Signs of the Second Coming

[jay santos]

Didn't you say you recently read The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg? If so, I am surprised you would be asking these kinds of questions. To me, one of the most powerful messages of the book is that arguing the literalness/historicity of religious events (either for or against) is pointless and counterproductive. We could sit here and argue whether or not jesus literally turned water to wine (as an example from the book) but at the end of the day, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW one way or the other. It is and always will be a matter of faith. Why not focus on the beauty and symbolism of the story and what we can learn from it? I am sure some religious events are figurative and not literal, but so what? And why on earth would I feel the need to convince others that something isn't literally true? It takes some humility to recognize that I don't have all the answers. I have found that if I accept things on faith and focus on the fundamentals of the gospel, I find tremendous strength, joy and power in my faith.

I don't understand the motivation for this comment, and I disagree with your take on Borg. Borg is quite clear on stating that he does not believe literally certain doctrines and reframes the context and meaning of why those doctrines are important to him from a non-literal perspective. GM was doing exactly that. There's a thing that many Progressive Mo's do, that is annoying to me and I don't know if you're doing this or not, but to me it seems that you might be. They express vaguish non-traditional beliefs but then act coy and evasive when pressed for detail. or say something like "historicity is not interesting at all to me". When it clearly is vitally important to meaning. I think it's because they are afraid of being shunned by traditional/literal believers. Or maybe because it's the cool thing to do among academics. Keep everything theoretical. But it's super annoying to me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't understand the motivation for this comment, and I disagree with your take on Borg. Borg is quite clear on stating that he does not believe literally certain doctrines and reframes the context and meaning of why those doctrines are important to him from a non-literal perspective. GM was doing exactly that. There's a thing that many Progressive Mo's do, that is annoying to me and I don't know if you're doing this or not, but to me it seems that you might be. They express vaguish non-traditional beliefs but then act coy and evasive when pressed for detail. or say something like historicity is not interesting at all to me". When it clearly is vitally important to meaning. I think it's because they are afraid of being shunned by traditional/literal believers. Or maybe because it's the cool thing to do among academics. But it's super annoying to me.

Oh boy. Does this sound like a guy who insists on explicitly defining specific events as literal or not?

Moreover, emphasizing the historical factuality of the stories can distract from their meaning. When their factuality is emphasized, the miraculous elements are emphasized so that “believing” these stories means believing that all these spectacular events happened. This emphasis often produces a sterile debate between those who think they are factual and those who think they aren’t, an endless back-and-forth: “It happened this way,” “No, it didn’t,” “Yes, it did.” When this happens, the rich, more-than-literal meanings are most often lost.

When this debate breaks out in my classroom, I say to my students, “Believe whatever you want about whether it happened this way; now let’s talk about what the story means.” The statement applies to the Genesis stories of creation, the gospel birth stories, and the stories of the Bible generally: a preoccupation with factuality can obscure the metaphorical meanings and the truth of the stories as metaphor.

What I described above is exactly in line with the historical-metaphorical approach Borg describes. Yes, he says that he doesn't believe everything in the bible is literal (nor do I!). He also states that much of it is historical. But nowhere in the book does he make a list of what he thinks is and isn't literal as that would run counter to the point he is making.

[Bo Diddley]

Oh boy. Does this sound like a guy who insists on explicitly defining specific events as literal or not?



What I described above is exactly in line with the historical-metaphorical approach Borg describes. Yes, he says that he doesn't believe everything in the bible is literal (nor do I!). He also states that much of it is historical. But nowhere in the book does he make a list of what he thinks is and isn't literal as that would run counter to the point he is making.

It's a great way to appreciate the scriptures. When I was a GD teacher, I pretty much took this approach. I figured out on my mission that there was just so much that is impossible to know what is literal and what is not, so I just set that aside, recognizing there were Gospel truths that really mattered most. I really like approaching things this way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For the record, I believe in the literal second coming of jesus.

I am less sure about the second coming of DDD.

[jay santos]

Oh boy. Does this sound like a guy who insists on explicitly defining specific events as literal or not?



What I described above is exactly in line with the historical-metaphorical approach Borg describes. Yes, he says that he doesn't believe everything in the bible is literal (nor do I!). He also states that much of it is historical. But nowhere in the book does he make a list of what he thinks is and isn't literal as that would run counter to the point he is making.

Borg was part of the Jesus Seminar that did exactly this, quite meticulously. I think you're using Borg's quote wrong. He's chastising literal believers who demand people take it literally and can't derive meaning from non-literal perspective which is sometimes more powerful. He's not chastising the process of identifying what one believes literally and what one doesn't and why a non-literal meaning still holds important meaning. I think that process is exactly what Borg is about. I think it's ridiculous to say that process isn't important.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Borg was part of the Jesus Seminar that did exactly this, quite meticulously. I think you're using Borg's quote wrong. He's chastising literal believers who demand people take it literally and can't derive meaning from non-literal perspective which is sometimes more powerful. He's not chastising the process of identifying what one believes literally and what one doesn't and why a non-literal meaning still holds important meaning. I think that process is exactly what Borg is about. I think it's ridiculous to say that process isn't important.

It's like you are completely ignoring the quote I provided.

[Northwestcoug]

For the record, I believe in the literal second coming of jesus.

I am less sure about the second coming of DDD.

Ah, but do you believe in a 1000-year theocracy with him at the helm and no parole for Satan until the end??? That's gotta be figurative!

[Green Monstah]

I can't fathom believing in a literal second coming, but it's clearly an important tenet to many, and for the record, I'm super okay with people believing what they will.

[smokymountainrain]

I am less sure about the second coming of DDD.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ah, but do you believe in a 1000-year theocracy with him at the helm and no parole for Satan until the end??? That's gotta be figurative!

Details, details. Don't sweat the details.

[Northwestcoug]

Details, details. Don't sweat the details.

Not sure if you interpreted my post differently, but it was TIC. Matters of faith are exactly that. If you believe in a literal resurrection that leads to an immortal body and existence, which I think most here do, then pretty much every other miraculous thing in scripture is blase.

Well except a literal earth-covering flood. And maybe talking asses. But not much else!

[Pelado]

Not sure if you interpreted my post differently, but it was TIC. Matters of faith are exactly that. If you believe in a literal resurrection that leads to an immortal body and existence, which I think most here do, then pretty much every other miraculous thing in scripture is blase.

Well except a literal earth-covering flood. And maybe talking asses. But not much else!

The bolded is not that uncommon, even around CS.

[Bo Diddley]

The bolded is not that uncommon, even around CS.

[Jeff Lebowski]

And maybe talking asses. But not much else!

[Clark Addison]

Is it upon us?

AB_MO.PNG