Re: The death of the RTB model

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Feb 16 2006 - 21:43:10 EST

*I asked hypothetically - if tomorrow we were to have it proved to us that
Jesus was only a man, what would you do? And you won't even face the worst
case scenario.*
**
Ok, I'll bite. I would then have to cease being a Christian. I could not
call Jesus "Lord" if he in fact were not God. I might still think Jesus was
an interesting teacher, but I wouldn't any longer call him my Lord and
Savior. I'd put him in the category in which I now put the Buddha, Gahndi,
Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. -- good people who are worthy
of admiration but not worship. Of course I don't think anyone could "prove"
that Jesus was only a man, any more than any one can "prove" his is God, so
it's a moot question.

I'll also bite on your paper. Email me a copy, I'm interested to see what
it says.

On 2/16/06, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 2/16/2006 3:53:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dopderbeck@gmail.com writes:
>
> If taking the incarnation seriously is "silly," then call me a fool. I
think I'm in pretty good company.
> I see the flurry of posts coming in. I responded when someone said that
religion was a house of cards and that if we decided one story was an
allegory then even the resurrection would come crashing down. I find that
assumption disappointing.
>
> So I described the "worst case scenario," NOT my belief, NOT my
suggestion, NOT my recommendation. I asked hypothetically - if tomorrow we
were to have it proved to us that Jesus was only a man, what would you do?
>
> And you won't even face the worst case scenario. You are going to behave
as if I'm attacking my own religion because you wouldn't be able to handle
it if your faith was put to the ultimate test.
>
> Noone said taking the incarnation seriously was silly. You are assuming an
attack on the incarnation because you haven't done the biblical study from a
scientific perspective and are afraid to make the step. If you don't take
the first step and cross over you'll never know what's on the other side.
What's on the other side is a rational validation of Christianity. The very
thing required to prevent the whole edifice from crashing down in the face
of postmodernism/globalism which is working overtime to destroy it to create
the universal state/religion that's the same everywhere for everyone to make
us easy to manage. Communism was their first attempt.
> Look at the damage.
>
> Last night my wife was praying from a prayer book she got from the
Episcopal church on 31st. Her meditation was based on John 10:19-30.
> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me."
>
> Why sheep? Have you ever heard the expression leading the lambs to the
slaughter? Sheep can be led to the slaughter because they behave
instinctively and don't know what's going to happen to them. They can't even
imagine it because they have an extremely limited consciousness of self.
That's why the sheep hear Jesus' voice and follow without hesitation like
Abraham and Nachshon and Jesus who does his father's will unto death. They
follow instinctively, which was the allegorical Adam's pre fall state when
he did not have the knowledge that there was good and evil because he could
only do good instinctively, obey God's will, like sheep.
>
> So what?
>
> You are not following Jesus instinctively, but conditionally. You follow
on the condition that you don't have to apply your reason to the texts, the
reason you got becuase of Adam's fall. I know its true because I see the
refusals in the posts. Because the very prospect of doing so is frightening
and it was/is because you are facing real and eternal death which is
precisely what Jesus conquered.
>
> There is nothing in any religious text from Genesis to revelation that
contradicts my Darwinian exegesis of Genesis in True Religion, the paper
I've offered to you all. Nothing. Anywhere in the texts.
> I'm trying to introduce you all to Darwinian exegesis because once you
"get it" there is a shift in your understanding of the text, and you can see
the significance of Biblical morality, the very thing 90% of us are trying
to protect and that will give you an infusion of faith that will send chills
up and down your spines but you are afraid to take the first step.
>
> Read the paper and ask me about it. Force me to defend my assertions, and
I will, but please, I put my faith in Jesus Christ completely and I can
still assume a scientific perspective when reading the texts.
>
> Don't ever for one second suggest that I've said anywhere that the
incarnation is silly. It's not true.
>
>
> I took the first step. That's why I started with Adam and Eve. More of
you need to be doing what I am doing. That's why I want to show you what I'm
doing. Help me. Get Ken Ham the validation he needs, which will certainly
not come from YEC or ID. If you are truly a group of Christian scientists
you must take up your cross. The Darwinian revolution is over a hundred
years old and it is running roughshod over religion. There must be rational
arguments in its defense and we needed them yesterday.
> This IS the cross you bear because this is the cross that IS.
>
> You all should join my company.
>
> rich faussette
Received on Thu Feb 16 21:44:26 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 16 2006 - 21:44:27 EST