it is the admixture of political ideaology, rationalist philosophy, closed vs open-structured thinking, a harshness on some matters that is unbecoming and, not reflective of 'the Father Heart of God', sometimes more than a hint of dualism (a Greek vs Hebraic 'seeing' of God's Creation) that precipitates, even exacerbates a confrontational response from me. ... I'm asking if ON OCCASION you see how you are so perceived?
Yes, I think I do ON OCCASION see this, but it is usually too late to prevent it. Furthermore, I'm not sure I could have prevented it or should have prevented it.
We have some fundamental differences in how we view the "Father Heart of God." I do not dismiss the Torah and the way God is painted as a man of war who judges and kills those who disobey, even in seemingly non-threatening ways like Uzza putting his hand to the ark to keep it from falling. The revelation of grace does not negate his insistence on holiness and perfection as taught by Torah. Christ made a way for this to be a reality.
So when you say that "open-structured thinking" reflects the heart of God while rationalist philosophy (meaning deductive and inductive logical methods of inquiry) does not, I have to disagree. What I really hear you saying but not quite articulating is that a holisitic approach to truth that cannot ever distinguish between specific trees in the forest is the heart of God, but reductionistic approaches that finely divide between the trees is not. Your distaste for "dualism" seems to me to be misplaced as well, for as I have said before, Paul taught Greek dualism in Romans 7. Some of you spiritualize the word "flesh" there but I do not. I am a biologist and believe he meant the physical flesh, expressing classic Greek dualism that the Romans already had some understanding about. When you talk about the Hebraic "seeing" as opposed to Greek "seeing," I think you primarily mean Sadduccee "seeing."
My daughter is taking a Hebrew Scriptures class at the University of Florida right now. She calls me up often with questions, and recently she told me that her professor was teaching her that the Hebrew Scriptures did not teach a resurrection and that the concept of spirit, soul and body was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. I had to explain to her that her professor and others need to be careful about what they read. They are overgeneralizing. Yes, there are some scholars that try to make that argument, but the truth is that society is not that homogeneous. I explained to her that someone might try and characterize our society by how George Bush viewed things or by how Michael Moore viewed things. If they only looked at one, would they get the whole picture? She answered no, they would not. I told her that in the same way, history sometimes whitewashes out views that the particular historian does not recognize as significant. For example, Sadduccees were more predominate in the Sanhedrin and ruling class of Hebrews, but they did not believe in angels or any kind of resurrection or afterlife. On the other hand, the Pharisees did. They both read the same Scriptures, but they interpreted them differently. I then went on to quote to her the Hebrew Scriptures that do teach a spirit and soul of man, and that also teach a resurrection. Of course, I had to explain some Hebrew words about hell and grave too, but I am rambling too long now. The point is that sometimes holists use too broad a paint brush for me. You are a holist. I appreciate your perspective, but if you are going to argue that anything other than "open-structured" thinking misses the heart of God, I would have to disagree. I would agree with you that the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life. That comes very close to expressing your thought. Nevertheless, the law has not been abolished and the law is for the lawless. As long as there are lawless, there is a need for the law. The only ones who do not need law are those in Christ who are filled with his Spirit and have the laws written on their hearts and they no longer sin against God or their neighbors.
Put another way, desiring to avoid sharp disagreements by thinking on a higher plane of "open-structured" thinking would only result in a pseudo-peace and pseudo-love. It is not really dealing with the issues that cause problems. It is like white-washing the fence, making it appear from the outside to be good, but the underlying weaknesses are still there. I think the heart of God is to deal with us through and through. As iron sharpens iron, it sometimes feels like sandpaper on the skin, like gold burned in the furnace, but it produces the truly peaceable fruit of righteousness in those who have experienced it. The sad part is that this is meant to come primarily from the persecution of the world, but so many in the church have aligned themselves with the world that sometimes it happens within and is somewhat confusing then because it appears to be disunity among believers when really it is disunity between that which is not of God and that which is of God.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
