.
I have also opened the Summa of Thomas Aquinas. He is much denser.... still, easy enough for any lover of philosophy to enjoy. You'll get clobbered with great wisdom on every page of St. Thomas Aquinas. On page 1, we learn that it was possible to know God through Reason alone -- but 1) it was only known to a few very wise persons (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), 2) after a very long time, and 3) with a great many errors mixed in. That is why God revealed Himself to us -- so that the whole world can know the truth.
Which is why Jesus gave us a Church -- so that all might know the truth, rightly and easily.
Aristotle would have exploded with delight if he had had access to the knowledge that every peasant-wife of the Middle Ages held in the Apostles Creed.