EPTThe Progressive Faith in the Christian Life - Page 3
| Blogs > IronManSC |
|
slowbacontron
United States7722 Posts
| ||
|
jcc
United States472 Posts
Keep on truckin mate, its just nice to see Christians on TL exist lol | ||
|
jcc
United States472 Posts
On September 10 2013 15:23 IgnE wrote: It has to be misbegotten, otherwise Jesus singling him out is capricious and unjust. If he were truly righteous and followed God's laws, he would already have been following Jesus. Jesus knows that he is not, and that he came to Jesus in front of the crowd as a kind of public relations stunt. He wanted everyone to think he was good and right with the Lord, when, in fact, he was not. This man is unique. If he were meant to stand as a generic rich man, representing the class of rich men, then why would Jesus mark him out? Especially when you say he was otherwise a godly man and could be said to be following in the Lord's footsteps? No. Jesus calls him out and asks him to give up his wealth that he did not deserve to have (either through cheating others or some other unrighteous deed) because He knows that the man is ungodly and needs to atone for his sins. I feel you are over complicating things. It's honestly as simple as Jesus testing the man on where his heart lies. Whether God blessed him with riches or not shouldn't matter to their value. Things of the world are still things of the world and are but rubbish to following and personally knowing Christ Jesus. That is what Jesus was trying to inform him, that the way to heaven isn't some game or just following rules, its through knowing and having a personal relationship with Him. | ||
|
KazeHydra
Japan2788 Posts
On September 10 2013 15:23 IgnE wrote: It has to be misbegotten, otherwise Jesus singling him out is capricious and unjust. If he were truly righteous and followed God's laws, he would already have been following Jesus. Jesus knows that he is not, and that he came to Jesus in front of the crowd as a kind of public relations stunt. He wanted everyone to think he was good and right with the Lord, when, in fact, he was not. This man is unique. If he were meant to stand as a generic rich man, representing the class of rich men, then why would Jesus mark him out? Especially when you say he was otherwise a godly man and could be said to be following in the Lord's footsteps? No. Jesus calls him out and asks him to give up his wealth that he did not deserve to have (either through cheating others or some other unrighteous deed) because He knows that the man is ungodly and needs to atone for his sins. That's an interesting interpretation but I'd have to disagree. It isn't a matter of his wealth; it's his love of wealth. He followed all the commandments, but he was unwilling to give up his wealth to follow Jesus, who is the only way to heaven. Jesus is not singling him out because of his wealth (that may or may not be dirty money) but because this man, and the majority of wealthy people, was not willing to give it up for Jesus. Jesus asked this of him because he knew the man loved money too much to agree. The message is that to follow Jesus, you must truly put him first in your life; for the wealthy, this is something very difficult to do. It doesn't matter whether that man's wealth was obtained morally or not; he loved it more than God. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
http://theprogressivefaith.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/creation-and-science-made-simple-by-faith/ Hopefully it makes more sense to you guys now. I apologize that it was out of wack earlier. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 10 2013 15:23 IgnE wrote: It has to be misbegotten, otherwise Jesus singling him out is capricious and unjust. If he were truly righteous and followed God's laws, he would already have been following Jesus. Jesus knows that he is not, and that he came to Jesus in front of the crowd as a kind of public relations stunt. He wanted everyone to think he was good and right with the Lord, when, in fact, he was not. This man is unique. If he were meant to stand as a generic rich man, representing the class of rich men, then why would Jesus mark him out? Especially when you say he was otherwise a godly man and could be said to be following in the Lord's footsteps? No. Jesus calls him out and asks him to give up his wealth that he did not deserve to have (either through cheating others or some other unrighteous deed) because He knows that the man is ungodly and needs to atone for his sins. It seems to me that you have a preconception of what is right and just, and then you're reading your own ideas into what the scripture says. How else would you wind up saying something like "Jesus can't have meant this, because that wouldn't be right"? My understanding of scripture is that you're supposed to do it the other way around: read the scripture, try to figure out what it means, and then conclude what is right based on that. There's no indication in the scripture that the man has done anything unjust to earn his wealth, or that when Jesus says it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, he's only talking about this particular wicked rich man. Reading the scripture, it sure seems like Jesus asked this man to give up his wealth, and he would not; that's the only apparent sin he has committed. Jesus then comments that this exact fault is why it is so difficult for rich people to get into heaven – but not impossible, through the grace of God. Edit: read updated version of the blog. I understand your objection to trying to use science to discover when the Second Coming will be, but why is it wrong to try to figure out the age of the Earth (about 4 billion years is the usual estimate, I think)? Again, it seems like you're objecting to legitimate scientific inquiries that aren't even necessarily conflicting with religion, and I'm not even sure on what grounds. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: Edit: read updated version of the blog. I understand your objection to trying to use science to discover when the Second Coming will be, but why is it wrong to try to figure out the age of the Earth (about 4 billion years is the usual estimate, I think)? Again, it seems like you're objecting to legitimate scientific inquiries that aren't even necessarily conflicting with religion, and I'm not even sure on what grounds. It's not wrong to try and figure it out, but the fact of the matter is is we may never fully know for sure, but as I mentioned later on in the blog, it can become dangerous when you are consumed by it to a point where it starts producing different beliefs contrary to what the Bible says. For example, the Bible teaches that humans are formed from the dust of the earth, while evolution says we came from apes. I'm not going to talk about this argument, I'm just stating a very simple example of what certain aspects of science can influence you to believe. The whole point is to not let it become an obsession to where it ultimately takes your eyes off the one who created it all. Creation and everything around you was made by God and for God, and to point you to Him. When people start coming up with different views and belief systems based on discoveries alone, then it can become a problem. I'm sorry if it seems confusing to some of you still, but I'm sure you would all agree that it's much better than the first version. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote: It's not wrong to try and figure it out, but the fact of the matter is is we may never fully know for sure, but as I mentioned later on in the blog, it can become dangerous when you are consumed by it to a point where it starts producing different beliefs contrary to what the Bible says. For example, the Bible teaches that humans are formed from the dust of the earth, while evolution says we came from apes. I'm not going to talk about this argument, I'm just stating a very simple example of what certain aspects of science can influence you to believe. The whole point is to not let it become an obsession to where it ultimately takes your eyes off the one who created it all. Creation and everything around you was made by God and for God, and to point you to Him. When people start coming up with different views and belief systems based on discoveries alone, then it can become a problem. I'm sorry if it seems confusing to some of you still, but I'm sure you would all agree that it's much better than the first version. What's dangerous is when you disregard the world because of a delusion inspired by a book. Even more dangerous, when you act as if people doing the opposite are the dangerous ones. Analyzing facts to learn more about the world can never be dangerous, our knowledge of evolution is one of the many examples of how much good can come from ignoring a religious belief in the name of learning. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 10 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote: What's dangerous is when you disregard the world because of a delusion inspired by a book. Even more dangerous, when you act as if people doing the opposite are the dangerous ones. Analyzing facts to learn more about the world can never be dangerous, our knowledge of evolution is one of the many examples of how much good can come from ignoring a religious belief in the name of learning. No particular call for coming into a religious person's blog and calling them and everyone else religious delusional. Insulting people's beliefs really isn't acceptable anywhere, but particularly not here. Seriously, what compels you to do such a thing? | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On September 10 2013 17:36 ChristianS wrote: No particular call for coming into a religious person's blog and calling them and everyone else religious delusional. Insulting people's beliefs really isn't acceptable anywhere, but particularly not here. Seriously, what compels you to do such a thing? Because of his argument, which makes other Christians look bad, especially all the talanted christians who work in science. I don't call people who believe in god delusional. I call people who disregard facts to defend their faith delusional, because that's what the term means, he even mentioned evolution himself which is a great example. Christians who believe God directed evolution arent delusional. People who think evolution is some sort of lie to smear god, are. I don't even see how anyone can follow his logic, regardless of religious perspective. Either you are an atheist and it's obviously bollocks, it can't be dangerous to learn. Or, you're a christian, and it can't be dangerous either, because why would a benevolent god punish someone for wanting to help humanity? | ||
|
Bommes
Germany1226 Posts
On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote: It's not wrong to try and figure it out, but the fact of the matter is is we may never fully know for sure, but as I mentioned later on in the blog, it can become dangerous when you are consumed by it to a point where it starts producing different beliefs contrary to what the Bible says. For example, the Bible teaches that humans are formed from the dust of the earth, while evolution says we came from apes. I'm not going to talk about this argument, I'm just stating a very simple example of what certain aspects of science can influence you to believe. The whole point is to not let it become an obsession to where it ultimately takes your eyes off the one who created it all. Creation and everything around you was made by God and for God, and to point you to Him. When people start coming up with different views and belief systems based on discoveries alone, then it can become a problem. I'm sorry if it seems confusing to some of you still, but I'm sure you would all agree that it's much better than the first version. Accepted scientific theories aren't "belief systems" or "views". They are mathematically tested theories that are just that, theories. The only validation they get is that you don't find any evidence in nature that points at them being wrong, while a lot of indications point at the theories being right. The day you prove that evolution didn't happen for sure, the whole theory is garbage and no scientist will use it anymore. I never got that whole "Religion vs. Science" thing at all, everything that is and ever will be is created by god, so it should be a great thing to study nature and find out how it works (in general, of course there are "wrong" reasons and ways to practice what we call science). Men from the stoneage didn't discover how shit works by contemplating all day about how their life sucks and how they have to hunt every day and die from starvation when they find no food. They built new tools with their hands and they learned how beneficial it is to farm their own plants and domesticate wild animals to use their goods, all by working together as a society and reaching for new heights in terms of skill in a certain area. And without all that happening it would have never been possible to get to that really advanced society (that the society Jesus lived in already was) and have a foundation for a religion like Christianity with paper and books to write in so even your grandgrandgrandgrandgrandchildren and their children for generations to come know about it. When the Bible says humans are formed from the dust of the earth, and we now know humans came from apes which came from some other mammal which ultimately came from one first life cell that we don't know where it came from but probably came from the dust of the earth then it is basically the same thing and I don't see where the problem is. It is articulated in the Bible like that because for thousands of years mankind didn't come up with the theory of evolution that explains where humans came from a little bit better (but still very badly), so if they would have heard a theory like that 2000 years ago they would think its bullshit and disregard the whole Bible because of that. I don't see where the danger or struggle for faith is in this case. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 10 2013 17:40 Tobberoth wrote: Because of his argument, which makes other Christians look bad, especially all the talanted christians who work in science. I don't call people who believe in god delusional. I call people who disregard facts to defend their faith delusional, because that's what the term means, he even mentioned evolution himself which is a great example. Christians who believe God directed evolution arent delusional. People who think evolution is some sort of lie to smear god, are. I don't even see how anyone can follow his logic, regardless of religious perspective. Either you are an atheist and it's obviously bollocks, it can't be dangerous to learn. Or, you're a christian, and it can't be dangerous either, because why would a benevolent god punish someone for wanting to help humanity? I didn't see where OP claimed evolution was a lie. Mostly he seems inclined to think that declaring the miracles described in the Bible impossible based on scientific principles is silly, because that assumes God is bound by those rules which we usually observe in day-to-day life. He also figures scientific inquiry can't really determine the true existence or nature of God, and if a person of faith found themselves looking for answers in this way, they'd be distracting themselves from the important religious questions. Regarding scientific pursuits, I agree that a few objections he's brought up seem overly defensive. I see there's been another edit to remove the bit talking about studying the age of the Earth as well, but before the edits, at least, he seemed a bit too inclined to avoid certain discussions because he thought they were usually motivated by a desire to prove or disprove the existence of God or his role in creation. But that's no reason to call him delusional. I apologize for assuming you thought all religion was delusional, but when you say things like "a delusion based on a book" you sure sound like one of those self-righteous Reddit atheists who like to say religion is as easily dismissed as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On September 10 2013 17:54 ChristianS wrote: I didn't see where OP claimed evolution was a lie. Mostly he seems inclined to think that declaring the miracles described in the Bible impossible based on scientific principles is silly, because that assumes God is bound by those rules which we usually observe in day-to-day life. He also figures scientific inquiry can't really determine the true existence or nature of God, and if a person of faith found themselves looking for answers in this way, they'd be distracting themselves from the important religious questions. Regarding scientific pursuits, I agree that a few objections he's brought up seem overly defensive. I see there's been another edit to remove the bit talking about studying the age of the Earth as well, but before the edits, at least, he seemed a bit too inclined to avoid certain discussions because he thought they were usually motivated by a desire to prove or disprove the existence of God or his role in creation. But that's no reason to call him delusional. I apologize for assuming you thought all religion was delusional, but when you say things like "a delusion based on a book" you sure sound like one of those self-righteous Reddit atheists who like to say religion is as easily dismissed as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. From my point of view, a delusion is when you ignore or twist knowledge about the world by what you believe in. Thus, you're not delusional if you think God created the universe, because we have no facts to go on. It's likely that something like the Big Bang happened, but we can't know what started it, so saying it was God is just as viable as anything else. In this sense, I agree with IronManSC, there's not much point in arguing, maybe even studying it, because we can't know for sure. As for your last comment, it's not far from the truth. I personally don't see how Christianity is any less easily dismissed than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, other than the fact that FSP is a recent idea. You can easily say any sentence about God and exchange it with FSP, and there's really no difference in what was said. It's just as little a delusion to think God caused the big bang as it is to think FSP caused the big bang. That's the whole point of FSP: Make christianity sound "dumber" by copying the concepts in a ridiculous fashion and thus ignoring the historical tie-in christinity has. That's besides the point though, I'm not here to discuss the validity of Christianity, I'm just here to defend the work scientists all over the world are doing, christian or not. I think it's important that Christians feel that science isn't a danger to their faith, but a vessel by which they can help the world. It helps relations as well... just ask any atheist what they think about a fundamental christian who refuses to accept some aspect of science and they may very well be hash... now ask them of their opinion about Einstein, and suddenly they have a very different way of looking at a Christian. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
As for your last comment, it's not far from the truth. I personally don't see how Christianity is any less easily dismissed than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, other than the fact that FSP is a recent idea. You can easily say any sentence about God and exchange it with FSP, and there's really no difference in what was said. It's just as little a delusion to think God caused the big bang as it is to think FSP caused the big bang. That's the whole point of FSP: Make christianity sound "dumber" by copying the concepts in a ridiculous fashion and thus ignoring the historical tie-in christinity has. I don't think I've ever seen a paragraph that runs so directly in one way then tries to leap back so sharply. You said it yourself, FSP only exists as a tool for ridicule. An idea created by the smug to help them feel smug in the nasty way that is the soul of smugness. Christianity is a serious idea that can't be boiled down (and therefore dismissed) as simply fairy stories or delusions. Even if you're so inclined to dismiss the divine parts the philosophy of Jesus Christ obviously hit a deep chord within the human character. If it did not speak a lot of real and important truths Christianity today would be just another historical Jewish apocalyptic sect of the late Roman Republic / early Roman Empire that no one living except academics would ever had heard of. There were plenty of those. Some Christians put too much emphasis on the assertion that Jesus and his philosophy (what he said and what was developed by the Apostolic Fathers) were unprecedented but Christianity did to a large degree ask anew in a compelling way all the old questions everyone had thought were answered and asked some new questions that hadn't been thought of before or hadn't gotten proper attention from classical thinkers and older religions. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On September 10 2013 18:23 DeepElemBlues wrote: I don't think I've ever seen a paragraph that runs so directly in one way then tries to leap back so sharply. You said it yourself, FSP only exists as a tool for ridicule. An idea created by the smug to help them feel smug in the nasty way that is the soul of smugness. Christianity is a serious idea that can't be boiled down (and therefore dismissed) as simply fairy stories or delusions. Even if you're so inclined to dismiss the divine parts the philosophy of Jesus Christ obviously hit a deep chord within the human character. If it did not speak a lot of real and important truths Christianity today would be just another historical Jewish apocalyptic sect of the late Roman Republic / early Roman Empire that no one living except academics would ever had heard of. I don't think "tool of ridicule" is a fair term. What it does is allow christians to see their beliefs without the context of history and culture. You've been told about god since you were a baby, the ideas have been circling our cultures for hundred of years. Saying "Jesus is the son of God, while being God at the same time" etc makes sense because you've heard it for so long. However, if I say something ridiculous like "Jesus is the son of a space squid but he's quite a squid himself", you don't have that history and culture to rely on, and it sounds ridiculous. The point of FPS is to exemplify that. Sure, tons of people use FSP to ridicule christians, but it wasn't the intention from the start. As for Christianity not being just a historical sect... we can all thank Emperor Constantine for that. | ||
|
Jombozeus
China1014 Posts
On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote: When people start coming up with different views and belief systems based on discoveries alone, then it can become a problem. It scares me that you think that coming up with different views and belief systems based on discoveries alone can become a problem. You are rejecting the core of all human knowledge and paradigms. Next thing you know, some guy is going to come along and tell us that the world is ROUND! | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On September 10 2013 14:34 ChristianS wrote: The idea isn't that heaven discriminates against rich people. The idea is that wealth is such a corrupting force that almost no one who possesses it could get into heaven. You could imagine the same being said of people who abuse drugs – it's almost impossible for them to get their life together, find Christ, and move on to live a better life, but through God anything is possible (indicating that it's unlikely, but it could happen). This is an exaggeration, the gospels and letters themselves demonstrate that neither Jesus nor Paul were shy of associating with people of property. The "religion of slaves" misses the point about the mediating ideal of the gospel. And as Aquinas points out, poverty in itself is an inherent evil, whereas wealth is an inherent good. The aforecited gospel from Mark demonstrates this very well: if wealth were a primary evil, a rich man would be himself doing an evil by disbursing the sources of his sins upon the poor, as he must when he sells all his goods and donates his money. The point is that for a Christian, the primary good is the currency of charity, which, is the only true currency which is infinite. Contrary to the mathematical laws of ordinary wealth, the more charity a man gives away, the more he has. Compared to this wealth of the infinite, the finite wealth of material goods can be considered in the ultimate relation only as a secondary good, the means to a higher end. Therefore what matters is not the ritual act of charity, but the intentions of the man who performs the act. This is what Paul meant in his letter to the Corinthians: And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. It is only in the higher relation that poverty becomes a special virtue, and wealth a vice. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On September 10 2013 21:35 Birdie wrote: The word translated charity in some translations is better translated "love", I believe. It's not necessarily referring to giving to charities. It's an older use of the word to refer to charity as love (and indeed acts of charity should be acts of love). In some newer translations I've known the word ἀγάπη to be translated to "love." In Luther's German it is Liebe, whereas our English "charity" is derived from the Latin caritas As the former Pope Benedict XVI pointed out in his first papal encyclical, of the three Greek words expressing our vague English notion of "love", the word ἀγάπη (agape) was by far the most common in the scriptures. He described in the same encyclical that whereas eros was ascending love (or possessive love,) agape was descending love (or oblative love.) To put it simply, the former is the love we feel not only for a beautiful woman who has caught our hearts, it is all forms of aspiring love, from the love you feel for a fancy green Porsche to the love you feel for someone's awesome SC2 micro. In other words, its is the kind of love that admires, and aspires to its object. Agape on the other hand, is the love we feel towards our children, our pets or any other object towards which we will their goodness for the good of that object, and not ours. It is the love the wise feel for the foolish, the happy for the miserable, and also the rich for the poor. It is selfless and self-sacrificing love. In English we combine these two concepts in one word, and because of connotative shifts, "charity" has now come to mean more or less the act and not the virtue in our language | ||
| ||
