This is a good 7 part series addressing the root of what has happened and is happening in the North America church
Pt1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzEy4QZJMuA&feature=relmfu
Pt2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yEArSGFyH0&feature=relmfu
Pt3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRzXZ1lU5dQ&feature=relmfu
Pt4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly15dPJPQ5M&feature=relmfu
Pt5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUze_WQngIk&feature=relmfu
Pt6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2x2DQ09-8U&feature=relmfu
Pt7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbPCqYsUmU&feature=relmfu
Friday, October 26, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Frustration at secular religious studies: or how Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and became dumb
I've been taking a religious studies course on woman in the biblical tradition. It is nice to hear what others pickup from reading the old testament, they point out a lot of things I have missed reading by myself.
But there are a lot of disturbing undertones and assumptions made in the course, and it frustrates me to read the textbook and a lot of the articles, and realizing the course was not at all what I had in mind at first.
An example of which is an article on the book of Luke from the text book Women's Bible Commentary. Basically the summary of the article is Luke is using beautiful language to paint a picture of pious woman, thus being a manipulative jerk who is an enemy of woman's freedom to choose who they want to be.
Not getting into the foolishness of the author injecting so much speculation and imaginative attacks on Luke's character, she missed the whole point of the Gospel that talks about humanity's fallen nature, need for salvation, and hope and redemption in Christ. One of the irony is the Bible speaks against the author's human centered viewpoint, guess she conveniently chose to ignore those portions of the Bible.
Some scholars from the SBL(Society of Biblical Literature, who published some articles that are used by the course) would make statements like "for the purpose of an objective stance on the academic study of the Bible as literature, we should not adopt a religious viewpoint" why can't they just come out and say "we can't adopt a religious viewpoint on the Bible because we don't believe it's true?" If they want to do an objective, academic study of the Bible then what's the point of not looking at both secular and religious view points? But the irony is that when they do this are they not acting like Adam and Eve after eating the fruit? Not really wanting to admit their own bias and unbelief so they hide behind "the purpose of academics", and walking off into whatever seems right in their own eyes.
Anyway, that's enough rant, don't waste your time reading Women's Bible Commentary or most of the articles published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, their language might sound fancy but there is no flavour or substance.
But there are a lot of disturbing undertones and assumptions made in the course, and it frustrates me to read the textbook and a lot of the articles, and realizing the course was not at all what I had in mind at first.
An example of which is an article on the book of Luke from the text book Women's Bible Commentary. Basically the summary of the article is Luke is using beautiful language to paint a picture of pious woman, thus being a manipulative jerk who is an enemy of woman's freedom to choose who they want to be.
Not getting into the foolishness of the author injecting so much speculation and imaginative attacks on Luke's character, she missed the whole point of the Gospel that talks about humanity's fallen nature, need for salvation, and hope and redemption in Christ. One of the irony is the Bible speaks against the author's human centered viewpoint, guess she conveniently chose to ignore those portions of the Bible.
Some scholars from the SBL(Society of Biblical Literature, who published some articles that are used by the course) would make statements like "for the purpose of an objective stance on the academic study of the Bible as literature, we should not adopt a religious viewpoint" why can't they just come out and say "we can't adopt a religious viewpoint on the Bible because we don't believe it's true?" If they want to do an objective, academic study of the Bible then what's the point of not looking at both secular and religious view points? But the irony is that when they do this are they not acting like Adam and Eve after eating the fruit? Not really wanting to admit their own bias and unbelief so they hide behind "the purpose of academics", and walking off into whatever seems right in their own eyes.
Anyway, that's enough rant, don't waste your time reading Women's Bible Commentary or most of the articles published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, their language might sound fancy but there is no flavour or substance.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Love the bible, because we love Christ
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son - Hebrews 1:1-2a
One cannot know God except through his son Jesus Christ. It is impossible for sinners to approach God without a mediator. Creation reveals God's glory, but we cannot perceive it. The best man can get is a fuzzy notion of an unknown God, but whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father, whoever believes the Son sees the glory of God (John 11:40, 12:45)
That's why scripture is so important. Without scripture we don't know Christ, without Christ we don't know God, and not knowing God means we are eternally damned, because eternal life is to know God and his Son Jesus Christ.
Where else can we find Christ revealed truly? The world? The best the world can give us is some moral teacher, some prophet, some liar, because the world does not believe. Historians might agree Christ was a real man, but think of his deity as foolishness, or they might have some notion of him as a doer of wonderous works but never be clear that he is God in the flesh, came to save sinners.(look up Josephus) Only scripture bears witness of Christ truly and fully for us. Therefore understanding what the bible says is important, doctrine is important. There is an error of mystifying the bible, and there is also an error in thinking eternal life is in the scripture, thus stopping at doctrine and knowledge.
O God, let us be wise in reading your word, help us to understand and love your Word.
One cannot know God except through his son Jesus Christ. It is impossible for sinners to approach God without a mediator. Creation reveals God's glory, but we cannot perceive it. The best man can get is a fuzzy notion of an unknown God, but whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father, whoever believes the Son sees the glory of God (John 11:40, 12:45)
That's why scripture is so important. Without scripture we don't know Christ, without Christ we don't know God, and not knowing God means we are eternally damned, because eternal life is to know God and his Son Jesus Christ.
Where else can we find Christ revealed truly? The world? The best the world can give us is some moral teacher, some prophet, some liar, because the world does not believe. Historians might agree Christ was a real man, but think of his deity as foolishness, or they might have some notion of him as a doer of wonderous works but never be clear that he is God in the flesh, came to save sinners.(look up Josephus) Only scripture bears witness of Christ truly and fully for us. Therefore understanding what the bible says is important, doctrine is important. There is an error of mystifying the bible, and there is also an error in thinking eternal life is in the scripture, thus stopping at doctrine and knowledge.
O God, let us be wise in reading your word, help us to understand and love your Word.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)