|
Hey guys,
If you don't know who I am, I am IronManSC, a former ESV and TPW mapmaker for starcraft II. I've made maps like Ohana, Ravage, Spring, and Khalis. I've given up my 12-year passion in starcraft to take on greater things in life, and one of the things I've always wanted to do personally was start my own Christian blog to encourage others out there that God works in ways we can't always understand, but we can learn to recognize His activity even if it's subtle.
I know teamliquid is not the best place to call on believers in Christ, but I know that if there are any others on here, I want to let you know that I have been working on this blog for a few days now that will go through a series of journals and other discussions in life and how our Christian faith is tied into them. This blog is more directed to believers who struggle with spiritual awareness and how to recognize their faith in Jesus more. I don't expect non-Christians to participate, but you may if you are open minded and won't attack us (or me) for the sake of arguing. But i'm just making it clear about who my target audience is.
Here is the introduction from my blog to get you started:
+ Show Spoiler +
Hello fellow believers in Christ, welcome to my blog site! You’re probably here because you’re interested in reading something inspirational or finding some encouragement on some Christian website that you randomly found on google. Or mabye you felt the Holy Spirit tug on your soul a little and wants you to dig deeper into the love of Christ, so you’re looking for answers. I want to do something a little bit different rather than make “just another Christian blog,” so allow me to explain why this blog was created.
Like some of you, I grew up in the Christian home. I went to church as well as a private school. I had mentors, good friends, and a lot of other people in my life who cared about me. I was even involved in a Men’s Bible Study for five years (I still am, by the way). I had read sooo many stories of Christians who experience God in divine or radical ways, and I think to myself, “Why is my life so quiet? Why do I not experience what they do? Why does this younger kid seem to have a more tangible connection with God than me? Is the Christian life today so… soft and subtle for some believers? I guess I grew up like Timothy quietly in the church.”
As life went on throughout high school and the previous four years after graduation, I unknowingly settled for less in my faith in Jesus. I felt that if I just patiently prayed for years and years, God would eventually give it to me at the right time. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Bible, I had all the answers, I believe in the forgiveness of sins and that Jesus is the Son of God, and I knew I should trust in a sovereign God throughout my life by faith. Oh, and I believe that God can still perform miracles today if He chooses. In fact, I experienced a few that I will go over as time goes on. All in all, that seems to be the gist of it, right?
While that side of the fence is clearly green, I seemed to be stuck on the dead side and I grew increasingly frustrated. There’s this odd cycle that I experienced again and again. Night after night, year after year, I asked God for deliverance. I asked for help, wisdom, and empowerment. I asked Him to reveal Himself to me, speak to me, guide me and draw me closer to Him. I routinely practiced my popcorn prayers- start with confession, then a little thanksgiving followed by a list of wants. Very rarely would I notice something so obvious that it HAD to be the work of God, but all in all, nothing was really happening in my quiet Christian life. It felt as though God gave me all these promises and His joy, but it seemed I had to figure out certain aspects of my life on my own. Was He really as silent as people say He is in today’s world, or was I just that close-minded to who He is, and not just what He promised me?
Over the past few months, God has been teaching me more and more about faith through a study book I’ve been going through with my lovely significant other. We underestimate faith and what it really is, and we conclude faith to be a mere inner belief. We use the generic response when someone asks us what faith is: it’s a gift from God that enables us to believe. We live by faith, not by sight. Let me be very, very clear here: Faith isn’t just a deep-rooted belief, it’s a lifestyle. It is the rope that we must hold onto as God tugs us through life.
When I have the time, I will write blogs about the things I have learned in regards to faith and the Christian life. One of the greatest things we can do as Christians is simply share our testimonies and help each other grow. Iron sharpens Iron. So, to do things differently as previously mentioned, every blog I write will be more of a progressive walk with me and my life rather than just a lesson for you to think about. In some blogs, some information I share may be taken from the study book I’m going through, but it will be referenced. I hope that as time goes on, you begin to recognize spiritual awareness a little more. By no means am I perfect or set myself as an example, but if you are an individual who struggles to see a proactive God in his or her life, then checking out my blogs may be of some help to you – I hope. Let’s gain a fresh perspective, learning to recognize faith and the mysterious ways that God works. Let’s walk and talk together and, ultimately, believe in Jesus more faithfully.
If you're interested in viewing my work-in-progress blog, or if you would like to follow me, you may freely do so.
Click Here to Visit My Blog Site
  
|
Sounds like it could be interesting, I'll have a read of it if you keep cross-posting in the TL blogs section 
|
I'll read it! I want to know about life on Mars, though :c
|
Lol I'm only just beginning it. New blogs will come every couple days or so.
|
I think we (Christians) can do without more unqualified theologians passing judgement on topics they are unfamiliar with. Debasing science to a God vs Man thing is unfair and rude.
|
On September 10 2013 09:36 Gofarman wrote:
I think we (Christians) can do without more unqualified theologians passing judgement on topics they are unfamiliar with. Debasing science to a God vs Man thing is unfair and rude.
I don't see what is rude about simplifying our faith in worldly topics. I am not planning to go in depth in those areas. its to say "this is a common world topic, and this is how our faith ties into it." The whole point of that blog was to say "don't invest your time and energy into how creation operates to a point where it takes your eyes off it's Creator."
Upon looking at it however, I will try and re-word it because I see what you mean. Good catch.
|
what sort of christian church do you attend? Just curious
|
On September 10 2013 10:01 sam!zdat wrote:
what sort of christian church do you attend? Just curious
I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), and currently attend a non-denom that's more towards baptist
|
On September 10 2013 09:36 Gofarman wrote:
I think we (Christians) can do without more unqualified theologians passing judgement on topics they are unfamiliar with. Debasing science to a God vs Man thing is unfair and rude.
Just trying to remember hear, what did Jesus have to say to the pharisees? I'm pretty sure he didn't like them to much, and he thought that the amount of training you had did not correlate to how qualified you are to talk about faith. Thus he told us to let children teach us etc. I do get where you are coming from, but just don't write it off before it gets underway
Edit: oh btw this seems cool, i will read it
|
cool. If you don't mind saying, I'm curious to know how you think about scripture. What sort of thing is it, and how should one approach it? This is not a trap I just have a professional interest in the way people approach and think about texts.
edit: @gofarman the man's a protestant, he can be his own theologian if he damn well pleases :p
|
|
|
|
|
On September 10 2013 10:47 DBS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 09:36 Gofarman wrote:
I think we (Christians) can do without more unqualified theologians passing judgement on topics they are unfamiliar with. Debasing science to a God vs Man thing is unfair and rude. Just trying to remember hear, what did Jesus have to say to the pharisees? I'm pretty sure he didn't like them to much, and he thought that the amount of training you had did not correlate to how qualified you are to talk about faith. Thus he told us to let children teach us etc. I do get where you are coming from, but just don't write it off before it gets underway Edit: oh btw this seems cool, i will read it
But Jesus was the Son of God. Of course the Pharisees didn't know as much as he knew. Doesn't mean the Pharisees weren't wise and just Jews.
|
The Pharisees were wise, yes, but they were twisting the law of Moses and basically condemning others while making themselves look good. They were pushing people away from God rather than being righteous leaders and bringing them to God. I might be missing a couple things but I think that's the gist of it... But as far as education goes, God can use anyone at anytime for His ministry.
|
Which laws were they twisting? Didn't Jesus supercede the old laws? That doesn't necessarily imply that the old laws were being corrupted.
|
I read the blog on creation from a day ago. Out of curiosity, why do you say we should stop trying to figure out more about the origins of the universe, or stop trying to find life on Mars? Even granting that God is beyond the understanding of science, that doesn't mean we can't understand more about His creations. Surely we can at least comprehend the existence or non-existence of life on Mars without considering it evidence one way or another on God's existence.
|
I tend to think the pharisees were a bunch of obnoxious scholastics
|
Do christians masturbate(may or may not include pr0n in the masturbation)
|
On September 10 2013 12:15 ChristianS wrote:
I read the blog on creation from a day ago. Out of curiosity, why do you say we should stop trying to figure out more about the origins of the universe, or stop trying to find life on Mars? Even granting that God is beyond the understanding of science, that doesn't mean we can't understand more about His creations. Surely we can at least comprehend the existence or non-existence of life on Mars without considering it evidence one way or another on God's existence.
I'm revising the blog after work tonight because I realized how out of context it is. I was trying to pinpoint one issue in the form of two arguments, so forgive me and pay attention for an update in a few hours
|
On September 10 2013 12:45 ProV1 wrote:
Do christians masturbate(may or may not include pr0n in the masturbation)
Sorry for highjacking the blog. Yes Christians masturbate, given the statistics on masturbation  but it's sex outside of marriage between one man and one women, and ergo is considered sin.
@OP, out of interest, why did you leave the CRC and join this non-denominational church?
|
On September 10 2013 12:32 sam!zdat wrote:
I tend to think the pharisees were a bunch of obnoxious scholastics
You also probably think that Jesus was a radical communist hippie, what with his forcing the money changers out of the temple, feeding the masses, and Sermon on the Mount.
But the Pharisees were the real people's choice. They were just trying to help out the common man, reclaim Jewish independence, and return to a godly way of life that the Sadducees had largely abandoned in their decadence.
|
nah, jesus was just yr typical apocalyptic prophet, the sermon on the mount was written a lot later. The money changers thing is most likely true though and I think that's awesome, go jesus
|
I don't doubt that the Pharisees were trying to do that, but they were misguided (by who I don't know) and thought that strictly following the letter of the law was the best way to serve God. Being "the people's choice" doesn't sound so hot either considering what the people did to Jesus. I guess we all as humans have problems.
|
On September 10 2013 12:11 IgnE wrote:
Which laws were they twisting? Didn't Jesus supercede the old laws? That doesn't necessarily imply that the old laws were being corrupted.
As a single example, the Scribes and Pharasees would take laws such as "Honor the Sabbath day to keep it holy" and turn it into a legalistic thing such as the Jews would not be allowed to walk outside a certain radius of their house. They also deemed it "work" to do the mission of the church, which it obviously is not. This is why they had a problem with Jesus healing on the Sabbath, which in my mind is obviously corrupting and adding to the Law given by God.
|
On September 10 2013 13:31 slowbacontron wrote:
I don't doubt that the Pharisees were trying to do that, but they were misguided (by who I don't know) and thought that strictly following the letter of the law was the best way to serve God. Being "the people's choice" doesn't sound so hot either considering what the people did to Jesus. I guess we all as humans have problems.
They were innovators man. They believed in an oral tradition and debate of legal principles. They were about living the law, not simply empty gestures like the aristocratic Sadducees. The Pharisees get a bad rap by the Marxist reinterpreters of Jesus. It's just too bad that Paul didn't get around to vindicating them in any of his letters.
On September 10 2013 13:19 sam!zdat wrote:
nah, jesus was just yr typical apocalyptic prophet, the sermon on the mount was written a lot later. The money changers thing is most likely true though and I think that's awesome, go jesus
Marxists putting words in Jesus's mouth. They must have written that eye of the needle stuff too.
|
On September 10 2013 13:43 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 12:11 IgnE wrote:
Which laws were they twisting? Didn't Jesus supercede the old laws? That doesn't necessarily imply that the old laws were being corrupted. As a single example, the Scribes and Pharasees would take laws such as "Honor the Sabbath day to keep it holy" and turn it into a legalistic thing such as the Jews would not be allowed to walk outside a certain radius of their house. They also deemed it "work" to do the mission of the church, which it obviously is not. This is why they had a problem with Jesus healing on the Sabbath, which in my mind is obviously corrupting and adding to the Law given by God.
They really had a problem with Jesus claiming he could forgive sins, because only God can forgive sins, and they did not know who he was. I'm sure if you saw someone forgiving sins you would react the same way.
|
ha, I love that eye of the needle thing. Only most christians think it means 'all things are possible with god' with is a load of bs, jesus clearly just didn't like rich people
what should I read abt the pharisees igne
|
The Bible, it being the word of God.
If you performed a little exegesis on the eye of the needle thing you would find out that it actually referred to a gate in the city wall. The "eye of the needle" was a gate that was opened after the main gate closed at night, and was smaller than the city gate. So Jesus was saying that rich people have to go through a smaller gate to get to heaven. Probably because it was for members only.
|
On September 10 2013 14:06 IgnE wrote:
The Bible, it being the word of God.
If you performed a little exegesis on the eye of the needle thing you would find out that it actually referred to a gate in the city wall. The "eye of the needle" was a gate that was opened after the main gate closed at night, and was smaller than the city gate. So Jesus was saying that rich people have to go through a smaller gate to get to heaven. Probably because it was for members only.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for that? I've heard that "eye of the needle" explanation a million times (usually with something about how camels couldn't go through unless they crouched somehow, so you had to take all the bags and goods off the camel so it could get through the gate), but nobody ever seems to know what the source is. It's always "I heard it from someone."
Edit: This is not a criticism of you, and I don't have any particular reason to believe it's false. I just always wonder what that tidbit actually came from.
I would very much like to know why OP apparently thinks being Christian means we ought not to look for life on Mars. Seems like such a non sequitur to me, or maybe I misunderstood the passage.
|
On September 10 2013 14:06 IgnE wrote:
The Bible, it being the word of God.
If you performed a little exegesis on the eye of the needle thing you would find out that it actually referred to a gate in the city wall. The "eye of the needle" was a gate that was opened after the main gate closed at night, and was smaller than the city gate. So Jesus was saying that rich people have to go through a smaller gate to get to heaven. Probably because it was for members only.
Or that little humility does not hurt any one of us.
|
I don't know where it came from, it's just what I heard from my teachers. But you know what guys? Jesus just spoke in riddles sometimes. But luckily, as Matthew 10:23-26 says.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Anything is possible.
|
Without the "eye of the needle gate" explanation, that bit makes it sound like virtually all rich people are sinners/amoral/going to hell (and rich people specifically, not just everyone in general), but technically it's possible for rich people to make it to heaven. Almost none do, though, because their wealth is so corrupting.
That idea is in stark contrast with a lot of western/American Christians' beliefs, though. A good portion of them are ardent capitalists, some even more so than they're Christians.
|
And why would God say that the rich can't get into heaven? God rewards those who praise and serve him. Does not Paul tell us in Galatians 6 : 7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
And does not Jeremiah 17 : 10 tell us
I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds
|
On September 10 2013 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
Without the "eye of the needle gate" explanation, that bit makes it sound like virtually all rich people are sinners/amoral/going to hell (and rich people specifically, not just everyone in general), but technically it's possible for rich people to make it to heaven. Almost none do, though, because their wealth is so corrupting.
That idea is in stark contrast with a lot of western/American Christians' beliefs, though. A good portion of them are ardent capitalists, some even more so than they're Christians.
Even with the "gate" explanation, which may be unfounded, it's not saying that all rich people are going to hell, rather the focus is on God being able to do the impossible, including making rich people go to heaven.
And I don't see how capitalism is related to being corruptly wealthy. I'm guessing you're going off the whole prosperity gospel thing, where some Christians believe that because they are Christian, they are guaranteed wealth in this life based on the amount of faith they have. But not only does the Bible never promise that, but also rich Christians don't necessarily need to be corrupt. Given the example of Job (and David and Solomon, perhaps worse examples) in the Bible, we can see that fabulous wealth doesn't equate to definite massive amounts of sinning and corruptness.
|
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).
|
On September 10 2013 14:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 14:06 IgnE wrote:
The Bible, it being the word of God.
If you performed a little exegesis on the eye of the needle thing you would find out that it actually referred to a gate in the city wall. The "eye of the needle" was a gate that was opened after the main gate closed at night, and was smaller than the city gate. So Jesus was saying that rich people have to go through a smaller gate to get to heaven. Probably because it was for members only. I would very much like to know why OP apparently thinks being Christian means we ought not to look for life on Mars. Seems like such a non sequitur to me, or maybe I misunderstood the passage.
As mentioned to another, I'm currently revising it. I created that blog in a matter of 3-4 hours with a different point I was trying to get across, but it came out confusing and in the form of two or more arguments that don't compliment each other. So forgive me on that, I'm almost done fixing it... i'll post here when it's up.
|
Also guys, as far as the "rich man" topic goes, it's pretty basic. The love of money is where the corruption lies. Money itself is not bad, nor is being rich for that matter. When you find your life, hope, and security in money and possessions, it can be very hard to give that up which is what Jesus was calling the rich man to do.
Mark 10:17-25
"As Jesus was starting out his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'"
"Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young." Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. "There is still one thing you haven't done," he told him. "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!" This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard* to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"
In the paraphrase below, it reads the following:
This man wanted to be sure he would get eternal life, so he asked what he could do. He said he'd never once broken any of the laws Jesus mentioned, and perhaps he had even kept the Pharisees' additional regulations as well. But Jesus lovingly broke the man's pride with a challenge that brought out his true motives: "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor." This challenge exposed the barrier that could keep this man out of the Kingdom: his love of money. Money represented his pride of accomplishment and self-effort. Ironically, his attitude made him unable to keep the first commandment: to let nothing be more important than God. He could not meet the one requirement Jesus gave-to turn his whole heart and life over to God.
|
I don't think that's what Jesus was saying. He was calling the man out, saying he was a liar. Jesus wouldn't ask a rich person to hand over their wealth that God has blessed them with. I believe the story has Jesus call the man out, asking him to atone for his misbegotten wealth, and the man realizes that Jesus knows his falsehoods. Otherwise the story just doesn't make sense.
|
There's no indication that the rich man's wealth is misbegotten. And Jesus certainly wanted him to hand over if not his wealth, his heart, which judging by the rich man's reaction was still in "the world" or not dedicated to God.
|
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 dunno, it just seems to me like Jesus is not so much accusing this singular man of his sins as explaining the sacrifice necessary to follow God. To me his commands seem more a general teaching than specifically directed to someone.
|
Hey man, devout Christian here and I wanna say that it was both admirable and brave of you to post this on TL, but any harbor to rally other believers in a forum of discussion is always exciting! Ill see to read your blog soon, but through my journey I've found that the simplest way to have God's will revealed and just revel in the happiness he can bestow is to just follow Christ's great commission and his new commandment. To spread love, love others, and preach the gospel seems to be doing me pretty solid.
Keep on truckin mate, its just nice to see Christians on TL exist lol
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
On September 10 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote:On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: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. 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. 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?
|
On September 10 2013 17:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote:On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: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. 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. 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?
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?
|
On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
On September 10 2013 17:40 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 17:36 ChristianS wrote:On September 10 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote:On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: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. 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. 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? 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.
|
Tobberoth, I mentioned in the OP that my target audience is Christians who struggle in faith; who struggle to see a proactive God in their life and how their faith is integrated in the various topics of this world. Knowing who my target audience is, i'm going to use a different perspective and style of writing for them, and that may seem very obviously defensive to those who do not agree with me firsthand. This is not a open discussion for all religions to come in and bash and debate on it when I am strictly trying to speak in simple terms as if I am talking to one or a small group of believers who would like to know where the Christian faith lies in science and creation. You've got some balls to be doing that. If I was speaking to every human being, this would be worded differently, and dramatically.
|
On September 10 2013 17:54 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 17:40 Tobberoth wrote:On September 10 2013 17:36 ChristianS wrote:On September 10 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On September 10 2013 16:56 IronManSC wrote:On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote: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. 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. 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? 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.
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.
|
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.
|
On September 10 2013 18:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
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).
|
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
|
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.
I would say actually that to the common Christian, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is nonsense and incomprehensible, hence Voltaire's famous ridicule of it is so widely enjoyable, because it is so democratically accessible. Two things though about the Holy Trinity: first, it is generally incomprehensible because the common person isn't trained in the categories of Hellenistic metaphysics. Secondly, even in that connection, Catholic doctrine regards the Trinity as an absolute mystery, for which the theologically-correct language of familial imagery serves as a mere shadow representing an inconceivable truth.
The disconnect you describe between the mellow conservatism of the ordinary Christian and the sublime doctrines he purportedly believes is common to all religions which have some popular following. In every major religion there is such a gap between the religion of the priesthood and the folk religion.
As Macaulay once wrote: "Logicians may reason about abstractions. But the great mass of men must have images. The strong tendency of the multitude in all ages and nations to idolatry can be explained on no other principle."
That which is familiar to the Christian canon, and which has implanted some permanent prejudice upon his infant psyche, is a form of nurture which accords with the best habits of our species. In this respect a religious creed inherited differs nothing from the positive patrimony of a civilisation. Contary to common conjecture, I have never been able to discover the principle whereby an adherence to some religious creed injures some phase of higher mental development. That many Christians defend their doctrines with feeble minds and tongues I hold to be entirely incidental, for the fight of the believer against the skeptic does not suggest an equality by the very nature of things.
It is far less exertion upon the mind to be a competent skeptic than to be a competent believer, and that I hold my own skepticism in high reverence is no defense for its innate mediocrity. The superiority belongs to the poet or preacher who inspires you to see the face of perfection in the sun, the moon or the stars.
|
On September 10 2013 16:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I respectfully disagree sir. I think you will come to agree with me in a bit.
On September 10 2013 20:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
This guy seems to understand that Jesus can't have been calling out the man and telling him to abandon his wealth, just because Jesus decided to be arbitrary and capricious . Jesus has to be calling him out for being a liar, or for being sinful, because the only just and rational explanation is that the man had to give up his wealth to atone for his misbegotten wealth.
If this were not the case, why would Jesus pick on this rich man alone? What kind of Master and Savior would Jesus be if so many untold millions of rich men throughout history were able to keep and enjoy their wealth while following him, but this man had to give his up to follow Jesus? Why don't we all have to give up our meagre (or substantial) wealth and preach the good news? How do Rick Warren or Billy Graham or Oprah (all godly people, who follow his laws, and do more than most to preach his message) justify holding onto that wealth if Jesus says that you must give up all your possessions to follow him? And don't tell me that they would give up their wealth if they had to. They know in their heart of hearts that wealth is a reward from God, an inherent good, and that their godliness was a precondition for its bestowal.
They also know that Jesus would never ask one of them to give up that wealth arbitrarily. Jesus does not play favorites. Jesus is not a capricious woman, who tests her trustworthy mate for fidelity out of jealousy. Jesus is Lord, and is the source from which all wealth flows.
|
So being rich is potential evidence of godliness?
|
|
|
I don't understand why it's difficult to grasp, and I have no intention of being rude when I say that. Money is not bad. Being rich is not bad. The love of money is, because your life, hope and security are in money and possessions rather than in Jesus which is what this rich man was called to do. The love of money is a root for all kinds of evil. The Bible says you cannot serve both God and money. It seemed firsthand that God was singling out this particular man, yet he ran up to Jesus. When the man walked away, Jesus was speaking in broader terms when he said "how hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God," not any one particular man.
|
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Well i'm baptized too but i wouldn't say that i'm a Christian believer. Quite the contrary actually lol.
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God.
What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life.
Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first.
"Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver?
|
On September 10 2013 20:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
Jesus, Paul, and the disciples were also not shy about associating with sinners of all sorts, so that doesn't prove much. And the debate here is what Jesus thought, not Aquinas. Aquinas is basing that view more on Greek notions than Christian ones.
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
Pride. When you are grateful for your income and see money as a gift from God as yourself as the steward of money (care taker), you are not loving its value and instead holding God above it, because everything is God's, including money. This rich man felt accomplished of his self-effort. He was probably well-educated too and thought he had it all put together, with the mentality that could have been that money can buy anything. Even so, Jesus loved him and had compassion on him because he came to him for answers. Instead of seeing Jesus as the provider of all good things, he let his own money and possessions be in that place. The man would not humble himself. His wealth was his lord, not Jesus.
Whether or not he literally meant giving away all his possessions is beside the point. After all, when Jesus found his disciples he said "come, follow me" and they "dropped everything and followed him." While money in itself is a good thing, it is a root for all kinds of evil if it becomes more important than God. Think of an addiction like alcohol. If God told you to stop drinking alcohol, he means it literally. That alcohol is a trigger, and to give up addictions like that you have to get rid of it completely. So I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus was expecting the man to give it up completely.
|
On September 11 2013 02:46 KazeHydra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding. What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God. What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life. Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first. "Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver?
I like you.
|
also of course you could give away your money because of being too proud, and then feel proud about having given it away. Like monks who derive pleasure from denying themselves pleasure. One of paul's more profound notions imo
|
You realise that in Mark 10, Jesus not only offers rewards for those who abandon their property, but for those who abandon their families? Are we all milleniarians now?
|
Do you think you would have been religious if you had not been raised in a Catholic house?
|
On September 11 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:
You realise that in Mark 10, Jesus not only offers rewards for those who abandon their property, but for those who abandon their families? Are we all milleniarians now?
nah man delayed eschatology is where it's at. Christianity is a family values religion. Just don't tell that to paul 
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
Ever read the book of Job? Ever read about Abraham and Isaac? God has no problem in forcing people to do ridiculously cruel things to prove they would for him.
|
On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding.
Here's the thing. You're right in saying that God does not ask every rich person to sell everything and give it all away. You're riight in saying that wealth is a gift from God. But it's no perversion to say that if God himself came down and told you to give it all away and you refusing is in fact loving money more that God. Allow me to explain. Idolatry is, at it's core, taking a good gift from God and putting more worth on it that it really deserves. It's a matter of priorities, and wealth does not and cannot come before God. Therefore, Jesus's command to this man, as God himself, should supercede everything else. The only non-sinful thing to do in that situation is say "Yes, Lord, I will" and do it. Now, the passage doesn't actually say what the Rich Young Ruler did after speaking with Jesus. All we know is that he was saddened. Instead of joyfully doing what God had commanded, he wanted to hold his wealth back from God and say "This is mine, not yours". And THAT is why Jesus asked him to do this. Because he wanted to show the man that even if he had kept the Law at it's face value, he was not prepared to give everything to God and trust God to take care of him. He was holding something back, and that is a sin against God.
Also, wealth being a sign of salvation is false. Yes, God will in time give great gifts to his children, but NOWHERE in the bible is that promise part of this life. In God's eyes, a wealthy man is no different from the poorest of the poor. All are sinners and bring nothing to the table. God can just as easily save a rich man as a poor man and there is no guarantee that the poor man's situation will change at all because he knows God.
|
This argument that Jesus has to treat every rich man in all of time the same seems like it will defeat itself pretty quickly, IgnE. Even if you're right that the rich man's wealth was sinfully obtained (despite no actual scriptural evidence to this effect), what about all the other millions of rich men throughout history that obtained their wealth sinfully? Jesus never appeared directly to them and told them to give up their wealth and follow him. The parable of the workers seems relevant here – it may seem unfair to you, but based on scripture, God doesn't seem to have any commitment to treating every human in all of time exactly equally, at least in this life.
|
yes, that's how christianity got co-opted by the counterrevolution. 'don't worry if things are unfair in this life, because in heaven everything is fine'. C.f. Also 'jesus was good so that means I don't have to be, because nobody is perfect like jesus.' bunch of bullcrap
|
On September 11 2013 05:26 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that's how christianity got co-opted by the counterrevolution. 'don't worry if things are unfair in this life, because in heaven everything is fine'.
What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9.
C.f. Also 'jesus was good so that means I don't have to be, because nobody is perfect like jesus.' bunch of bullcrap
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21
While we don't "have" to be perfect, because of Christ's work on the cross, that doesn't exempt us from being righteous followers of Christ. However, our works, our righteousness, has no effect on our salvation. As in Ephesians 2:8-9 (above), our works do not save us. Even our faith is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves. We have no boast that it is our works that caused our salvation, as it is exclusively the work of God.
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" - Romans 6:1-2 (and all of Romans 6 really). The Bible is clear that our salvation through Christ does not give us license to sin; however, our motivations to be righteous and do good works no longer stem from an attempt to meet the impossible requirements of the law, but rather our works stem from a desire to follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and express our gratitude to Him for all He's done for us.
|
On September 11 2013 07:26 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 05:26 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that's how christianity got co-opted by the counterrevolution. 'don't worry if things are unfair in this life, because in heaven everything is fine'. What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9. Show nested quote +
C.f. Also 'jesus was good so that means I don't have to be, because nobody is perfect like jesus.' bunch of bullcrap
" For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21 While we don't "have" to be perfect, because of Christ's work on the cross, that doesn't exempt us from being righteous followers of Christ. However, our works, our righteousness, has no effect on our salvation. As in Ephesians 2:8-9 (above), our works do not save us. Even our faith is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves. We have no boast that it is our works that caused our salvation, as it is exclusively the work of God. " What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" - Romans 6:1-2 (and all of Romans 6 really). The Bible is clear that our salvation through Christ does not give us license to sin; however, our motivations to be righteous and do good works no longer stem from an attempt to meet the impossible requirements of the law, but rather our works stem from a desire to follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and express our gratitude to Him for all He's done for us.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
bah, faith and not works is a bunch of lutheran nonsense. Reduces the whole thing to a bunch of empty piety. Any religion that doesn't make you do something real is a religion not worth having.
by unfair I mean economic and social injustice. Don't worry that you're poor and oppressed little christian, in the afterlife you and the tyrant will hold hands and sing kumbaya. Bollocks. 'the messiah comes not only as the redeemer, but also as victor over the antichrist.' as wally b puts it. ( He's just some commie jew though what does he know, right )
|
On September 11 2013 05:26 Birdie wrote:
What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9.
No, that would just be more immoral nonsense that doesn't live up to even the standards of prisons in third world countries. In the moral world, we don't punish people when they haven't done anything wrong. Unless you subscribe to divine command theory, a strange little ideology that says that things that we know are immoral are actually moral because God did them.
It's considered especially heinous to punish someone for the crimes of their ancestors.
|
I really hope that this thread continues for a while. As of four months ago, I'm no longer a Christian. I believe that there is a God, but I'm unsure of what His role actually is, now that the world itself is formed. But as a non-believer I now find the Bible way more interesting and easier to discuss. However, I'm still not that well versed in it, so I won't be able to contribute for a time.
|
On September 11 2013 07:41 sam!zdat wrote:bah, faith and not works is a bunch of lutheran nonsense. Reduces the whole thing to a bunch of empty piety. Any religion that doesn't make you do something real is a religion not worth having. by unfair I mean economic and social injustice. Don't worry that you're poor and oppressed little christian, in the afterlife you and the tyrant will hold hands and sing kumbaya. Bollocks. 'the messiah comes not only as the redeemer, but also as victor over the antichrist.' as wally b puts it. ( He's just some commie jew though what does he know, right )
You haven't refuted the Bible verses and explanation that I gave, merely told me "bah, nonsense". That's not much of a counter argument
On September 11 2013 07:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 05:26 sam!zdat wrote:
What do you mean by unfair? Fairness would be every single human being going to hell; only by God's grace does anyone go to heaven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9.
No, that would just be more immoral nonsense that doesn't live up to even the standards of prisons in third world countries. In the moral world, we don't punish people when they haven't done anything wrong. Unless you subscribe to divine command theory, a strange little ideology that says that things that we know are immoral are actually moral because God did them.
So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment? I won't copy paste the whole thing here, but have a look at Romans 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 3:9-31&version=NIV
The Bible is very clear that all have sinned (with the exception of God of course), and that those who sin and don't have their name written in the Book of Life (that is, those who are not saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which paid for our sins by bearing God's wrath against our sins), will go to hell.
Also, I don't believe that's Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. So if God says that working on Sunday is a sin, then that becomes an immoral act, no matter how many humans say there is nothing wrong with it.
|
On September 11 2013 04:44 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding. Here's the thing. You're right in saying that God does not ask every rich person to sell everything and give it all away. You're riight in saying that wealth is a gift from God. But it's no perversion to say that if God himself came down and told you to give it all away and you refusing is in fact loving money more that God. Allow me to explain. Idolatry is, at it's core, taking a good gift from God and putting more worth on it that it really deserves. It's a matter of priorities, and wealth does not and cannot come before God. Therefore, Jesus's command to this man, as God himself, should supercede everything else. The only non-sinful thing to do in that situation is say "Yes, Lord, I will" and do it. Now, the passage doesn't actually say what the Rich Young Ruler did after speaking with Jesus. All we know is that he was saddened. Instead of joyfully doing what God had commanded, he wanted to hold his wealth back from God and say "This is mine, not yours". And THAT is why Jesus asked him to do this. Because he wanted to show the man that even if he had kept the Law at it's face value, he was not prepared to give everything to God and trust God to take care of him. He was holding something back, and that is a sin against God. Also, wealth being a sign of salvation is false. Yes, God will in time give great gifts to his children, but NOWHERE in the bible is that promise part of this life. In God's eyes, a wealthy man is no different from the poorest of the poor. All are sinners and bring nothing to the table. God can just as easily save a rich man as a poor man and there is no guarantee that the poor man's situation will change at all because he knows God.
Psalms 128 : 2
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you.
Galatians 6 : 7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
Jeremiah 17 : 10
I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds
2 Corinthians 9 : 8
And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.
Proverbs 28 : 25
A greedy man stirs up strife, but the one who trusts in the Lord will be enriched.
On September 11 2013 02:46 KazeHydra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 02:30 IgnE wrote:
What does that even mean though? What is love of money? Why would Jesus ask the man to sell his godly wealth just to prove that he could? He doesn't ask all of us rich first world inhabitants to sell our earned wealth just to prove that we would. What kind of perversion is it to say that not wanting to throw away God's gift to you is the same as loving money above God himself? This is a common misunderstanding. What does that mean? It means he loves money more than God. What is love of money? Placing the quantity of your wealth as a priority of your life.Why would Jesus ask this to prove he could? The point is that Jesus already knew what his answer was be. He asked to show that this man, who although had kept the commandments, still did not love God first. "Just to prove we would," and "throwing away God's gift" no, but sometimes he does. Consider Abraham and Isaac. It's written quite plainly how God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, the son God had promised to give him from whom nations would rise. The fact of the matter is, God deals with individuals differently. You say he's "singling this man out" but he does that to everyone, just in different ways, in ways that need to be addressed. He understands our hearts and what the biggest obstacles are in our life, obstacles that may not be understood by outsiders. For this man, it was his love of wealth. For others who are rich, it may be something completely different. Just because it came from God doesn't mean you get to hold onto it forever even if God tells you to give it away. It sounds a bit childish to me if you say "well it was a gift from you so I'm not giving it back even if you tell me to." How does this not seem like you are loving the gift more than the giver?
I respectfully disagree. I think you have it wrong. All good Christian business owners strive to enrich their businesses. America is the greatest country in the world because it is the best place to do business in the world. Working hard at a business and building your wealth while living a godly life is the epitome of holiness. Jesus came to overturn the Old Testament. He would not ask this man to turn over his wealth on a whim, just to prove that he enjoyed his godly wealth. He does it because he knows the man is inherently sinful.
I am not saying that you get to hold onto what God has given you forever. That would be borderline blasphemous. But if the rich man in the story is about rich men in general then Jesus doesn't seem to be making any sense, which is plainly not a correct interpretation. All rich men in this world value their money, because it is meet and right so to do. Why aren't all godly men giving away their money to the poor and spending their entire lives dedicated to spreading the good news? Because that is not what God intended. God intended for the righteous to enjoy their wealth as good stewards.
He simply would not single out one man to give up his wealth if it were actually true that being rich made it nigh impossible to go to heaven. Does he not live all people? Including the rich? He does not call on all rich men to give up their wealth and follow him so as to get into heaven. The best, and correct interpretation therefore, is that the rich man in the story was not a godly man. He had to give up his riches to atone for his sins if he wanted to reach heaven. Those who hold onto their misbegotten riches will never make it into heaven, they must give it up, and accept their punishment here on earth to avoid it in hell.
|
So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment? I won't copy paste the whole thing here, but have a look at Romans 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 3:9-31&version=NIVThe Bible is very clear that all have sinned (with the exception of God of course), and that those who sin and don't have their name written in the Book of Life (that is, those who are not saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which paid for our sins by bearing God's wrath against our sins), will go to hell. Also, I don't believe that's Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. So if God says that working on Sunday is a sin, then that becomes an immoral act, no matter how many humans say there is nothing wrong with it.
Strawman argument. Which won't work against someone that's rather well schooled in logical fallacies. You imply that I said that "all people in this world have never done anything wrong" when I didn't, and then followed with my conclusion. It seems to be a rather weak attempt at reductio ad absurdem.
Yes, the Bible is very clear that all have sinned, but I contest that (A) The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Eternal sentences for finite crime makes no sense, and would of course never pass thru a legal system even if we did have eternal life. and (B) It's not clear that all 6 billion people on the planet have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. Unless that crime is "adam and eve were my ancestors" in which case, we don't punish people for the crimes of their ancestors. That's barbaric.
So the Bible fails on both counts of morality unless you have some sort of strange divine command theory. But then if you don't believe in divine command theory, which means that you must grant that there is a rule even higher than God's rule. If morality is determined outside of God, you're contradicting the properties that are granted to God by traditional theology.
|
Most of those verses you gave do not talk about material wealth, to the very best of my knowledge. The Psalms passage doesn't say anything about being wealthy, but rather if you work, you will eat, or words to that effect.
Reaping what you sow is usually referring to your works; do good works and you will have good done unto you, do bad works and you'll have bad done unto you. The Jeremiah and Corinthians passages are also talking about works, rather than material wealth. The Proverbs passage appears to be talking about material wealth, but unfortunately no one is very good at trusting in the Lord While the Bible does promise that God will take care of the material needs of His people, it does not say that they will be wealthy. Indeed, usually the Bible speaks of wealth as being more of a curse than a blessing, because it often creates reliance on wealth instead of reliance on God. Poverty is also usually considered a negative thing; middle class all the way baby!
I think the problem with your interpretation of the rich man being told to give up his riches is not that it refers just to him, but rather that you are suggesting that his riches were in some way misbegotten. We have no way of knowing that. What we do know is that Jesus told him that his riches were getting in the way of him and God, and he had to give up his wealth if he wanted to be a follower of Christ. It appears to be that he was unwilling to do so, because he loved his wealth more than he loved God.
Certainly you are correct that he didn't follow God's law correctly; no one has. But instead of trying to argue with him on that point, Jesus wisely chose to request of him the one thing that he was unwilling to do: give up his wealth.
EDIT
On September 11 2013 08:12 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment? I won't copy paste the whole thing here, but have a look at Romans 3: -31&version=NIV" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 3 -31&version=NIVThe Bible is very clear that all have sinned (with the exception of God of course), and that those who sin and don't have their name written in the Book of Life (that is, those who are not saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which paid for our sins by bearing God's wrath against our sins), will go to hell. Also, I don't believe that's Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is the theory that morality is determined by God. So if God says that working on Sunday is a sin, then that becomes an immoral act, no matter how many humans say there is nothing wrong with it. Strawman argument. Which won't work against someone that's rather well schooled in logical fallacies. You imply that I said that "all people in this world have never done anything wrong" when I didn't, and then followed with my conclusion. It seems to be a rather weak attempt at reductio ad absurdem. Yes, the Bible is very clear that all have sinned, but I contest that (A) The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Eternal sentences for finite crime makes no sense, and would of course never pass thru a legal system even if we did have eternal life. and (B) It's not clear that all 6 billion people on the planet have committed a crime worthy of being punished for. Unless that crime is "adam and eve were my ancestors" in which case, we don't punish people for the crimes of their ancestors. That's barbaric. So the Bible fails on both counts of morality unless you have some sort of strange divine command theory. But then if you don't believe in divine command theory, which means that you must grant that there is a rule even higher than God's rule. If morality is determined outside of God, you're contradicting the properties that are granted to God by traditional theology.
I wasn't straw-manning you, I was asking a question because I was unsure if you were suggesting that all people in this world have never done anything wrong. It seemed like you MAY think that, so I asked "So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment?" Instead you have clarified that you don't think that all people of this world have done anything wrong worthy of being punished for eternally, which is still fairly well dealt with by what I said. However, to clarify, God considers the tiniest of sins in man's eyes to be a huge black mark against that person who committed that tiniest of sins. Even the slightest sin is immediately worthy of punishment in hell. You see, the minimum requirements for us to reach heaven is perfection. Anything, even the tiniest of sins, which means we are less than that minimum requirement, immediately puts us into debt. And the debtor's prison of sin is hell.
All 7* billion people on the planet have sinned, so they all have committed a crime worthy of being punished for.
I do believe in divine command theory (that is, that the God of the Bible determines what is moral and what is immoral). And because of that, it is perfectly just for God to punish small sins with eternal punishment. However, I would further contest that there is no one in this world who has only ever done a tiny sin. Rather, everyone in this world continually sins, in every way possible, in thought, word, and deed. We are not dealing with a case of a cent gone missing, but rather millions of dollars worth of debt being accumulated by every person in this world.
|
On September 11 2013 07:53 Fumanchu wrote:
I really hope that this thread continues for a while. As of four months ago, I'm no longer a Christian. I believe that there is a God, but I'm unsure of what His role actually is, now that the world itself is formed. But as a non-believer I now find the Bible way more interesting and easier to discuss. However, I'm still not that well versed in it, so I won't be able to contribute for a time.
the bible is a fascinating document and absolutely worth the time spent thinking seriously about it. Now that you don't fetishize it as Divine Truth you might actually learn something interesting from reading it (anybody who thinks it is a monolithic text with a single coherent viewpoint cannot understand it. The bible is not a book it is a library). I highly highly recommend that you watch the free lectures available on both the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu. Absolutely fascinating, and absolutely crucial for anyone who wants to understand the first thing about western civilization.
birdie you can make the book say whatever you want. It is large and contains multitudes. Some of the passages you cite are pseudo-paul and part of the counterrevolution as the subversive influence of christianity was reabsorbed into the roman familias. Of course they say that. Remember the devil also comes quoting scripture (i should know I am such a devil). The devil wrote some of the scripture, too. How you like dem apples?
|
IgnE, if you're just going to nitpick at one part that can be interpreted differently than intended (I admit, it was worded poorly; I should've said "placing the quantity of your wealth as the priority of your life" but maybe you'll twist that wording to something I didn't intend again) and ignore the rest of my and others' arguments and points while rehashing your stance, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.
Although I'd really like to know what "because he knows the man is inherently sinful" is supposed to do for your argument, given that everyone is inherently sinful and is reflective of pretty much nothing in this context.
|
On September 11 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
birdie you can make the book say whatever you want. It is large and contains multitudes. Some of the passages you cite are pseudo-paul and part of the counterrevolution as the subversive influence of christianity was reabsorbed into the roman familias. Of course they say that. Remember the devil also comes quoting scripture (i should know I am such a devil). The devil wrote some of the scripture, too. How you like dem apples?
Given that we are in a topic addressed to Christians, talking about Christian things, I think it's reasonable that we work off the Bible as the basis for our argument. Not only are you not arguing from the Bible, you're not even attempting to refute anything said. You are not contributing anything to the discussion, but are merely saying that I can twist the Bible to say what I want, and that it's a big book, and then some un-supported claims about pseudo-paul and counterrevolutions. Not only does that lack any meaningful contribution, but it's very poor form for any kind of reasonable discussion among intellectuals. I suggest you not only try to take a stance with arguments stemming from the Bible (or other sources if you really want to), but that you cease trying to cast off contrary positions without every addressing the issue itself.
|
I wasn't straw-manning you, I was asking a question because I was unsure if you were suggesting that all people in this world have never done anything wrong. It seemed like you MAY think that, so I asked "So you are of the opinion that most/all people in this world have never done anything wrong, and therefore don't deserve punishment?" Instead you have clarified that you don't think that all people of this world have done anything wrong worthy of being punished for eternally, which is still fairly well dealt with by what I said. However, to clarify, God considers the tiniest of sins in man's eyes to be a huge black mark against that person who committed that tiniest of sins. Even the slightest sin is immediately worthy of punishment in hell. You see, the minimum requirements for us to reach heaven is perfection. Anything, even the tiniest of sins, which means we are less than that minimum requirement, immediately puts us into debt. And the debtor's prison of sin is hell.
All 7* billion people on the planet have sinned, so they all have committed a crime worthy of being punished for.
Warning, rather nsfw and disturbing link ahead: http://www.chinanavis.com/horrible-photos-hospital-incubator-killed-a-chinese-baby-1510011
So what sin is that kid being punished for? Might as well just admit that God is punishing people not necessarily because they have sinned (as some who die are not old enough to sin) but because of the crimes of their ancestors. Which in even the third world country prisons, would be considered immoral.
It's nice that you bring up debt, because that's really what it's all about. We 'owed' God because we were such horrible creatures (how dare we exist and stuff), and people realized that it was ridiculous that we were going to hell no matter what. Makes for a rather unpopular religion. Until you get to the New Testament, which fancily enough revived a dying religion. So some people (like Paul) had a really great solution to this problem (why believe in somebody that's gonna punish you no matter what you do). So we can be *forgiven*. But here's the catch. You can't ever pay back the debt. You have the sacrifice, but now you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice. I think the debtor is an excellent analogy, and just more evidence as to why I think God is immoral by secular standards. People are not born into debt anymore in moral, secular society.
Only slaves are born into debt.
A debt requires consent. As no one (except Christians) consented to the deal, I think it's an immoral one. In the secular, moral world, we would not require you to pay back a debt to a bank for example, if you had never consented to them loaning you anything.
|
shinosai, just curious, what do you mean by "you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice"? Jesus' sacrifice is a gift from God, free of charge. You only have to accept it. If you mean there are "strings attached" and now you must obey all his rules, then, while I would disagree as it is more of a 2-way relationship and not some debt we must pay back, at least I understand what you mean (I'm just unclear atm).
|
On September 11 2013 08:52 KazeHydra wrote:
shinosai, just curious, what do you mean by "you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice"? Jesus' sacrifice is a gift from God, free of charge. You only have to accept it. If you mean there are "strings attached" and now you must obey all his rules, then, while I would disagree as it is more of a 2-way relationship and not some debt we must pay back, at least I understand what you mean (I'm just unclear atm).
What I mean is that it is clear that you haven't escaped the debt. The payment is in the form of 'acceptance.' (And obviously you kind of owe God one for giving you this sweet deal, he sacrificed his son for you, so you *have* to love him) Now obviously if you're Christian this seems totally reasonable, because yay Jesus, but from my perspective, this is just more stuff tacked on to a deal that has no consent from the second party (humanity).
edited for clarity.
|
On September 11 2013 08:54 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 08:52 KazeHydra wrote:
shinosai, just curious, what do you mean by "you *owe* God for Jesus' sacrifice"? Jesus' sacrifice is a gift from God, free of charge. You only have to accept it. If you mean there are "strings attached" and now you must obey all his rules, then, while I would disagree as it is more of a 2-way relationship and not some debt we must pay back, at least I understand what you mean (I'm just unclear atm). What I mean is that it is clear that you haven't escaped the debt. The payment is in the form of 'acceptance.' (And obviously you kind of owe God one for giving you this sweet deal, he sacrificed his son for you, so you *have* to love him) Now obviously if you're Christian this seems totally reasonable, because yay Jesus, but from my perspective, this is just more stuff tacked on to a deal that has no consent from the second party (humanity). edited for clarity.
The way I see it, (and I understand and agree that as a Christian, this is a biased yay Jesus view) it is similar to a random stranger coming up to you (let's arbitrarily say you are in debt of 10 million) and offering to give you that money free of charge. If you accept that money, you are no longer in debt, right? The acceptance itself doesn't cost you any money, so there's no payment happening here...like, I'd understand if you take issue with what comes next (loving God, etc.) but if this hypothetical situation occurred, you could technically take the money, forget about the guy, and never pay him back. What did that acceptance really cost you? This might get tangential if we bring in "well now you HAVE to love God" etc. but I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Hmm but I understand this stems from your dislike of the idea that we are born with this debt in the first place. I think that's a fair issue, but if we act under that assumption to be true, how is the acceptance of forgiveness a debt in and of itself?
On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself.
Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you.
|
On September 11 2013 08:28 KazeHydra wrote:
IgnE, if you're just going to nitpick at one part that can be interpreted differently than intended (I admit, it was worded poorly; I should've said "placing the quantity of your wealth as the priority of your life" but maybe you'll twist that wording to something I didn't intend again) and ignore the rest of my and others' arguments and points while rehashing your stance, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.
Although I'd really like to know what "because he knows the man is inherently sinful" is supposed to do for your argument, given that everyone is inherently sinful and is reflective of pretty much nothing in this context.
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself.
I am arguing that the man is not a godly rich person who built his wealth in righteous ways. Jesus knows the man is inherently sinful, in that he does not deserve the riches he has like other wealthy Christians do. This allows us a third possibility: C) Jesus is asking him to give up his riches to atone for the sin of his misbegotten wealth. We have to read between the lines a bit, but it jives with the rest of the Bible and makes sense, because God wants us to be good stewards of the wealth that he rewards us with when we live godly lives.
|
On September 11 2013 09:11 KazeHydra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you.
You say that Jesus knew the man wouldn't give up his wealth when asked. Who would give up their wealth when asked? Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man? It just makes no sense. Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth? Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk? I think it's because you don't really believe that.
|
On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself.
I am arguing that the man is not a godly rich person who built his wealth in righteous ways. Jesus knows the man is inherently sinful, in that he does not deserve the riches he has like other wealthy Christians do. This allows us a third possibility: C) Jesus is asking him to give up his riches to atone for the sin of his misbegotten wealth. We have to read between the lines a bit, but it jives with the rest of the Bible and makes sense, because God wants us to be good stewards of the wealth that he rewards us with when we live godly lives.
But in the book of Acts all christians had to donate all their land and money to the church before joining IIRC
Furthermore Jesus did expect his followers forsake everything from what I've read. He says so quite directly at Luke 14:26 even some parables support that view, like how a merchant sells everything for that valuable pearl or a seed must die before if can become a tree and bear fruit.
It seems you start with the assumption that god is good and just and then read the bible instead of reading the bible and then coming to the conclusion that god is just from that. The churches I've been to seem to preach a much happier, palatable message than what the bible does, which I find to be a bit unnerving as someone who tried to get into the whole religious thing before.
|
On September 11 2013 09:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 09:11 KazeHydra wrote:On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you. You say that Jesus knew the man wouldn't give up his wealth when asked. Who would give up their wealth when asked? Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man? It just makes no sense. Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth? Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk? I think it's because you don't really believe that.
I don't understand how you can take a passage so literally, yet add your own interpretation that isn't there. It's a metaphor, everyone doesn't have to give up their wealth, but they must not choose their wealth over God, that is all it means.
|
On September 11 2013 09:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 09:11 KazeHydra wrote:On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you. You say that Jesus knew the man wouldn't give up his wealth when asked. Who would give up their wealth when asked? Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man? It just makes no sense. Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth? Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk? I think it's because you don't really believe that.
Let me answer each of your questions in turn. I doubt you'll accept my viewpoint, but whatever.
1. "Who would give up their wealth when asked?" Anyone who would unquestioningly follow what Jesus, the God and Creator of the Universe told them. Like I tried to say before, it's a matter of priorities. If your priority is following Jesus, if he told you to do something, you'd do it. Do you disagree that if Jesus asked you personally to do something you'd do it even if maybe you didn't want to?
2. "Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man?" Because the wealth wasn't the point. The message here isn't "It's better to poor than rich" and it's not "it's better to be rich than poor". The message is much more broad than that. The message is to trust Jesus with your life. The comment about it being hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven also applies to poor people. Without God, no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and I think that's what Jesus was getting at more than rich vs. poor and giving away possessions.
3. "Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth?" I think this is kinda covered in what I just said. Again, it's not really about the wealth, it just happened to be that man's vice. If it was a different man, Jesus might have just as easily said "One thing you lack. Stop being mean to people". It just happened that money was what this rich man loved. In my alternate statement, maybe it was a rich man who instead of idolizing money made snide comments to people.
4. "Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk?" You're right. It's cause he (and I) doesn't believe what you think he's talking about. Of course we're not called to live like monks and your use of reductio ad absurdum (reducing an argument to an absurd conclusion) is very much incorrect.
|
On September 11 2013 10:09 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 09:40 IgnE wrote:On September 11 2013 09:11 KazeHydra wrote:On September 11 2013 09:12 IgnE wrote:
I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying your arguments can't be right, because according to you either A) Jesus is a capricious and unjust God or B) Jesus says that all men must give up their wealth and dedicate their whole lives to spreading the word. Both seem clearly wrong here, but those are the only two possibilities that you leave open for yourself. Seriously? All you did was interpret my arguments in some inconceivable way and say I'm wrong. You have not addressed them at all in any way. I really feel like you are a troll at this point and if you aren't, I find it pathetic I can enjoy a religious discussion on the internet, of all places, with an atheist better than with you. You say that Jesus knew the man wouldn't give up his wealth when asked. Who would give up their wealth when asked? Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man? It just makes no sense. Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth? Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk? I think it's because you don't really believe that. Let me answer each of your questions in turn. I doubt you'll accept my viewpoint, but whatever. 1. "Who would give up their wealth when asked?" Anyone who would unquestioningly follow what Jesus, the God and Creator of the Universe told them. Like I tried to say before, it's a matter of priorities. If your priority is following Jesus, if he told you to do something, you'd do it. Do you disagree that if Jesus asked you personally to do something you'd do it even if maybe you didn't want to? 2. "Why would Jesus ask that of one rich man but not every rich man?" Because the wealth wasn't the point. The message here isn't "It's better to poor than rich" and it's not "it's better to be rich than poor". The message is much more broad than that. The message is to trust Jesus with your life. The comment about it being hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven also applies to poor people. Without God, no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and I think that's what Jesus was getting at more than rich vs. poor and giving away possessions. 3. "Shouldn't all rich people give up their wealth if it were really and truly almost impossible to get into heaven with wealth?" I think this is kinda covered in what I just said. Again, it's not really about the wealth, it just happened to be that man's vice. If it was a different man, Jesus might have just as easily said "One thing you lack. Stop being mean to people". It just happened that money was what this rich man loved. In my alternate statement, maybe it was a rich man who instead of idolizing money made snide comments to people. 4. "Why aren't you living like an ascetic monk?" You're right. It's cause he (and I) doesn't believe what you think he's talking about. Of course we're not called to live like monks and your use of reductio ad absurdum (reducing an argument to an absurd conclusion) is very much incorrect.
1. How do you know Jesus isn't calling you to give up your wealth and follow him?
2. How do you know that Jesus isn't calling everyone to give up their wealth and follow him?
3. Why are people engaged in worldly pursuits as Christians at all? Isn't the point of working at a job to make money? To increase your wealth? And doesn't God reward those who do well at it?
4. I'm not trying to make this absurd. I just lay out the points as I see them. I think it's much more likely that Jesus is calling this man out to atone for sins by giving up his wealth. Wealth is a reward for a godly life. Poverty is a punishment for an ungodly one. Giving up your wealth and following him sounds like a path of atonement to me. It's right in the text.
|
On September 11 2013 08:31 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
birdie you can make the book say whatever you want. It is large and contains multitudes. Some of the passages you cite are pseudo-paul and part of the counterrevolution as the subversive influence of christianity was reabsorbed into the roman familias. Of course they say that. Remember the devil also comes quoting scripture (i should know I am such a devil). The devil wrote some of the scripture, too. How you like dem apples? Given that we are in a topic addressed to Christians, talking about Christian things, I think it's reasonable that we work off the Bible as the basis for our argument. Not only are you not arguing from the Bible, you're not even attempting to refute anything said. You are not contributing anything to the discussion, but are merely saying that I can twist the Bible to say what I want, and that it's a big book, and then some un-supported claims about pseudo-paul and counterrevolutions. Not only does that lack any meaningful contribution, but it's very poor form for any kind of reasonable discussion among intellectuals. I suggest you not only try to take a stance with arguments stemming from the Bible (or other sources if you really want to), but that you cease trying to cast off contrary positions without every addressing the issue itself.
The OP stated that non Christians could participate in discussion as long as they are open minded, but restricting discussion to bible passages seems decidedly closed minded in my opinion. If you want to have a reasonable discussion among intellectuals, you should be able to consider other viewpoints, that do not stem from the bible, especially with concepts like faith which directly affect the way you interpret the bible.
Sam is arguing against faith over action in general, not just with regards to Christianity, so there is really no need for him to refute the bible passages because (I think) his position would be that the passages don't have any intrinsic value, but that it is only what we take from them that is important.
The idea of faith based salvation bothers me quite a bit, because it just doesn't make sense to me. It's not the idea of faith in God that I struggle with, it's asking me to have faith in man that is telling me what God is and what he expects that I just can't bring myself to do. It's not necessarily that I don't believe the miracles in the bible happened because I think they are scientifically impossible (though admittedly it plays a part), it's that I feel it is more likely that some parts were exaggerated or fabricated to attract followers or send a message*.
So the part that I don't get is why God would bless me with the ability to think critically, yet condemn me as a non believer to eternal damnation just for coming to the wrong (yet perfectly reasonable) conclusion. The thing is I am not opposed to the idea of a creator, but nothing I have experienced to date has convinced me that any of the current major religions are anything other than products of man.
*Note these are purely my beliefs and I am not trying to argue their validity or to push them onto anybody else.
|
On September 11 2013 08:09 IgnE wrote:
All good Christian business owners strive to enrich their businesses. America is the greatest country in the world because it is the best place to do business in the world. Working hard at a business and building your wealth while living a godly life is the epitome of holiness. Jesus came to overturn the Old Testament. He would not ask this man to turn over his wealth on a whim, just to prove that he enjoyed his godly wealth. He does it because he knows the man is inherently sinful.
How about this: The greatest country in the world is China because it's the best place to do business. Since the vast vast vast majority of Chinese will burn in hell (because they aren't christian), it seems like God is taking a definite stance.
Makes you think, huh.
|
China is a communist state that will collapse like the Soviet Union did, within our lifetimes.
|
They're sure not showing signs of it. And unlike the Soviet Union, they've got a thriving free market
|
On September 11 2013 16:55 IgnE wrote:
China is a communist state that will collapse like the Soviet Union did, within our lifetimes.
China is communist in name only. Honestly, they are more like totalitarian capitalists than communists at this point.
|
On September 11 2013 16:55 IgnE wrote:
China is a communist state that will collapse like the Soviet Union did, within our lifetimes.
It might be easy for you to make a blanket statement about a country you do not give a zero fuck about or know a zero fuck about. But as a person who lived in China for 10 years, it is an incredibly shitty thing to hear someone say. If you don't have any constructive arguments or are not willing to discuss it, don't just throw around something so ridiculous and controversial.
If I were to go around forums going "the US is gonna collapse because of these bible-thumping Christians" and then walk away, would you be pissed?
|
What pisses me off is you guys derailing the thread. The whole purpose of this thread was to tell other christians that I made a blog, and to talk about Christian things. My target audience is christians, so obviously my writing style will be more understanding to them. Obviously though, people are ignorant and overlook that, calling me close minded because of my intention to make it more "christians only." I invited non-christians to participate if they were open-minded to my subjects and were more curious rather than hit us upside the head and ask "what say you?!" And so, to go from faith and science to communism is downright unnecessary and offensive and stupid, to me at least. Now you guys are arguing just for the sake of it. I find it increasingly difficult for Christians to just talk about stuff anywhere outside of church without someone, or a group of people derailing it.
|
On September 12 2013 01:24 IronManSC wrote:
What pisses me off is you guys derailing the thread. The whole purpose of this thread was to tell other christians that I made a blog, and to talk about Christian things. My target audience is christians, so obviously my writing style will be more understanding to them. Obviously though, people are ignorant and overlook that, calling me close minded because of my intention to make it more "christians only." I invited non-christians to participate if they were open-minded to my subjects and were more curious rather than hit us upside the head and ask "what say you?!" And so, to go from faith and science to communism is downright unnecessary and offensive and stupid, to me at least. Now you guys are arguing just for the sake of it. I find it increasingly difficult for Christians to just talk about stuff anywhere outside of church without someone, or a group of people derailing it.
Maybe you'll realize an open international forum isn't a great place to discuss specific religious ideas, as the majority of the world isn't Christian.
|
My newest blog is now published, entitled God told me to "wait a couple seconds"
check it out!
|
|
|
Hi IronManSC
I just wanted to thank you for this blog!
I've recently stopped visiting TL as much as I used to. That's why I'm happy I found this blog this morning! I've been praying in the same spirit like you have, and I have asked God for guidance in his ways and wisdom to live after his will and to be drawn closer to him. I have long been aware of the path of faith that you write about, though my biggest problem here is actually walking in faith everyday and seeing what his will is everday. I'm thankful you shared your blog here, and I will be following it. I believe that you did not share this by chance. I feel I'm in very similar situation. I'm looking forward to following you in a journey. Thank you =)
|
I used to Christian and now I consider myself agnostic.
Christian views on homosexuality really got to me. What are your thoughts?
|
Hi IronmanSC
I don't play SC2, but I sometimes follow the results of big tournies. It's really cool you made Ohana.
I'll definitely check out your blogs and comment on it if theres anything I want to comment on.
|
On September 12 2013 15:24 IgnE wrote:
Coincidence?
That was an extremely lucky thought if it was by coincidence, because I never sit at a light and think to wait a few seconds after the light turns green. The odds are against me in that regard. With the way it was all set up and the fact that it actually happened, I am convinced it was God who put that thought in my mind. Even if I was still confused on whether it was really God or not, the circumstances point to him and faith helps me understand that, thus I would be giving him the glory anyways.
When we get to heaven, I think we will be shocked when God reveals to us just how much he actually did in our normal day-to-day life and how much of it we ignored or failed to recognize because all too often we expect something dramatic to occur.
|
On September 12 2013 18:41 mizU wrote:
I used to Christian and now I consider myself agnostic.
Christian views on homosexuality really got to me. What are your thoughts?
There are a lot of "christians" out there who are extremely rude when it comes to this topic. I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. God calls us to not judge, for that is his job in the end. Someone who is a homosexual is a human being, just like you and me. They being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin. As Christians, we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Repent means to turn away, to stop doing what you're doing.
In the Bible there's a story of a woman who believed she had sinned so greatly that she deserved to be stone. Everyone around her was about to stone her to death because of her abominable sin(s), yet Jesus stepped in and said "If any one of you has not sinned, let him be the first to cast a stone!" No one ended up throwing a stone. Jesus helped the woman up and told her "you are forgiven, go and sin no more." In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God.
Our calling is to love people the way that Christ loved others. While on earth, Jesus reached out to all types of people, from alcoholics, to prostitutes, to the poor, the rich, the sick, the adulterers, the murderers, the demonically possessed, the tax collectors, and many more. He even reached out to the government officials when he could. He didn't come to hang out with the humble believers, he came to save those who are lost and make a way to be made forever right with God, the One who created you.
There is no reason why God can not, and will not reach out to someone in homosexuality if he chooses. I am sure there are plenty of true Christians who once were a homosexual, though I've never known any personally. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones. No sin is greater than another. Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. All sins are forgivable by God except for one: the deliberate refusal in the heart to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God - to reject Christ as Lord and Savior, who died for you. I believe God gives many chances for people to turn to him, because he is gracious and merciful like that. But, there does come a point of no return.
One may argue that homosexuality is genetic and you therefore didn't choose to do it, it's just who you are. I believe that we are all born into sin. From the moment we breathe, we are in need of God's grace. No one teaches their child to say "mine!" when playing with toys. It's our sinful nature that teaches us that we are the god of our own lives and that we can make whatever decisions we want that makes us happy. If anyone lives a lifestyle of homosexuality, it's because they chose to practice it. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean you have to act on it, and just because it's a desire you have doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you and that you should pursue it. (I'm not going to argue about this topic).
Anyway that's my pretty basic view on it. I hope it makes sense.
|
On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God.
Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin?
I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop?
|
On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning.
+ Show Spoiler +[homosexuals...] being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. . ..... ...... .......
|
On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop?
Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God?
|
On September 13 2013 03:03 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. + Show Spoiler +[homosexuals...] being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. . ..... ...... .......
You're taking that out of context. That's not me being condemning or judgmental. That's me speaking the truth. In fact, i'm equalizing that one sin is not greater than another, and therefore we have no right to put down those who are trapped in any particular sin because we are just as guilty as them. As Christians we are to love them and gently restore them; by means of restoring them to a relationship with God. If that is what you call "judgmental" then you're basically saying that Christians can not say a single word about any matter in life.
|
On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God?
With all due respect, you think* it's a sin in the eyes of God just like I think it's not the case. If your body craves something and it doesn't hurt anybody, then do it. I personally make my opinion of myself and others based on their actions on the 'real' world, not based on the irrational preferences of one God or another.
Plus if all sins are equals and Christians can't even be bothered not to wear clothes made of different types of fabric, why would homosexuals go through the massive difficulty of stifling a huge part of their personality and their urges? If Christians can't even be bothered not to work on Sundays, perhaps sins can be largely ignored as a factor when deciding whether certain human behaviors are acceptable.
|
On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God?
As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this.
At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way.
Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message.
|
On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message.
You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live.
|
On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message. You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live.
If you truly believe what you say, then you do agree with the part of Leviticus wherein God says that disobedient teenagers ought to be stoned to death. Why do you get to select the things you like? More importantly, when you bend the rules in order to answer my question, how can you believe yourself when you need to be so hypocritical to defend your doctrine?
|
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life[...]
Emphasis mine, prolly an old translation, I can't cite the exact verse but this is what the bible teaches. The wages of [insert sin here] is death. Be it being a disobedient teenager or whatever else the bible commands against, which includes homosexuality. That doesn't mean we should go around killing everybody who has sinned.
For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God
Nobody is advocating the mass-murder of the human race here.
|
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God.
|
On September 13 2013 03:39 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message. You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live. If you truly believe what you say, then you do agree with the part of Leviticus wherein God says that disobedient teenagers ought to be stoned to death. Why do you get to select the things you like? More importantly, when you bend the rules in order to answer my question, how can you believe yourself when you need to be so hypocritical to defend your doctrine?
I'm defending my doctrine? So basically i'm a hypocrite because I still believe the Bible to be the Word of God? The hypocrite is you, who claims to be a Christian and then disregards the entire Bible.
|
On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God.
Even Jesus said he was coming back soon. Paul not only believes that, but he is re-affirming Jesus' words. Not everything God promises will happen in your lifetime. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see.
When you go all the way back to the story of Joseph being made ruler of Egypt (after being sold into slavery), he told his brothers before he died that God would come back and rescue his people (Israel), and make them a great nation. This promise was not fulfilled in these brother's lifetimes, or even in the next several generations. Over the next 400 years, the Israelites fell into slavery - something that made God's promise feel less-inclined to happen. But at the right time, when the people of Israel multiplied to great numbers, that's when God stepped in and rescued Israel by using Moses.
Go back even further in time, when God told Abraham that he would make him a father of many nations. Abraham did not live to see it, but he believed by faith that God would fulfill that promise at the right time.
|
On September 13 2013 04:20 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:39 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message. You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live. If you truly believe what you say, then you do agree with the part of Leviticus wherein God says that disobedient teenagers ought to be stoned to death. Why do you get to select the things you like? More importantly, when you bend the rules in order to answer my question, how can you believe yourself when you need to be so hypocritical to defend your doctrine? I'm defending my doctrine? So basically i'm a hypocrite because I still believe the Bible to be the Word of God? The hypocrite is you, who claims to be a Christian and then disregards the entire Bible.
I don't claim to be a Christian. And you're not a hypocrite because you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, that would be consistent. You're a hypocrite because you only believe PART of the Bible but in truth you select the parts that you want to believe. Yet you lie to yourself and to us when you say that you actually believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You clearly don't.
If you truly thought that the Bible was the word of God, then you wouldn't disregard the parts about slave trade, beating women, stoning kids to death, killing homosexuals... If you truly thought that the Bible was the word of God, you would accuse people who work on the Sabbath of being sinful. And yet, you don't, and maybe you actually do work on Sunday - millions of Christians do. And if you told me that you are against working on Sundays, I know that you'd be lying for this argument's convenience.
Other Christians, the ones who have a more malleable view of the Bible than yours, are less hypocritical. They understand that their interpretation of the Bible is loose. Yours is loose, but you don't even acknowledge it. That's why you're a hypocrite.
|
On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God.
I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)?
The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law).
What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all?
|
On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all?
Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved.
|
On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:
You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live.
About this whole issue of Bible and only following parts of it, it is a book written by men to men, (also to women, I don't want to discriminate against the better half of the people) and after that it has been edited and translated by men, and women, too. The Bible, especially the old testament, is more of a collection of laws from the various societies and peoples of the Near East than anything else. Reading the Bible like Satan reads the Bible (yes, we have a saying like that in Finland meaning taking everythin literally) is only a path to destruction and suffering.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word.
Key word from your post, also in italics there (by me): guidelines
I do not say that Bible is not relevant, or not important, though. The themes, the teachings, metaphors and whatnot are why the Bible is still such a huge part of the Western world and especially Christian faith. The value of the Bible arises from the readers of it, today we understand the Word differently than someone 200 or 800 or 2800 years ago. And 20 years from now we have yet a different understanding of it. When we read something we bring our own lives, experiences and thoughts with us, and because of the world surrounding us today is so different from the world 2000 years ago we will naturally read the Bible differently.
Trying to live in the past does not work, which is my main criticism towards the Church(es) today. World has changed around the Bible, but the text itself has not changed rapidly enough that we could take word to word and expect everything to be just fine. Because of that our interpretation must change, the religion has to adapt or it will sooner or later vanish completely. For example prohibiting contraception is simply not, in my opinion at least, possible at all today. Being able to enjoy sex safely and in a way where you have the choice over your family, as in whether you want it to grow or not, is a great step forward and I cannot see any point in opposing it. Same goes for homosexuality, it will not cause extinction of the human race, or even a single people, if men who prefer men to women have an equal opportunity to express their feelings as heterosexuals do.
I could write a deal more, but not right now. I need to sleep and gather my thoughts so I hope the discussion stays alive and on high level still.
|
On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved.
Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves.
Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther.
|
On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles.
The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept.
Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages.
On September 13 2013 04:25 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. Even Jesus said he was coming back soon. Paul not only believes that, but he is re-affirming Jesus' words. Not everything God promises will happen in your lifetime. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see. When you go all the way back to the story of Joseph being made ruler of Egypt (after being sold into slavery), he told his brothers before he died that God would come back and rescue his people (Israel), and make them a great nation. This promise was not fulfilled in these brother's lifetimes, or even in the next several generations. Over the next 400 years, the Israelites fell into slavery - something that made God's promise feel less-inclined to happen. But at the right time, when the people of Israel multiplied to great numbers, that's when God stepped in and rescued Israel by using Moses. Go back even further in time, when God told Abraham that he would make him a father of many nations. Abraham did not live to see it, but he believed by faith that God would fulfill that promise at the right time.
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable.
|
On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages.
That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore.
But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other.
It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to.
How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense?
|
|
|
On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense?
What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe?
|
On September 13 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe?
What do soup kitchens have to do with my question?
The question is simple: How do you (if you are a "believer") decide what from the bible you should follow, and what you shouldn't?
If you can't follow all of it, how do you choose what you do follow, and why? I wouldn't expect the same answer from everyone.
|
On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense?
Personally I'm not a Christian any more (my screen name is actually my first name and last initial, not my religious association), but I think the idea if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want; many things you'll find in the Bible are pretty clearly not just cultural, whether or not you agree with them. I hate to say its condemnations of homosexuality sure don't seem to be (although as mentioned, they're said by Paul, and they're said by Leviticus, but they never were said by Jesus).
|
On September 13 2013 06:37 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe? What do soup kitchens have to do with my question? The question is simple: How do you (if you are a "believer") decide what from the bible you should follow, and what you shouldn't? If you can't follow all of it, how do you choose what you do follow, and why? I wouldn't expect the same answer from everyone.
My question was pointed towards the notion that people pick entirely self serving ideas. As for how one decides, that is going to depend on the denomination and the sorts of exposure they've had in terms of sermons and study. Many of the more charity minded believers are going to put a strong emphasis on the parts of the Bible that speak of service, caring for the poor and meek, and the ensnare net of earthly possessions, while those looking for divine justification in regards to their dislike for others will tunnel vision accordingly.
|
On September 13 2013 06:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want;
This is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the mechanism(s) believers use to do the choosing/sorting of "human error" and "universal truth."
As a side note, I can't think of many documents I look for "universal truths" in (Maybe physics/chemistry documents? Those are usually involved with experimentation, though.).
I'm also wondering how, if it is the individual doing the choosing, it is NOT just them choosing what they want, ultimately. However, that might lead to a discussion of what "want" really is.
|
On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable.
IIRC, the marriage thing that Paul talks about has nothing to do with Christ's second coming, at least i've never read anything that had to do with it. During those times there was economic trouble (i think), so Paul was advising them not to marry "to save them the trouble." He also said it would be better to have a husband or wife than to burn with sexual lust. It's not a sin to marry at all. Paul also recommended that people stay single because that way they could effectively devote more of their time to serving Christ, but it is not wrong to marry if the choose. If they were to marry, they would serve Christ but also have to work to please their spouse. He wants people to make the best choices that will help them serve the Lord most effectively.
|
On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:
That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore.
The Old Testament is still in the Bible because it is the track record of God's plan to send his son Jesus to be the atonement for our sins. They aren't just stories that say "this is how we lived back then." There is a lot of symbolism and prophecies throughout the Old Testament that point to the Messiah - Jesus Christ - coming to redeem them. That's a very very broad way of putting it though, but the whole Bible is meant to point you to Jesus.
|
On September 13 2013 06:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:37 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe? What do soup kitchens have to do with my question? The question is simple: How do you (if you are a "believer") decide what from the bible you should follow, and what you shouldn't? If you can't follow all of it, how do you choose what you do follow, and why? I wouldn't expect the same answer from everyone. My question was pointed towards the notion that people pick entirely self serving ideas. As for how one decides, that is going to depend on the denomination and the sorts of exposure they've had in terms of sermons and study. Many of the more charity minded believers are going to put a strong emphasis on the parts of the Bible that speak of service, caring for the poor and meek, and the ensnare net of earthly possessions, while those looking for divine justification in regards to their dislike for others will tunnel vision accordingly.
Ok, but that leads me to wonder how various denominations formed. My history goes back for enough to understand protestant/catholic, and even (what would become) catholic/eastern orthodox, but a lot of the protestant denominations confuse me. Perhaps that requires extensive reading, but generally I wonder how, if you accept the bible to be made by man, subject to human error, etc. that you might believe ANY of it could be "divine." If some of it is subject to human error, couldn't ALL of it be subject to human error?
Obviously certain denominations are going to claim certain parts are error, while others divine (and I'm sure there is much contradiction with one saying a certain part is error that one claims is divine, and visa versa). At what point does this stop being the same religion?
What are some core tenants that make every christian a christian? There is one god, Jesus was the son of god, and is a "lord and savior?" Do they all agree on that, even? Are there any other core tenants?
|
On September 13 2013 06:48 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable. IIRC, the marriage thing that Paul talks about has nothing to do with Christ's second coming. During those times there was economic trouble (i think), so Paul was advising them not to marry "to save them the trouble." He also said it would be better to have a husband or wife than to burn with sexual lust. It's not a sin to marry at all. Paul also recommended that people stay single because that way they could effectively devote more of their time to serving Christ, but it is not wrong to marry if the choose. If they were to marry, they would serve Christ but also have to work to please their spouse. He wants people to make the best choices that will help them serve the Lord most effectively.
I don't have the verse off-hand, and we have different recollections of it, so I suppose that's something to look up before the discussion can proceed. That said, I didn't think he said marriage was a sin, just that Paul seemed to sort of think it was a distraction and people ought to avoid it if they can. Even without the second coming bit, that's a pretty stark contrast with what a lot of Christians believe today (e.g. the American dream).
On September 13 2013 06:47 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:40 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want; This is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the mechanism(s) believers use to do the choosing/sorting of "human error" and "universal truth." As a side note, I can't think of many documents I look for "universal truths" in (Maybe physics/chemistry documents? Those are usually involved with experimentation, though.). I'm also wondering how, if it is the individual doing the choosing, it is NOT just them choosing what they want, ultimately. However, that might lead to a discussion of what "want" really is.
What I mean is, if you read the Iliad you're not really just looking for the events of the story. You might be sort of interested in how it reflects the culture of the time, but at the same time you're also looking for what it says about humans and their interactions at a basic level. Honestly I think the Bible and the Iliad can be read in very similar ways.
|
On September 13 2013 07:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:48 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable. IIRC, the marriage thing that Paul talks about has nothing to do with Christ's second coming. During those times there was economic trouble (i think), so Paul was advising them not to marry "to save them the trouble." He also said it would be better to have a husband or wife than to burn with sexual lust. It's not a sin to marry at all. Paul also recommended that people stay single because that way they could effectively devote more of their time to serving Christ, but it is not wrong to marry if the choose. If they were to marry, they would serve Christ but also have to work to please their spouse. He wants people to make the best choices that will help them serve the Lord most effectively. I don't have the verse off-hand, and we have different recollections of it, so I suppose that's something to look up before the discussion can proceed. That said, I didn't think he said marriage was a sin, just that Paul seemed to sort of think it was a distraction and people ought to avoid it if they can. Even without the second coming bit, that's a pretty stark contrast with what a lot of Christians believe today (e.g. the American dream). Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:47 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:40 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want; This is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the mechanism(s) believers use to do the choosing/sorting of "human error" and "universal truth." As a side note, I can't think of many documents I look for "universal truths" in (Maybe physics/chemistry documents? Those are usually involved with experimentation, though.). I'm also wondering how, if it is the individual doing the choosing, it is NOT just them choosing what they want, ultimately. However, that might lead to a discussion of what "want" really is. What I mean is, if you read the Iliad you're not really just looking for the events of the story. You might be sort of interested in how it reflects the culture of the time, but at the same time you're also looking for what it says about humans and their interactions at a basic level. Honestly I think the Bible and the Iliad can be read in very similar ways.
Ok, but what if I read the Illiad and came out saying Hera, is a bitch, Poseidon hates Troy and is capable of sending sea serpents to murder you (and your sons) if you piss him off, and Aphrodite likes Troy. And she has a mortal son, Aeneas. And they are all real, and still affect the world we live in today.
Would that seems like a reasonable reading of it? Or should those be taken as metaphors as well? Should the Illiad, containing the direct interaction of gods and men, be taken as proof of those gods?
|
I mean, obviously not. I'm not really a literature expert, either, but clearly if you read the Iliad as literature, then the factual occurrences of the story are not the interesting part. The most important parts are the more poignant ones: Priam begging for the body of Hector, Achilles fighting despite knowing it'll be the death of him, etc.
|
I don't understand why "obviously not." What are the major differences between the bible and the illiad, in terms of historical accuracy/veracity?
Should they both just be taken as literature from the time they were written?
|
On September 13 2013 07:32 HardlyNever wrote:
I don't understand why "obviously not." What are the major differences between the bible and the illiad, in terms of historical accuracy/veracity?
Should they both just be taken as literature from the time they were written?
I mean, that's what I was advocating, at least. In literature I think its standard practice to take a story and view every aspect of it through the lens of "what does this say about the human condition?" So the actual existence of the Greek gods isn't the important question, because it doesn't say anything about the human condition. Whereas the pride of Achilles, or the tragic heroism of Hector, or the bitter plea of Priam as he kisses the hand of his son's killer are all poignant because they relate to us in our lives in some small way.
Of course, someone like OP would be inclined to treat the Bible as absolute truth, in which case you'll have to ask him what about the Bible he finds so much more convincing than the Iliad. At the very least, the scientific claims of Greek mythology (e.g. the sun is actually Apollo driving a chariot across the sky) are more easily disproven, and pretty clearly not just intended to be metaphorical. The Bible's scientific claims are either less absurd, or more easily interpreted as symbolic.
|
On September 13 2013 07:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 07:32 HardlyNever wrote:
I don't understand why "obviously not." What are the major differences between the bible and the illiad, in terms of historical accuracy/veracity?
Should they both just be taken as literature from the time they were written? I mean, that's what I was advocating, at least. In literature I think its standard practice to take a story and view every aspect of it through the lens of "what does this say about the human condition?" So the actual existence of the Greek gods isn't the important question, because it doesn't say anything about the human condition. Whereas the pride of Achilles, or the tragic heroism of Hector, or the bitter plea of Priam as he kisses the hand of his son's killer are all poignant because they relate to us in our lives in some small way. Of course, someone like OP would be inclined to treat the Bible as absolute truth, in which case you'll have to ask him what about the Bible he finds so much more convincing than the Iliad. At the very least, the scientific claims of Greek mythology (e.g. the sun is actually Apollo driving a chariot across the sky) are more easily disproven, and pretty clearly not just intended to be metaphorical. The Bible's scientific claims are either less absurd, or more easily interpreted as symbolic.
Ok, that's what I'm advocating as well.
As a side note, the Greeks believed in their pantheon of gods long after you could physically "disprove" them. They played the same game other religions do today. You can climb to the top of mount Olympus and see that there aren't a bunch of gods hanging out there. They would say they don't actually live up there, it is just a metaphor for being in "the heavens." Apollo didn't actually pull the sun around with his chariot (except when he did, but that's different, somehow). It just means he is the god of the sun, and has dominion over it.
Kind of like the bible and the earth being only 6000 years old. It was actually 6000 years old at some time, but now that we can disprove it, it isn't supposed to be taken literally, it is just a metaphor, or something.
|
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go.
|
On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go.
He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded.
I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about.
Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more.
|
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
Conversion isn't quite as simple as that. I assume the idea here is for non-Christian readers to, out of curiosity, decide to think "Jesus, are you real?" in their head, feeling a little silly doing it. Then they'll be on the lookout for the next few days for some sign from Jesus that he is, in fact, real. But anyone with even a little scientific or statistical background will immediately recognize the massive confirmation bias in such an "experiment."
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another.
Can you clarify? I don't know what you mean by inward interest.
|
On September 13 2013 08:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. Conversion isn't quite as simple as that. I assume the idea here is for non-Christian readers to, out of curiosity, decide to think "Jesus, are you real?" in their head, feeling a little silly doing it. Then they'll be on the lookout for the next few days for some sign from Jesus that he is, in fact, real. But anyone with even a little scientific or statistical background will immediately recognize the massive confirmation bias in such an "experiment."
Conversion is a transformation of the heart, solely under the control of God. He comes to you immediately if you earnestly meant it when you asked him into your life and to be your Lord and Savior. It really is that simple. God himself made it simple by asking you to just believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
However, for some people, experiencing the evidence of that conversion differs upon person, depending on how God wants to work in that person's life. For some it's a complete 180 turn, like Saul when he was blinded by God. For others, it's a gradual process, slowly recognizing that their perspective and view on things in life are slowly changing. You gradually start thinking more about what God wants rather than what you want.
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others.
In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus."
Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine.
However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above.
|
On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above.
I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God
|
On September 13 2013 08:43 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:37 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. Conversion isn't quite as simple as that. I assume the idea here is for non-Christian readers to, out of curiosity, decide to think "Jesus, are you real?" in their head, feeling a little silly doing it. Then they'll be on the lookout for the next few days for some sign from Jesus that he is, in fact, real. But anyone with even a little scientific or statistical background will immediately recognize the massive confirmation bias in such an "experiment." Conversion is a transformation of the heart, solely under the control of God. He comes to you immediately if you earnestly meant it when you asked him into your life and to be your Lord and Savior. It really is that simple. God himself made it simple by asking you to just believe that Jesus is the Son of God. However, for some people, experiencing the evidence of that conversion differs upon person, depending on how God wants to work in that person's life. For some it's a complete 180 turn, like Saul when he was blinded by God. For others, it's a gradual process, slowly recognizing that their perspective and view on things in life are slowly changing. You gradually start thinking more about what God wants rather than what you want.
Almost anyone, given the same experience as Saul, would at least budge in the direction of religiosity (a few diehard skeptics might call it a hallucination, but if the scripture is to be believed, Saul was about as big a skeptic as anyone). It's sort of odd from the fairness standpoint IgnE was arguing earlier that Saul of all people was granted such a vision, when so many have greater faith than he did and are never offered such a chance. I suppose the religious answer would be that Saul received that vision not because he deserved it, but because the gospel needed him.
|
On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God
Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday?
If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that."
|
On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that."
The Bible is a whole unit, looking at individual verses without taking into account the context surrounding them is a poor way to interpret it. In the case of mixing threads of different fabrics, this is taken from what is usually termed the ceremonial law, which is Old Testament, Israel-specific law. While the Ten Commandments (the moral law) were clearly not abolished, the ceremonial law was abolished with the coming of Jesus. So it would be correct to have women be obedient to their husbands, and it would be correct to not work on Sunday, but it would not be correct to not mix threads, or to go to the temple at Jerusalem yearly (not even possible anymore ) and so on.
A common argument some of my Muslim friends give me is that the Bible forbids the eating of pig flesh (pork). However, that was also part of the ceremonial law. http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Acts 10.9–16 shows an exact example of this part of the ceremonial law being abolished (all flesh holy to eat, so pig flesh is holy to eat).
|
Ok, forget the old testament stuff. Do you work on sundays? Do you think slavery is ok? Would you have a problem with a woman being a teacher, especially your teacher?
If you don't agree with those things, why is that ok?
|
On September 13 2013 09:29 HardlyNever wrote:
Ok, forget the old testament stuff. Do you work on sundays? Do you think slavery is ok? Would you have a problem with a woman being a teacher, especially your teacher?
If you don't agree with those things, why is that ok?
I don't work on Sundays. I think slavery, while not ideal, is probably a better solution to debt that getting off scot free, and better than debter's prison (but that's a complicated issue; I don't think it's good for people to be forced into slavery after being stolen, so your classic view of slavery is not what I consider to be "good" slavery. If you want to talk more about it you can PM me but I don't want to derail the topic with slavery talk, as it's not as simple an issue as it first seems.). I have a problem with women being teachers in churches if they're teaching men, because that's specifically condemned in the Bible. This is not because women are necessarily bad at teaching, of course. It's rather to do with God's definition of the roles of men and women, with men having the duty of leading, particularly in the church situation.
|
You say that slavery is not good. But the bible says slavery is fine. If the bible is, according to you, the infallible word of God, how do you explain the disconnect?
|
On September 13 2013 10:29 Myrkskog wrote:
You say that slavery is not good. But the bible says slavery is fine. If the bible is, according to you, the infallible word of God, how do you explain the disconnect?
I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?"
|
On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 18:41 mizU wrote:
I used to Christian and now I consider myself agnostic.
Christian views on homosexuality really got to me. What are your thoughts? There are a lot of "christians" out there who are extremely rude when it comes to this topic. I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. God calls us to not judge, for that is his job in the end. Someone who is a homosexual is a human being, just like you and me. They being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin. As Christians, we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Repent means to turn away, to stop doing what you're doing. In the Bible there's a story of a woman who believed she had sinned so greatly that she deserved to be stone. Everyone around her was about to stone her to death because of her abominable sin(s), yet Jesus stepped in and said "If any one of you has not sinned, let him be the first to cast a stone!" No one ended up throwing a stone. Jesus helped the woman up and told her "you are forgiven, go and sin no more." In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Our calling is to love people the way that Christ loved others. While on earth, Jesus reached out to all types of people, from alcoholics, to prostitutes, to the poor, the rich, the sick, the adulterers, the murderers, the demonically possessed, the tax collectors, and many more. He even reached out to the government officials when he could. He didn't come to hang out with the humble believers, he came to save those who are lost and make a way to be made forever right with God, the One who created you. There is no reason why God can not, and will not reach out to someone in homosexuality if he chooses. I am sure there are plenty of true Christians who once were a homosexual, though I've never known any personally. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones. No sin is greater than another. Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. All sins are forgivable by God except for one: the deliberate refusal in the heart to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God - to reject Christ as Lord and Savior, who died for you. I believe God gives many chances for people to turn to him, because he is gracious and merciful like that. But, there does come a point of no return. One may argue that homosexuality is genetic and you therefore didn't choose to do it, it's just who you are. I believe that we are all born into sin. From the moment we breathe, we are in need of God's grace. No one teaches their child to say "mine!" when playing with toys. It's our sinful nature that teaches us that we are the god of our own lives and that we can make whatever decisions we want that makes us happy. If anyone lives a lifestyle of homosexuality, it's because they chose to practice it. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean you have to act on it, and just because it's a desire you have doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you and that you should pursue it. (I'm not going to argue about this topic). Anyway that's my pretty basic view on it. I hope it makes sense.
And that's exactly why I stopped believing.
|
On September 13 2013 11:37 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:On September 12 2013 18:41 mizU wrote:
I used to Christian and now I consider myself agnostic.
Christian views on homosexuality really got to me. What are your thoughts? There are a lot of "christians" out there who are extremely rude when it comes to this topic. I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. God calls us to not judge, for that is his job in the end. Someone who is a homosexual is a human being, just like you and me. They being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin. As Christians, we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Repent means to turn away, to stop doing what you're doing. In the Bible there's a story of a woman who believed she had sinned so greatly that she deserved to be stone. Everyone around her was about to stone her to death because of her abominable sin(s), yet Jesus stepped in and said "If any one of you has not sinned, let him be the first to cast a stone!" No one ended up throwing a stone. Jesus helped the woman up and told her "you are forgiven, go and sin no more." In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Our calling is to love people the way that Christ loved others. While on earth, Jesus reached out to all types of people, from alcoholics, to prostitutes, to the poor, the rich, the sick, the adulterers, the murderers, the demonically possessed, the tax collectors, and many more. He even reached out to the government officials when he could. He didn't come to hang out with the humble believers, he came to save those who are lost and make a way to be made forever right with God, the One who created you. There is no reason why God can not, and will not reach out to someone in homosexuality if he chooses. I am sure there are plenty of true Christians who once were a homosexual, though I've never known any personally. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones. No sin is greater than another. Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. All sins are forgivable by God except for one: the deliberate refusal in the heart to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God - to reject Christ as Lord and Savior, who died for you. I believe God gives many chances for people to turn to him, because he is gracious and merciful like that. But, there does come a point of no return. One may argue that homosexuality is genetic and you therefore didn't choose to do it, it's just who you are. I believe that we are all born into sin. From the moment we breathe, we are in need of God's grace. No one teaches their child to say "mine!" when playing with toys. It's our sinful nature that teaches us that we are the god of our own lives and that we can make whatever decisions we want that makes us happy. If anyone lives a lifestyle of homosexuality, it's because they chose to practice it. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean you have to act on it, and just because it's a desire you have doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you and that you should pursue it. (I'm not going to argue about this topic). Anyway that's my pretty basic view on it. I hope it makes sense. And that's exactly why I stopped believing.
Why exactly?
|
On September 13 2013 10:49 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:29 Myrkskog wrote:
You say that slavery is not good. But the bible says slavery is fine. If the bible is, according to you, the infallible word of God, how do you explain the disconnect? I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?"
Exodus and Leviticus. And I guess "slavery is fine" was a weird was of phrasing it, implying that it was tolerant of something that was going on around it. What I should have said is the bible encourages slavery.
|
On September 13 2013 12:21 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 11:37 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:On September 12 2013 18:41 mizU wrote:
I used to Christian and now I consider myself agnostic.
Christian views on homosexuality really got to me. What are your thoughts? There are a lot of "christians" out there who are extremely rude when it comes to this topic. I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. God calls us to not judge, for that is his job in the end. Someone who is a homosexual is a human being, just like you and me. They being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin. As Christians, we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Repent means to turn away, to stop doing what you're doing. In the Bible there's a story of a woman who believed she had sinned so greatly that she deserved to be stone. Everyone around her was about to stone her to death because of her abominable sin(s), yet Jesus stepped in and said "If any one of you has not sinned, let him be the first to cast a stone!" No one ended up throwing a stone. Jesus helped the woman up and told her "you are forgiven, go and sin no more." In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Our calling is to love people the way that Christ loved others. While on earth, Jesus reached out to all types of people, from alcoholics, to prostitutes, to the poor, the rich, the sick, the adulterers, the murderers, the demonically possessed, the tax collectors, and many more. He even reached out to the government officials when he could. He didn't come to hang out with the humble believers, he came to save those who are lost and make a way to be made forever right with God, the One who created you. There is no reason why God can not, and will not reach out to someone in homosexuality if he chooses. I am sure there are plenty of true Christians who once were a homosexual, though I've never known any personally. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones. No sin is greater than another. Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. All sins are forgivable by God except for one: the deliberate refusal in the heart to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God - to reject Christ as Lord and Savior, who died for you. I believe God gives many chances for people to turn to him, because he is gracious and merciful like that. But, there does come a point of no return. One may argue that homosexuality is genetic and you therefore didn't choose to do it, it's just who you are. I believe that we are all born into sin. From the moment we breathe, we are in need of God's grace. No one teaches their child to say "mine!" when playing with toys. It's our sinful nature that teaches us that we are the god of our own lives and that we can make whatever decisions we want that makes us happy. If anyone lives a lifestyle of homosexuality, it's because they chose to practice it. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean you have to act on it, and just because it's a desire you have doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you and that you should pursue it. (I'm not going to argue about this topic). Anyway that's my pretty basic view on it. I hope it makes sense. And that's exactly why I stopped believing. Why exactly?
The women was caught committing adultery and was being held trial, she didn't feel so sinful she turned herself in. Jesus was asked to make a judgement and he was asked cuz the religious leaders thought they could catch him saying something that contradicted the bible or his message. While you kept the message of the story you did put a significant "spin" on it to make Jesus look more heroic than the bible made him out to be. I am probably just being pedantic but how is it I recognize a warped biblical story from someone who claims to believe the book is his guide to his everlasting life? (I am non-beliver but read the bible and tried out various church groups, everyone seemed to treat it pretty casually for what a big deal they claim it to be hence I didn't really pursue my studies)
For a "perfect book" that is supposed to teach us what to do to be saved it sure has a lot of interpretation behind it. He probably believes in letting people's sexuality be their own personal business or something though so he's obviously not going to heaven either.
EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?"
After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days...
|
On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: Show nested quote + I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days...
That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them.
|
I remember when I was in fourth grade and I went on a misson trip, I had a leader of my church explain to me his definition of sin. He said that sin or "hamartia" was a greek term for missing the mark in archery. So if you thought of sin as "missing the mark" then you could attribute it to a greater amount of things than the bible specifically denounces. For instance, getting drunk. The bible does a whole crapton of warning against drinking and the effects of getting drunk, but as to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't specifically say, "thou shall not drink" or something to that effect. However, if you were to apply it to this, "hamartia" term, you could quantify it as sin, and therefore something that should be encouraged by other Christians to be avoided altogether.
Is there any sound logic in this theory?
Also, any time I encounter someone who quotes The Message, I just turn and walk away.
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
The thing is I believe Jesus was real, that he taught valuable teachings and had an amazing impact on the world. If Christianity were only about his teachings with regards to bettering ourselves and helping others I would be much more inclined to still consider myself a Christian.
The parts that turn me away are the parts that require absolute faith and worship that feel like they are trying to control me for their own means rather than for my benefit or for achieving general "goodness". I just don't see what value they offer me, except for the value that someone who claims to speak from a divine authority says they have.
After thinking about this for a while, I think I know why I don't find value in faith and worship as others do, and it stems from the three big questions. Where did we come from? Why are we here? and What happens to us when we die? Christianity and most major religions answer these questions with God(s) and this seems to give people purpose and value to their worship. Unfortunately these answers do not satisfy me as they did when I was in primary school and early high school, all they do is lead me to further questions. If God created us, why did he create us? Why does God care if we worship him or not? If God has extremely strict rules that go against our inherent natures and determine what happens when we die, why did he explain these rules to a select few people a long time ago and require that everyone else have faith that these people have spoken to him directly?
I think most Christians would answer these questions with a simple, "because God wills it", which leads me to believe that Christianity or any of the major religions do not hold the answers to these questions, at least not for me. Many people are content with the answers that religion provide them and I don't have any issues with that, however I prefer to ponder these questions freely rather than accept answers that do not satisfy my inquisitive mind.
I'm sorry if you feel that I am trying to challenge your beliefs, but I find faith to be an interesting topic and wanted to offer my perspective of why I feel that absolute faith as a requirement was actually part of the reason for my loss of faith.
|
On September 13 2013 12:21 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 11:37 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:On September 12 2013 18:41 mizU wrote:
I used to Christian and now I consider myself agnostic.
Christian views on homosexuality really got to me. What are your thoughts? There are a lot of "christians" out there who are extremely rude when it comes to this topic. I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. God calls us to not judge, for that is his job in the end. Someone who is a homosexual is a human being, just like you and me. They being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin. As Christians, we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Repent means to turn away, to stop doing what you're doing. In the Bible there's a story of a woman who believed she had sinned so greatly that she deserved to be stone. Everyone around her was about to stone her to death because of her abominable sin(s), yet Jesus stepped in and said "If any one of you has not sinned, let him be the first to cast a stone!" No one ended up throwing a stone. Jesus helped the woman up and told her "you are forgiven, go and sin no more." In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Our calling is to love people the way that Christ loved others. While on earth, Jesus reached out to all types of people, from alcoholics, to prostitutes, to the poor, the rich, the sick, the adulterers, the murderers, the demonically possessed, the tax collectors, and many more. He even reached out to the government officials when he could. He didn't come to hang out with the humble believers, he came to save those who are lost and make a way to be made forever right with God, the One who created you. There is no reason why God can not, and will not reach out to someone in homosexuality if he chooses. I am sure there are plenty of true Christians who once were a homosexual, though I've never known any personally. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones. No sin is greater than another. Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. All sins are forgivable by God except for one: the deliberate refusal in the heart to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God - to reject Christ as Lord and Savior, who died for you. I believe God gives many chances for people to turn to him, because he is gracious and merciful like that. But, there does come a point of no return. One may argue that homosexuality is genetic and you therefore didn't choose to do it, it's just who you are. I believe that we are all born into sin. From the moment we breathe, we are in need of God's grace. No one teaches their child to say "mine!" when playing with toys. It's our sinful nature that teaches us that we are the god of our own lives and that we can make whatever decisions we want that makes us happy. If anyone lives a lifestyle of homosexuality, it's because they chose to practice it. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean you have to act on it, and just because it's a desire you have doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you and that you should pursue it. (I'm not going to argue about this topic). Anyway that's my pretty basic view on it. I hope it makes sense. And that's exactly why I stopped believing. Why exactly?
Because Christians believe homosexuality is a choice.
If it was such a choice would gays that got bullied in school and beat up still be "choosing" to be gay??
Also as an ex-Christian you saying that God doesn't enter people who chose to sin is so wrong.
Christians are all sinners and you're saying that God only enters when people are sin free???
How does that work?
|
On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that."
Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times.
Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well.
|
On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them.
The bible gives specific instruction to the Israelites on who they are allowed to enslave, it says specifically that the slaves are their property, and that they are allowed to beat them nearly to death. How is this not approval?
|
On September 13 2013 13:29 Fumanchu wrote:
I remember when I was in fourth grade and I went on a misson trip, I had a leader of my church explain to me his definition of sin. He said that sin or "hamartia" was a greek term for missing the mark in archery. So if you thought of sin as "missing the mark" then you could attribute it to a greater amount of things than the bible specifically denounces. For instance, getting drunk. The bible does a whole crapton of warning against drinking and the effects of getting drunk, but as to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't specifically say, "thou shall not drink" or something to that effect. However, if you were to apply it to this, "hamartia" term, you could quantify it as sin, and therefore something that should be encouraged by other Christians to be avoided altogether.
Is there any sound logic in this theory?
Also, any time I encounter someone who quotes The Message, I just turn and walk away.
There are some Christian groups who believe that drinking is wrong, and they would agree with you. I am not one of those, though. In the case of alcohol, I think the bible is clear that drinking is not inherently bad and that it is one of the many good gifts that God has given humanity. It is, however, wrong to allow yourself to take that gift and abuse it in ways that it was not intended. Here's one reason why I think that way: It's fairly clear that Jesus himself drank, or at the very least was not opposed to drinking. The miracle of turning the water into wine shows this. Jesus gave not only alcoholic wine, but the best wine the guests had drank. Now, I've heard it argued that the wine they had back then wasn't really as alcoholic as the wine we have now so it doesn't mean what I think it means, which I think is very much incorrect. A look at Roman history will tell you that quite clearly Roman wine, even if not as alcoholic as ours (which I have no idea about) was still potent enough to potentially intoxicate.
As far as your theory in general, I kinda prefer the "Catechism" answer that I was taught, thought it's a bit wordy. I'll give a summation after, but the answer to the question "What is Sin" is: "A lack of conformity to or transgression against the Law of God". in other words, doing what God says not to do, or not doing what God says TO do. To use your teacher's language, it's "missing the mark" set by God. I think you'll be hard pressed to find an issue which the bible does not, in some way shape or form, address.
|
On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well.
All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice.
Do you believe otherwise?
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
What do you think about people exploiting religion for personal gain? I'm thinking of those huge churches where the preachers are millionaires. Why do so many Christians find that acceptable and continue to give money to those guys?
|
On September 13 2013 14:38 SnipedSoul wrote:
What do you think about people exploiting religion for personal gain? I'm thinking of those huge churches where the preachers are millionaires. Why do so many Christians find that acceptable and continue to give money to those guys?
Tithing. Obviously. God's Word.
|
On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more.
Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now.
|
On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now.
It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
|
On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
I'm sure that IronMan spoke directly to Jesus himself rather than listening to some youth group leader or baptist minister before coming to his views though. You should give him some more credit.
|
On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise?
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin.
Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that.
|
On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it.
Read what you just wrote.
"Not a choice"
"Naturally predisposed to it"
There is a clear difference between the two. One is not a choice. One is a weighted choice.
God makes people gay and then tells them they aren't allowed to love the only kind of people they are attracted to.
|
On September 13 2013 16:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Read what you just wrote. "Not a choice" "Naturally predisposed to it" There is a clear difference between the two. One is not a choice. One is a weighted choice. God makes people gay and then tells them they aren't allowed to love the only kind of people they are attracted to.
What do you mean a weighted choice? I mean, obviously people have the choice of whether or not to act on the urges associated with being gay. So in that sense, yes, it is a weighted choice, and nearly everyone believes that, religious or not.
Although I'm not really a good person for you to be having this argument with, because I tend to agree with you. Homosexuality is innate, and I don't think anyone is hurt by it; I don't accept some vague biblical condemnations which have no moral justification included as proof that something is immoral. So someone else here will probably have to explain the Christian perspective on why homosexuality is wrong.
|
On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that.
I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
|
On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
Because according to Chrisitans, the mutual feeling of love and affection is irrelevant, the problem is that a couple of dudes 2000 years ago wrote down that it was wrong because a dude in heaven said so. Who cares that a childs life is ruined, the dude didn't do as the heaven-man said!
I know it sounds ridiculous, but it makes sense to them.
|
On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
Only in the context of someone being predisposed to do something commonly considered wrong. People generally get offended by the comparison, and I'm not sure they're always justified – generally no one is saying that they're equally wrong. They're just noting that the fact that a sexual preference is innate does not necessarily mean that it is moral. To say that they are equally wrong would be quite offensive, but virtually no one is saying that.
|
On September 13 2013 17:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years. Only in the context of someone being predisposed to do something commonly considered wrong. People generally get offended by the comparison, and I'm not sure they're always justified – generally no one is saying that they're equally wrong. They're just noting that the fact that a sexual preference is innate does not necessarily mean that it is moral. To say that they are equally wrong would be quite offensive, but virtually no one is saying that.
I think the whole point is that whether or not it's innate is irrelevant. Pedophilia is immoral because it hurts children. Homosexuality is immoral because of irrational beliefs. The comparision that "since Pedophilia is immoral, it makes sense that homosexuality can be immoral too" is offensive since they are considered immoral for completely different reasons.
|
On September 13 2013 17:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:39 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:
A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Read what you just wrote. "Not a choice" "Naturally predisposed to it" There is a clear difference between the two. One is not a choice. One is a weighted choice. God makes people gay and then tells them they aren't allowed to love the only kind of people they are attracted to. What do you mean a weighted choice? I mean, obviously people have the choice of whether or not to act on the urges associated with being gay. So in that sense, yes, it is a weighted choice, and nearly everyone believes that, religious or not. Although I'm not really a good person for you to be having this argument with, because I tend to agree with you. Homosexuality is innate, and I don't think anyone is hurt by it; I don't accept some vague biblical condemnations which have no moral justification included as proof that something is immoral. So someone else here will probably have to explain the Christian perspective on why homosexuality is wrong.
From what it seems to me, it's not that every Christian personally makes the moral decision that homosexuality is wrong - they're usually just following the set of morals they believe God has. They figure that he's a lot more powerful and knowledgeable than them or any human, so he's probably right. (Or from the more cynical perspective, he has control over everyone's lives, so it's probably best to agree with the guy who's able to make your existence miserable for the rest of forever.)
It might be irrelevant, but what I don't get is how politicized homosexuality has become. I get why Christians might disagree with it, but why make (or keep) gay marriage illegal? Christians generally don't advocate for banning other activities associated with sinning - for instance worshipping other gods/religious figures seems like just about the biggest sin you can achieve, yet you don't see Christians trying to ban the practice of Islam, Hinduism, etc. Why single out homosexuality?
|
On September 13 2013 17:34 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 17:27 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years. Only in the context of someone being predisposed to do something commonly considered wrong. People generally get offended by the comparison, and I'm not sure they're always justified – generally no one is saying that they're equally wrong. They're just noting that the fact that a sexual preference is innate does not necessarily mean that it is moral. To say that they are equally wrong would be quite offensive, but virtually no one is saying that. I think the whole point is that whether or not it's innate is irrelevant. Pedophilia is immoral because it hurts children. Homosexuality is immoral because of irrational beliefs. The comparision that "since Pedophilia is immoral, it makes sense that homosexuality can be immoral too" is offensive since they are considered immoral for completely different reasons.
Well the pedophilia argument is almost always brought up in the context of:
Atheist: So you think homosexuality is wrong, huh?
Theist: I believe it's wrong, yeah.
Atheist: But homosexuality isn't a choice, man! It's something you're born with! How is it wrong to just be who you are?
Theist: Well just because you're born with something doesn't mean it's right. People are born with a predisposition toward violence, and that's wrong. Others are born with a predisposition toward pedophilia, or adultery, or Nickelback.
So the argument is not that homosexuality is wrong because its so similar to pedophilia. It's a response to the argument that homosexuality is innate, so it must be okay; the response being that many innate things are still wrong, and pedophilia is an example.
The obvious response then is to say, well if it's wrong, what is the harm that it is doing? Surely if something is wrong it must be hurting someone, or denying the world some good that it would otherwise have. It isn't just wrong arbitrarily. This is the point where I can't really be the one to defend the Christian position since I, like you, think it isn't hurting anyone and therefore isn't wrong.
|
Well, from my point of view, that isn't really a realistic discussion. I don't think any pro-gay person literally says "since you were born homosexual, it's automatically OK". They are saying since you're born with it, it's not a choice, so it's ridiculous to run around praying for people to stop it because it's a sin. They can't stop being homosexuals because they were born with it, and on top of that, it hurts no one and is all about love and affection, so they shouldn't have to suppress it either.
There's no room here to bring up pedophilia, other than saying "If homosexuality is not a choice, then so isn't pedophilia". Fine, no one cares. Pedophilia is immoral for real reasons, whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant. Hell, as a determinist, I don't think anything is a "real" choice. That doesn't impact morality at all from my perspective.
|
Society has a lot of arbitrary rules that don't really make a lot of sense when you think about them. Men need to dangle an extra piece of fabric around their neck in order to look "professional". People get offended when you say certain words which have the exact same definition as other words which aren't offensive. "Homosexuality is bad" might be another one.
Hundreds or thousands of years ago there was probably a good reason or explanation for all of these, but while the causes might have become irrelevant the resulting practices simply became established in tradition.
|
On September 13 2013 18:17 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Society has a lot of arbitrary rules that don't really make a lot of sense when you think about them. Men need to dangle an extra piece of fabric around their neck in order to look "professional". People get offended when you say certain words which have the exact same definition as other words which aren't offensive. "Homosexuality is bad" might be another one.
Hundreds or thousands of years ago there was probably a good reason or explanation for all of these, but while the causes might have become irrelevant the resulting practices simply became established in tradition.
While I agree on the tie, the very fact that one word is offensive and another isn't means their definitons aren't exactly identical. I mean, the basic meaning might be the same, but the actual meaning is different which is why people react different to it.
The cool thing with traditions though is that they change. Especially in the case where the tradition is bullshit, which is why civilized people don't have death penalites, sacrifice, only voting for males and tons of other crap which we dropped because it sucked. Same will hopefully happen with the irrational problems some have with homosexuals.
|
On September 13 2013 13:58 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. The bible gives specific instruction to the Israelites on who they are allowed to enslave, it says specifically that the slaves are their property, and that they are allowed to beat them nearly to death. How is this not approval?
Ah, I thought we had moved on to non-ceremonial law stuff. Israel-specific laws were Israel-specific for a reason. God chose them as His chosen people, which meant that everyone else who did not become an Israelite were declaring enmity with God, and as such were "fair game" for slavery. Certainly after Jesus we don't have any right to go out and enslave others, but at the time the Israelites were allowed to enslave certain of their enemies.
On September 13 2013 14:38 SnipedSoul wrote:
What do you think about people exploiting religion for personal gain? I'm thinking of those huge churches where the preachers are millionaires. Why do so many Christians find that acceptable and continue to give money to those guys?
They believe the words spoken to them, basically. I think it's snake oil when a guy like Benny Hinn can stand up and say if you donate money to him, souls go to heaven. But they see some apparent miracles happen, and the guy is inspired by the Spirit! So who are we to say he's not actually true?
A lot of it has to do with where they see the authoritative word of God coming from. If every Tom Dick and Harry has God's word coming to them (via prophetic visions and so on) then anyone who says they have the word of God must have it! And if we say anything negative about that, then that's hindering the work of the Holy Spirit (in their way of thinking).
But on the other hand, if you think of the Bible as being the complete canon of the inspired word of God, then people saying they are prophesying are going to be taken with many grains of salt
On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
What you're suggesting is that having a contrary view on something that is the status quo here is immediately "stupid" as opposed to "intelligent". Just because something is politically correct NOW does not make it true. It was not many years ago when it was completely acceptable in educated Western society to consider homosexuality to be a terrible disgusting thing, and it could easily go back to that in a few more years. Intelligence does not and never does prove rightness. Yourself being intelligent, and IronMan being intelligent, does not make either of you right. Rather, it means that there's a higher chance of each of you having the mental faculties and logical capabilities to make more informed opinions on different subjects.
Of course, then you'll start to think that you're better informed, or have better mental faculties, or better logical capabilities. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it hinders learning. How can we ever grow if we already know best? Only humility can allow change in the thinking of a person.
The TL census shows that most of the people here are young Western men who have often completed a university degree of some sort. Experience teaches me (yeah logical fallacy but you probably agree) that young men who have had some education are usually extremely arrogant, and extremely willing to inform other people about how wrong they are But yet, young men with a small amount of knowledge are usually much more "wrong" than old men and women with larger amounts of knowledge. Better to assume that you don't have it all right yet when entering into a discussion than to enter in with the first opinion that you have already got it worked out, and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.
On September 13 2013 17:11 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise? A good portion of the Christians I know don't think homosexuality is a choice. Almost all of them think homosexuality is a sin, and some people are naturally predisposed to it. Some people are naturally predisposed to violence or pedophilia, as well, and that doesn't mean they're bad people; but acting on those predispositions is still a sin. Of course, there's also plenty of Christians who think it's a choice because God wouldn't be that cruel, and the APA is probably just a bunch of secular liberals trying to undermine the gospel when they say that psychological studies demonstrate pretty clearly that it is, in fact, innate. But that's only some Christians, not all. Some atheists post awful things on /r/atheism, but not all of them do, so I can't judge all atheists by that. I really don't understand how people will ever liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Never in a million years.
Both sexual desires which were previously taboo, along with bestiality and adultery. Now homosexuality and adultery are considered acceptable, and perhaps it won't be long before pedophilia and bestiality are considered acceptable, if it isn't already in some places.
On September 13 2013 17:53 ChristianS wrote:
The obvious response then is to say, well if it's wrong, what is the harm that it is doing? Surely if something is wrong it must be hurting someone, or denying the world some good that it would otherwise have. It isn't just wrong arbitrarily. This is the point where I can't really be the one to defend the Christian position since I, like you, think it isn't hurting anyone and therefore isn't wrong.
The harm principle is pretty flawed, because it relies on a given definition of "harm". I think it's harmful for children to not be smacked when they do something wrong, other people think it's harmful for children to be smacked when they do something wrong. We both think the same thing is or isn't harmful, so we can each claim harm principle when talking to each other on the issue. A personal suggestion from myself to you is that you work out a better moral guideline than "harmful = bad, not harmful = ok". I say this without knowing if your beliefs about morality extend deeper than that, apologies if I'm making too many assumptions.
|
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not...
|
On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not...
Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought.
|
On September 13 2013 20:18 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net. What you're suggesting is that having a contrary view on something that is the status quo here is immediately "stupid" as opposed to "intelligent". Just because something is politically correct NOW does not make it true. It was not many years ago when it was completely acceptable in educated Western society to consider homosexuality to be a terrible disgusting thing, and it could easily go back to that in a few more years. Intelligence does not and never does prove rightness. Yourself being intelligent, and IronMan being intelligent, does not make either of you right. Rather, it means that there's a higher chance of each of you having the mental faculties and logical capabilities to make more informed opinions on different subjects. Of course, then you'll start to think that you're better informed, or have better mental faculties, or better logical capabilities. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it hinders learning. How can we ever grow if we already know best? Only humility can allow change in the thinking of a person. The TL census shows that most of the people here are young Western men who have often completed a university degree of some sort. Experience teaches me (yeah logical fallacy but you probably agree) that young men who have had some education are usually extremely arrogant, and extremely willing to inform other people about how wrong they are But yet, young men with a small amount of knowledge are usually much more "wrong" than old men and women with larger amounts of knowledge. Better to assume that you don't have it all right yet when entering into a discussion than to enter in with the first opinion that you have already got it worked out, and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.
That's actually not what I said, though I can see why you interpreted like that. I said that his view is something I don't expect from intelligent people. Not that you're stupid for having the opinion, but that it's clearly not the norm in this community, which is a community I've found to be intelligent. It's less about age and the fact that we are westerners, but more a comparison to all other online communities I've been a part of. People on TL are generally far more level-headed and open-minded.
As for your comment on young men with a small amount of knowledge... I don't agree with you and I don't really see your point. Young men with a university degree probably sit quite fine in the knowledge department, though they might well lack in experience compared to older people. I thought your point was that who is "wrong" is subjective in this case, but you apparently turn around in this comment saying that who's wrong = who's younger.
There's also a lot of studies supporting the negative correlation between IQ and religiosity, if you want to go on that track.
|
On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought.
One could argue that adultery emotionally exploits the third member - the "real" partner of the person who is cheating.
|
On September 13 2013 21:07 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:18 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net. What you're suggesting is that having a contrary view on something that is the status quo here is immediately "stupid" as opposed to "intelligent". Just because something is politically correct NOW does not make it true. It was not many years ago when it was completely acceptable in educated Western society to consider homosexuality to be a terrible disgusting thing, and it could easily go back to that in a few more years. Intelligence does not and never does prove rightness. Yourself being intelligent, and IronMan being intelligent, does not make either of you right. Rather, it means that there's a higher chance of each of you having the mental faculties and logical capabilities to make more informed opinions on different subjects. Of course, then you'll start to think that you're better informed, or have better mental faculties, or better logical capabilities. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it hinders learning. How can we ever grow if we already know best? Only humility can allow change in the thinking of a person. The TL census shows that most of the people here are young Western men who have often completed a university degree of some sort. Experience teaches me (yeah logical fallacy but you probably agree) that young men who have had some education are usually extremely arrogant, and extremely willing to inform other people about how wrong they are But yet, young men with a small amount of knowledge are usually much more "wrong" than old men and women with larger amounts of knowledge. Better to assume that you don't have it all right yet when entering into a discussion than to enter in with the first opinion that you have already got it worked out, and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong. That's actually not what I said, though I can see why you interpreted like that. I said that his view is something I don't expect from intelligent people. Not that you're stupid for having the opinion, but that it's clearly not the norm in this community, which is a community I've found to be intelligent. It's less about age and the fact that we are westerners, but more a comparison to all other online communities I've been a part of. People on TL are generally far more level-headed and open-minded. As for your comment on young men with a small amount of knowledge... I don't agree with you and I don't really see your point. Young men with a university degree probably sit quite fine in the knowledge department, though they might well lack in experience compared to older people. I thought your point was that who is "wrong" is subjective in this case, but you apparently turn around in this comment saying that who's wrong = who's younger. There's also a lot of studies supporting the negative correlation between IQ and religiosity, if you want to go on that track.
Not necessarily that "who's wrong = who's younger", but more that if you're young, you should be more inclined to feel less confident about whether you've got it all together. Having said that, to be fair many older men are also very much not "got it all together", so perhaps everyone at every age should be humble Perhaps instead of knowledge I should say wisdom (the two are not the same).
To be honest, there's enough close-mindedness and non-level-headedness on TL that it's really a sad reflection on the state of our society that TL should be considered pretty good among online communities  sure, it's better than a lot of other sites out there, but it could be so much better!
On September 13 2013 21:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought. One could argue that adultery emotionally exploits the third member - the "real" partner of the person who is cheating.
Yeah I guess so. I'm inclined to argue even further and say that all forms of sexual immorality exploit everyone involved!
|
On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think paedophilia is immoral because it's terrible to children, and as a decent human being, I want to protect someone who is innocent. Christians think homosexuality is immoral because God apparently said that it's wrong, there's really no justification beyond that.
One could say "Everyone used to agree homosexuality was immoral, now people find it OK. Same thing could happen with paedophilia.", but this is the kind of offensive comparision we talked about earlier. The reasoning behind why either act is immoral is completely different. For a christian to stop viewing homosexuality as immoral, all they have to do is realize that morality isn't decided by an old book and just think about the situation rationally. For people in general to stop viewing paedophilia as immoral, they have to stop being decent human beings and ignore the fact that it's terrible to children.
Saying that acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is just as much a whim of culture as acceptance of paedophiles is in my opinion offensive.
|
On September 13 2013 21:20 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think paedophilia is immoral because it's terrible to children, and as a decent human being, I want to protect someone who is innocent. Christians think homosexuality is immoral because God apparently said that it's wrong, there's really no justification beyond that. One could say "Everyone used to agree homosexuality was immoral, now people find it OK. Same thing could happen with paedophilia.", but this is the kind of offensive comparision we talked about earlier. The reasoning behind why either act is immoral is completely different. For a christian to stop viewing homosexuality as immoral, all they have to do is realize that morality isn't decided by an old book and just think about the situation rationally. For people in general to stop viewing paedophilia as immoral, they have to stop being decent human beings and ignore the fact that it's terrible to children. Saying that acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is just as much a whim of culture as acceptance of paedophiles is in my opinion offensive.
But as you said, morality is in the eye of the beholder. And then you go on to say that morality ISN'T decided by an old book, and give some reasons for why the different sexualities are immoral. I say that morality is decided by the Bible, and it says that any kind of aberrant sexuality is sin, so the comparison and the reasoning why each act is immoral is the same from my point of view, hence why the comparison can be made in the first place. Sure, I'd probably agree that paedophilia is worse than homosexuality, but they fit in the same box of aberrant sexuality. And because we're coming from completely different paths for our morality, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of any rightness of position. Perhaps better to leave the discussion at that
|
On September 13 2013 21:50 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:20 Tobberoth wrote:On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think paedophilia is immoral because it's terrible to children, and as a decent human being, I want to protect someone who is innocent. Christians think homosexuality is immoral because God apparently said that it's wrong, there's really no justification beyond that. One could say "Everyone used to agree homosexuality was immoral, now people find it OK. Same thing could happen with paedophilia.", but this is the kind of offensive comparision we talked about earlier. The reasoning behind why either act is immoral is completely different. For a christian to stop viewing homosexuality as immoral, all they have to do is realize that morality isn't decided by an old book and just think about the situation rationally. For people in general to stop viewing paedophilia as immoral, they have to stop being decent human beings and ignore the fact that it's terrible to children. Saying that acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is just as much a whim of culture as acceptance of paedophiles is in my opinion offensive. But as you said, morality is in the eye of the beholder. And then you go on to say that morality ISN'T decided by an old book, and give some reasons for why the different sexualities are immoral. I say that morality is decided by the Bible, and it says that any kind of aberrant sexuality is sin, so the comparison and the reasoning why each act is immoral is the same from my point of view, hence why the comparison can be made in the first place. Sure, I'd probably agree that paedophilia is worse than homosexuality, but they fit in the same box of aberrant sexuality. And because we're coming from completely different paths for our morality, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of any rightness of position. Perhaps better to leave the discussion at that
It's in the eye of the beholder, but you can still discuss it rationally, which ties back to the discussion on intelligence. Finding homosexuality immoral because of the bible is just irrational. Saying that the two concepts (homosexuality and paedophilia) are comparable, is downright stupid and offensive. It would be like me saying "It's OK to murder jews indiscriminately because I read it in this weird book I found" and expecting you to simply agree to disagree because "we're coming from completely different paths for out morality".
|
Hmm, torn when I read stuff like this. Confabulatory statements about something so easy, if something so transparent becomes real, imagine all the other stuff that slips by our bs detector.
Oh well, gl hf.
|
On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
The thing is: You can't win on the Internet. Especially not "against" a guy who writes a blog how to strenghten your faith. All this aggressive talk will most likely just confirm his bias that non-believers are not open minded. I know you have good intentions but I question it will bring the results you expect.
Just look at the last pages: Your moral comes from the point that "wrong" comes from hurting people and everything else isn't wrong. Their moral come from a scripture that is (at least) inspired by the all-knowing and all-caring truthful god who has nothing but their best in mind. I don't think it will help to call that a "dusty old book". And I don't think you will come to an agreement when your foundations of morality are that different.
|
On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them.
I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 )
If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11)
He even approves of selling your own daughters as sex slaves.
Are we reading the same book even? Its fine if you wanna live forever and love god, I think thats great. But do realize that your "Lord and Savior" isn't as nice as your church makes him out to be.
|
On September 13 2013 20:18 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 17:53 ChristianS wrote:
The obvious response then is to say, well if it's wrong, what is the harm that it is doing? Surely if something is wrong it must be hurting someone, or denying the world some good that it would otherwise have. It isn't just wrong arbitrarily. This is the point where I can't really be the one to defend the Christian position since I, like you, think it isn't hurting anyone and therefore isn't wrong. The harm principle is pretty flawed, because it relies on a given definition of "harm". I think it's harmful for children to not be smacked when they do something wrong, other people think it's harmful for children to be smacked when they do something wrong. We both think the same thing is or isn't harmful, so we can each claim harm principle when talking to each other on the issue. A personal suggestion from myself to you is that you work out a better moral guideline than "harmful = bad, not harmful = ok". I say this without knowing if your beliefs about morality extend deeper than that, apologies if I'm making too many assumptions.
Well no, I don't generally base my moral beliefs on the harm principle, but I do believe that morality is based on concrete impacts on the world. That is, murder is not wrong just because, it's wrong because it does real and significant damage to the world. Usually the harm principle fails when something is immoral not because it does a concrete harm, but because it denies the world a concrete benefit. For instance, it's wrong for a really smart kid to drop out of high school and do nothing with his life, not because he's harming the world, but because he could do so much good for himself and others, and he's not doing it.
The failure of the principle you're talking about isn't really a failure. You say corporal punishment is good, someone else says it's bad; right now, there's no path forward. The harm principle forces you both to elaborate the concrete effects of corporal punishment and discuss whether they're good or bad. So then he can't just say "I think it's harmful to smack kids" and you can't just say "I think it's not harmful to smack kids." He has to say "I think it's harmful because it has these psychological effects which are demonstrated by these studies." And you have to say... well, I don't know what your side of that argument is. By what little I know of the psychological studies on corporal punishment, I'm fairly certain it is, in fact, harmful.
But the point is, homosexuality can't just be wrong because. Morality has real and lasting effects on people's happiness and well-being – and if you define it in such a way so that it doesn't, then I don't see why I should care about morality.
|
I was raised religious and I've been to many different kinds of churches and schools + Show Spoiler +Christian church/school, baptist church/awana camp/sunday school, mormon church/sunday school, catholic church/school, and other offshoots churches of these
I am atheist now and I place my faith into humanity, myself, and science. And I don't mean science as a religion. I mean I believe that the scientific method, when used correctly, only can reveal truths and is constantly trying to disprove itself in the face of ultimate truths. I understand science may not or can not prove everything (and like all things, even religions, there is corruption within), but as a general rule it has served me much better than any religion ever has and the corruption is revealed and checked/balanced out most of the time.
Anyway, I am a good person and I don't need confirmation from a religion or something to help me do that or tell me what to do.
|
On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"?
I'd like to direct your attention to a different part of the same chapter of Exodus for just a moment. It's Exodus 21:12 "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." Also, I much prefer the translation of 21:20-21 that says "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged" because I think the wording helps make what about to say more clear. (I'm using the ESV or English Standard Version. It tends to be more literal in it's translation than most others)
In with these laws given by God, there is the idea of "The Avenger". This is someone whose family member has been killed by another and it was that family member's duty to make sure that justice was done for the crime. He could choose to show mercy if he wished, but it was his right as the avenger to take the life of the murderer. I think THIS is what is going on with the slaves, NOT that it is saying it is ok to kill your slaves. "He shall be avenged". The slave is a person, just like the free-man in verse 12, and the same rules apply. I think that's the point of the verse more than anything else.
Now, if you are objecting to the use of the word "When" and not "If", remember that these are people who have just come out of slavery themselves. They KNEW what it was like living under the lash and they know what can possibly happen. Even if it's an accident, God knows that it will happen and he is not going to pretend otherwise. I think the fact that he demands the same punishment for killing a slave as any other man shows that God is not ok with it, though.
|
On September 14 2013 04:49 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"? I'd like to direct your attention to a different part of the same chapter of Exodus for just a moment. It's Exodus 21:12 "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." Also, I much prefer the translation of 21:20-21 that says "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged" because I think the wording helps make what about to say more clear. (I'm using the ESV or English Standard Version. It tends to be more literal in it's translation than most others) In with these laws given by God, there is the idea of "The Avenger". This is someone whose family member has been killed by another and it was that family member's duty to make sure that justice was done for the crime. He could choose to show mercy if he wished, but it was his right as the avenger to take the life of the murderer. I think THIS is what is going on with the slaves, NOT that it is saying it is ok to kill your slaves. "He shall be avenged". The slave is a person, just like the free-man in verse 12, and the same rules apply. I think that's the point of the verse more than anything else. Now, if you are objecting to the use of the word "When" and not "If", remember that these are people who have just come out of slavery themselves. They KNEW what it was like living under the lash and they know what can possibly happen. Even if it's an accident, God knows that it will happen and he is not going to pretend otherwise. I think the fact that he demands the same punishment for killing a slave as any other man shows that God is not ok with it, though.
No it doesn't. You're basing a lot on the fact that the Bible considers slaves to be people, but throughout history slaves were nearly always considered to be people. In fact, American slavery in the South is way more brutal than slavery almost ever was. God clearly has the option to say that slavery is not ideal, if he wants to, and he does not. For instance, if the slave is beaten to within an inch of his life, but survives for a day or two, there is no punishment. The fact that the Old Testament considers them people makes it worse, in a way, since it still allows them to be subjected to such awful treatment.
|
On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"?
Have you ever tried to get someone to work who doesn't get paid by you? There's not much else you could do to get a slave to work if they didn't want to besides beating them. I'd say that the law you pointed out essentially is "you gotta treat your slaves nicely". Anywhere else, you could just kill your slave if they weren't doing what you wanted.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11)
He even approves of selling your own daughters as sex slaves.
Are we reading the same book even? Its fine if you wanna live forever and love god, I think thats great. But do realize that your "Lord and Savior" isn't as nice as your church makes him out to be.
Uhhhh I'd say it's pretty clear that the woman is being sold as a wife, not as a sex slave. And again the laws given are if things go wrong, nowhere is tacit approval of slavery, men leaving their wives, and so on. These are cases of what to do when things go wrong, not what to do as the standard way of life. The law is saying that he has to treat her as his wife even if he isn't happy with her until and if her father buys her back.
|
On September 14 2013 07:04 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"? Have you ever tried to get someone to work who doesn't get paid by you? There's not much else you could do to get a slave to work if they didn't want to besides beating them. I'd say that the law you pointed out essentially is "you gotta treat your slaves nicely". Anywhere else, you could just kill your slave if they weren't doing what you wanted. Show nested quote +
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11)
He even approves of selling your own daughters as sex slaves.
Are we reading the same book even? Its fine if you wanna live forever and love god, I think thats great. But do realize that your "Lord and Savior" isn't as nice as your church makes him out to be.
Uhhhh I'd say it's pretty clear that the woman is being sold as a wife, not as a sex slave. And again the laws given are if things go wrong, nowhere is tacit approval of slavery, men leaving their wives, and so on. These are cases of what to do when things go wrong, not what to do as the standard way of life. The law is saying that he has to treat her as his wife even if he isn't happy with her until and if her father buys her back.
No, most ancient societies had restrictions on killing slaves, because they were generally considered people. Hammurabi's code, for instance, had similar rules where slaves were protected by the law, but less so. This is probably a significant influence on the Old Testament, in fact, since Hammurabi's Code probably came first, and the two are so similar; except it's less troubling that Hammurabi's code protected different citizens differently, since nobody today thinks it was divinely inspired.
In the case of a man selling his daughter as a slave, it's pretty clear that she's not being sold as a wife. It even makes clear that if her owner then takes her as a wife, or gives her as a wife to his son, she becomes a free woman. But until that point, she's a slave girl. The only part that isn't addressed is whether or not a slave girl is allowed to be used as a sex slave; on the one hand, I'd be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and say she isn't, but on the other hand, concubines were definitely part of the culture then. If you or I were to travel back in time and be given the chance to set codes of conduct for the Israelite population, I don't see how anything other than a flat condemnation of this practice would be morally acceptable; that this condemnation is absent from the codes set forth in the Old Testament is surely at least troubling.
|
On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise?
I've actually met a surpising number who assume that god makes all things, so if he made men who love other men, who are they to judge. Christians like that are why I defend the faith at times.
|
^you can add to your arsenal the fact that sodom and gomorrah is not a story about homosexuality it's about how you shouldn't fucking rape your guests
|
I feel bad for Ironman, good try buddy.
|
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother.
|
On September 15 2013 13:16 Gofarman wrote:
I feel bad for Ironman, good try buddy.
What do you feel bad about? I didn't give up or anything but im not trying to win the argument either. I've been out all weekend for a wedding I'm involved in (it's today actually), and I've chosen not to get involved in any recent discussions cuz it wasn't going to lead anywhere.
|
On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother.
I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution.
|
On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution.
:rollseyes:
What a typical atheist reply.
Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then?
|
Figures that people can justify slavery. I guess I could go into the actual despicable acts that your just and loving god performed but even then you could justify them. If you believe the bible is true then you should have went through a very serious moral dilemma. Most rational beings in this day and age will be opposed to those ancient laws since such explicit cruelty is deemed amoral by the general public. There are stronger points though to be found elsewhere in the bible. According to Revelations God is going to come down and slaughter everyone who doesn't believe in him because they must be "wicked" for not accepting him. It seems this loving god has a thing for genocide. Any worldly political leader making such threats would be a monster.
We can also look at Genesis, what pissed god off was the fact that people could decide whats good and bad for themselves and he had to make sure they would die.
" And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Gen 3:22)
It seems like god only wants mindless obedient slaves and anyone else should be put to death. This god character sounds like a villain for much of the book and he despises anyone who can see it or disagree with his judgement. If you want to advocate a slave state ruled by a despot you better be expected for the world to hate you. Don't be hypocritical about it. Following Jesus means you are an enemy of this world. You must be prepared to share Christ's suffering. Its a serious, morbid subject and virtually every Christan group I've seen ignores these issues and will adamantly insist the biblical god is actually a nice guy who loves you. I hope you all keep your faith when you suffer like any true believer has. Think what would have happened to Job if he were to curse god in his hardships...
|
On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then?
I respect your views but I don't think you're in a position to argue about the quantity of evidence supporting intelligent design. You have already internally denied evolution for reasons which are bullshit, despite the massive amount of evidence supporting it. And what do you have to show for it, some interviews from "scientists" who aren't biologists?
Please, you're a prime example of confirmation bias.
We've all got existential questions that, most reasonable people would admit, we haven't solved. I would urge you to go back and revisit evolution while keeping in mind that you don't need evolution to be invalidated for your religion to be true. The scientific community does have a consensus despite certain largely irrelevant dissidents. You need more than a few shoddy counter arguments to disprove a solid theory.
I think it's sad that you christians so desperately want evolution to be false, many will actively spread BS arguments against it and others will be willing to take to believe the weakest arguments just because they're convenient. Time to be adults IMO.
|
On September 16 2013 05:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then? I respect your views but I don't think you're in a position to argue about the quantity of evidence supporting intelligent design. You have already internally denied evolution for reasons which are bullshit, despite the massive amount of evidence supporting it. And what do you have to show for it, some interviews from "scientists" who aren't biologists? Please, you're a prime example of confirmation bias. We've all got existential questions that, most reasonable people would admit, we haven't solved. I would urge you to go back and revisit evolution while keeping in mind that you don't need evolution to be invalidated for your religion to be true. The scientific community does have a consensus despite certain largely irrelevant dissidents. You need more than a few shoddy counter arguments to disprove a solid theory. I think it's sad that you christians so desperately want evolution to be false, many will actively spread BS arguments against it and others will be willing to take to believe the weakest arguments just because they're convenient. Time to be adults IMO.
First you say you respect my views, when call me biased and say my reasons are bullshit? I think that speaks for itself and invalidates any credibility you have in this debate.
I can't imagine what your problem is, but I'm certainly glad it isn't mine. Hope you feel better soon.
|
On September 16 2013 06:35 Luthier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then? I respect your views but I don't think you're in a position to argue about the quantity of evidence supporting intelligent design. You have already internally denied evolution for reasons which are bullshit, despite the massive amount of evidence supporting it. And what do you have to show for it, some interviews from "scientists" who aren't biologists? Please, you're a prime example of confirmation bias. We've all got existential questions that, most reasonable people would admit, we haven't solved. I would urge you to go back and revisit evolution while keeping in mind that you don't need evolution to be invalidated for your religion to be true. The scientific community does have a consensus despite certain largely irrelevant dissidents. You need more than a few shoddy counter arguments to disprove a solid theory. I think it's sad that you christians so desperately want evolution to be false, many will actively spread BS arguments against it and others will be willing to take to believe the weakest arguments just because they're convenient. Time to be adults IMO. First you say you respect my views, when call me biased and say my reasons are bullshit? I think that speaks for itself and invalidates any credibility you have in this debate. I can't imagine what your problem is, but I'm certainly glad it isn't mine. Hope you feel better soon.
I respect your views but you're wrong about stuff, it's ok.
I used to be as aggressive as you about different views when I was immature, angry and insecure. You don't need to say stuff like "typical atheist post" and suggesting that I have a problem. It just shows that you're not willing to discuss things, you just want to preach. There are smarter ways to go about these things.
Anyway, cheers. And yes I respect your views, just not how you get to them <3
|
don't pretend to respect his views. What he thinks is silly. We are men of action, lies do not become us
|
On September 16 2013 06:50 sam!zdat wrote:
don't pretend to respect his views. What he thinks is silly. We are men of action, lies do not become us
I respect religious people so long as their views are internally consistent. My last and current gf considered themselves Christians and while I'm fairly certain they're wrong, I respected them because they were smart enough NOT to try to dismiss science with non-science. The denial of evolution is absurd, and it's a tool that Christians give to themselves to confirm their faith, specifically their faith in some literal scripture jank.
What I always say is, if there is a God, if there is a creator, he "designed" our universe and he "designed" life so that it would at least overwhelmingly look like evolution has occurred. There's no getting around that - the principles of evolution have empirical evidence supporting them. All they've got are shoddy arguments which are, in essence, blinders.
However, wiser Christians, in my opinion, will look at the evidence with an open mind and they'll come to the conclusion that, either, like I said, God made it look like evolution happened, or God created the universe, perhaps with evolution in mind. These, while false in my opinion, are significantly more intellectually honest than THERE'S NO EVOLUTION BECAUSE (insert some poorly constructed argument based on numerology and a misunderstanding of statistics here).
Also, honest Christians will not allow themselves to be particularly easy to convince to shit which conveniently supports their way of thinking. We're all guilty of being biased to a certain extent, we all fall victim to confirmation bias whether we like it or not... but when it's about evolution, it seems to be overwhelming. Why is it possible for those people to dismiss the heaps of evidence backing evolution, with such bad arguments?
Let your religious views adapt to the times! The existence of the phenomenon of evolution doesn't invalidate Christianity. It's just further proof that the scripture cannot be taken literally at every turn.
|
On September 16 2013 05:12 Luthier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 01:11 ChristianS wrote:On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother. I mean, Lee Strobel is just a Christian journalist reporting on what other people claim. It's the people he's talking to in his book that are making a case for intelligent design, and I've heard most of them before, e.g. Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity," Robin Collins discussing the anthropic principle, etc. And for the record, I still don't think for a second that any of this really defeats the ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of evolution. :rollseyes: What a typical atheist reply. Just because you are unable to address anything I said, doesn't mean you can just make bold statements as if they are fact. I might as well say there is an ever-increasing pile of evidence in support of intelligent design. What do you say to that then?
I mean, which one do you want to discuss? Irreducible complexity? Michael Behe has talked about that idea for a good long time now, and it's a thought-provoking enough idea, but it assumes that an adaptation that is used for a particular purpose originally evolved for that purpose. The standard example he would bring up is that of the bacterial flagellum: it's a complex cellular "motor" composed of many biochemical parts, each of which is essential in functioning as a motor. Because it's highly unlikely that all those pieces were evolved simultaneously, the flagellum evolving wholesale as a motor from nothing is unlikely.
But typically in such cases, the adaptation probably evolved for another purpose with only some of those pieces present, and then became useful for the modern purpose once the other pieces developed. For instance, some bacteria (including, I think, the ones which caused the Black Plague, although I'm not certain) have a rigid structure which contains most of the components of the bacterial flagellum – but not all of them. Behe is right that without all the pieces it can't act as a motor; but it does act for other purposes (if I recall, the bubonic plague bacterium uses it as a needle to inject other cells with toxins).
To clarify, since you objected to the term, when I say "pile of evidence," I mean that there is strong geological, astronomical, and biological evidence for:
-Earth being at least 4 billion years old.
-the universe being at least 13 billion years old.
-organisms evolving into drastically different organisms over time, with intermediate organisms which leave a fossil record.
-organisms going extinct.
-humans being related to apes if you go back far enough – if you go back even further you can find humans' last common ancestor with pretty much any organism you can name.
Now "intelligent design" isn't so much one hypothesis as a broad umbrella term for a collection of narratives ranging from 6-day creationism to the Great Chain of Being. Some of these narratives don't dispute some of the above evidence; most dispute at least one. Not all Christians dispute any of them, though; many believe that things like the theory of evolution are not affronts to their religion, but a window into the miracle of how God created the world. I would say they are Christians, but do not believe in the narratives usually termed "intelligent design."
|
you can't tell someone you respect their views and then paraphrase them beginning with 'herpderp'.
nobody's views are internally consistent but we don't have to go there
|
The moral of the story is that Lee Strobel does not really have anything good to say.
|
On September 16 2013 07:26 sam!zdat wrote:
you can't tell someone you respect their views and then paraphrase them beginning with 'herpderp'.
nobody's views are internally consistent but we don't have to go there
That's fair and I'll edit that out, but I want to reiterate that it's not Christianity that I don't respect, rather, it's some of the little things that they lie to themselves about in order to keep their faith intact.
From my perspective, it's ok to be wrong - but try to be wrong gracefully. I should have said that I respect most of what constitutes his views, but the denial of evolution requires such an incredible amount of willful ignorance I can't actually take it seriously.
|
yes the mistake that both atheists and fundamentalists make is that they think being true is the point of religion. So atheists think they have a knockdown case against religion by pointing out that it obviously isn't true, and fundamentalists accept their logic and attempt to twist their tradition into knots in order to make it 'true.' both sides miss the point
|
On September 16 2013 07:26 farvacola wrote:
The moral of the story is that one would have more pleasure sticking their finger into a pencil sharpener than discussing religion on TL.net.
edit: Can we all just unequivocally say that denying evolution is utterly asinine regardless of whether one is or is not religious? I've actually met atheists that didn't believe in evolution and other "hot topic" North American science stuff like global warming. Trying to reduce North American anti-scientific attitudes to Christianity like some people do all over this forum is just as stupid, as is reducing religious thought into some "irrational" mode of thought or whathaveyou. Both the anti-scientific attitude and the dichotomizing of science/religion and the corresponding rational(scientific)/irrational(religious) dichotomy is pretty much a cultural victory of the historical reactionaries (the fundamentalist reaction against the legacy of the Enlightenment and Liberal Protestantism; the Feynman acolytes and New Atheist reactionaries against Anglo fundamentalism) and the political demagogues that abuse this environment.
|
On September 16 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:
yes the mistake that both atheists and fundamentalists make is that they think being true is the point of religion. So atheists think they have a knockdown case against religion by pointing out that it obviously isn't true, and fundamentalists accept their logic and attempt to twist their tradition into knots in order to make it 'true.' both sides miss the point
My question then would have to be what exactly is the point?
If both sides are missing it, enlighten both sides.
|
it's about anchoring a universe of symbolic meaning
|
I'm a bit skeptical about that kind of Tillichian theology, tbh.
|
I have no idea what your theology is koreasilver.
I don't know who tillich is. I just think that's what religions do. They make metanarratives
|
Ah, well Tillich was one of the eminent philosophers of the 20th century. His influence has waned considerably since his death but he was one of those great German intellectuals that spread out to Western Europe, England, and America that were either expelled from Germany by the Nazis or actively fled Germany after the Nazis took power. Tillich was one of the earliest persons to be expelled. In the context of Protestant theology Tillich and Barth are often contrasted, with Tillich seeking continual universality and plurality while Barth being the face of the rebellion against Liberal Protestantism ("neo-orthodoxy", "dialectical theology", "theology of crisis", etc. are some of the labels for this broad movement. Tillich's own personal label for Barth and his affiliates was "neo-Reformation", as Tillich thought their theology simply wasn't truly dialectical). I was a very avid Tillich reader and a large part of Tillich's thinking deals with symbols and myth and in this way he's sometimes seen as the liberal par excellence although I think that's kinda wrong since Tillich departs from Schleiermacher in his own way, and he still did take Barth seriously despite all their differences.
As for myself, I dunno. Theologically I'm closest to Kierkegaard but I have a lot of disagreements with him. Similar relationships with Augustine and Luther. I dislike the Catholics in general, from Aquinas to Marion (even though I respect them). I think Nietzsche is a theologian par excellence, but I think the Altizer inspired Death of God theologians went wrong even if they did/are doing very important work. I think Christians as a whole are still not reading enough Jewish thought and that this is one of the bigger holes in Christian thought. I'm still a student so I don't want to say I even really have my own theology, but these are some of my leanings. I'm not a theologian or a philosopher or whathaveyou. I'm just a student. Philosophically I think Levinas and Derrida are the most important philosophers of the 20th century but I have a large interest in Hegel and recently Deleuze.
|
ah I read a little about barth and I have a book of his that I haven't read yet.
you might be interested to check out a book called 'god interrupted' by ben lazier who was one of my lecturers at reed. It's about gnosticism and pantheism in jewish thought in interwar europe. I thought it was really interesting.
I am still very ignorant about history of theology though trying to learn more. Because I want to work on philip dick's religious thought and I guess I have to know something about theology then
don't be modest ks you are a gentleman and a scholar and you can be theologian and philosopher if you damn well please
edit: I love hegel but dislike derrida a lot. I am skeptical about deleuze but I have not read his solo work. Mostly I just read too much zizek
|
I was unsure about Deleuze after my first reading of Difference and Repetition in the summer of 2012, partially because his thinking was completely foreign to me and I honestly had no idea exactly what he was trying to say. But now I've been convinced and I will probably work on Deleuze for my dissertation. I've been bought over by materialism but of a particular robust Deleuzian kind. I think Marxist materialism is really vulgar even if I have a lot of sympathy for the Marxists. I love/hate Zizek. He does a lot of interesting things but his propensity for repeating (to a point of literally copy and pasting passages between different works) is kinda grating after a while (the first couple of times made me giggle). I think people misunderstand Derrida a lot, which is really common so I don't hold it against anyone regardless of my love for him. Derrida has been raised to this kind of mythological status where preeminent philosophers go to where they become idolized on a pedestal or disparaged as a scarecrow, which is seemingly unavoidable for an influential individual.
edit: I'll take a look at Ben Lazier sometime. I'm always happy to read interesting Jewish writers.
|
On September 16 2013 08:00 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 07:26 farvacola wrote:
The moral of the story is that one would have more pleasure sticking their finger into a pencil sharpener than discussing religion on TL.net. edit: Can we all just unequivocally say that denying evolution is utterly asinine regardless of whether one is or is not religious? I've actually met atheists that didn't believe in evolution and other "hot topic" North American science stuff like global warming. Trying to reduce North American anti-scientific attitudes to Christianity like some people do all over this forum is just as stupid, as is reducing religious thought into some "irrational" mode of thought or whathaveyou. Both the anti-scientific attitude and the dichotomizing of science/religion and the corresponding rational(scientific)/irrational(religious) dichotomy is pretty much a cultural victory of the historical reactionaries (the fundamentalist reaction against the legacy of the Enlightenment and Liberal Protestantism; the Feynman acolytes and New Atheist reactionaries against Anglo fundamentalism) and the political demagogues that abuse this environment.
as·i·nine
/ˈasəˌnīn/
Adjective
Extremely stupid or foolish.
Synonyms
foolish
Look, if you're going to go as far as claiming others are stupid, I would say that given you believe in a fairy in the sky who you can pray to and will listen to you, you are the one who is the dumbass. Check out www.reddit.com/r/atheism sometime and maybe you can finally recognise your joke of a religion for what it is. It absolutely astounds me with all of our technological and scientific advances that in this day and age there are still people who are stupid enough to believe in God/Christianity.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
What an underwhelming troll.
|
My newest blog is up, entitled Christians and Judging Others.
This is a touchy subject, I know, but I felt I had to elaborate on it because it's one of the biggest discussions out there. I hope I said all the right words (if any fellow believer identifies otherwise, please correct me and I will fix it).
http://theprogressivefaith.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/christians-and-judging-others/
I am not aiming to start more arguments over this blog. If you firmly disagree with any of it, then I kindly ask that you do not argue for the sake of arguing.
|
|
|
jesus is clearly a queer, what else do you think that 'disciple whom jesus loved' stuff is about. The medievals knew it, ever see those paintings of the last supper and stuff with the prettyboy next to him?
User was warned for this post
edit: for the record 'queer' is not an offensive word, that's what the queers call themselves when they want to study queer things. I should know, I live with two of them.
|
On September 19 2013 11:05 sam!zdat wrote:
jesus is clearly a queer, what else do you think that 'disciple whom jesus loved' stuff is about. The medievals knew it, ever see those paintings of the last supper and stuff with the prettyboy next to him?
User was warned for this post
Please do not violate the thread rules, as it is directed towards Christian discussions and those who have open-minded questions. There is no place here for your choice of words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By continuously and stubbornly rejecting this prompting, you are deliberately refusing to believe and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
This feels like preaching to the choir to me. This particular sin only happens to non-believers, who don't care about sin because they don't believe in God. Believers can't experience this sin (you actually created a no-true-scotsman situation here by calling them true believers and simply narrowing your definition). What is the point in even saying this, then?
That verse also can make you think that doubt is bad. That's a horribly simplistic and fundamentalist approach to religion. Everybody should be at least somewhat skeptical about religion, since it is inherently unable to be proven, hence the concept of faith. To not be skeptical is to become gullible and complacent. If you become complacent then you won't be logically analyzing your own beliefs, just accepting them, which seems to me to defeat part of the point of religion, which is to hone our understanding of the divine through constant inquiry.
|
On September 26 2013 07:29 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote + By continuously and stubbornly rejecting this prompting, you are deliberately refusing to believe and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior This feels like preaching to the choir to me. This particular sin only happens to non-believers, who don't care about sin because they don't believe in God. Believers can't experience this sin (you actually created a no-true-scotsman situation here by calling them true believers and simply narrowing your definition). What is the point in even saying this, then? That verse also can make you think that doubt is bad. That's a horribly simplistic and fundamentalist approach to religion. Everybody should be at least somewhat skeptical about religion, since it is inherently unable to be proven, hence the concept of faith. To not be skeptical is to become gullible and complacent. If you become complacent then you won't be logically analyzing your own beliefs, just accepting them, which seems to me to defeat part of the point of religion, which is to hone our understanding of the divine through constant inquiry.
Doubt, for the Christian, is a result of not trusting God and/or not believing that he is who he says he is. God doesn't want us to doubt our faith in him. I didn't use the word 'doubt' in this blog, but later on I mention that the panic, worry, and fear (which produces doubt) that it can cause to a Christian is healthy, and then I list a few qualities that help us overcome that doubt when we analyze our own beliefs.
EDIT: I added the word 'doubt' in there near the lists at the bottom so it can make a little more sense hopefully.
|
But because of God’s great love and mercy, I believe he gives everyone numerous chances to come to know him, for “He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent” – 2 Peter 3
What about poor people in Asia who are born into Hindu/Muslim families and are never exposed to Christ? Are they sinning? Will they go to hell when they die?
|
faith without doubt loses all dialectical depth and becomes hollow dogma. There can be no faith without doubt
remember what christ called out on the cross: 'eli, eli, lama sabbacthani?' in christianity, god doubts himself! The most beautiful part of the whole religion
|
On September 26 2013 09:42 sam!zdat wrote:
faith without doubt loses all dialectical depth and becomes hollow dogma. There can be no faith without doubt
remember what christ called out on the cross: 'eli, eli, lama sabbacthani?' in christianity, god doubts himself! The most beautiful part of the whole religion
Jesus was saying "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" He was experiencing the full wrath of God for our sins-the death we deserve. What does this have to do with a believer having doubts about their faith sometimes? Also, God cannot doubt himself or deny himself, for he cannot contradict himself. I'm not sure what your argument is.
|
that's not what 'forsake' means. It means 'abandon'. I don't see how you interpet 'my lord my lord why have you abandoned me' to mean 'my lord mylord, damn that hurts!' Jesus felt that he had been abandoned by god, in the very moment of what was supposed to be his triumph!
where does it say that god can't contradict himself? Isn't he all powerful? Does the law of non contradiction exist over and above the divine? That can't be so, because don't all things emanate from god, including (a fortiori) the law of non contradiction? I think if you say that god is subject to logical laws which exist over and above Him you are on a dangerous road to deism, which is just an interminable bore of a theology, wouldn't you say?
in christianity god is split within himself. He is the father AND the son AND the holy ghost. So why couldn't he doubt himself? This is pretty much the most poetic thing in the whole book imo
|
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China?
|
On September 26 2013 10:18 sam!zdat wrote:
that's not what 'forsake' means. It means 'abandon'. I don't see how you interpet 'my lord my lord why have you abandoned me' to mean 'my lord mylord, damn that hurts!' Jesus felt that he had been abandoned by god, in the very moment of what was supposed to be his triumph!
I didn't say 'forsake' meant 'why are you giving me pain'. His words and the following sentence were two different statements I was pointing out. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, to forsake is to abandon. Part of God's wrath was not only the penalty of death, but separation from God.
When Jesus hung on the cross, he suffered the consequences for our sins. He experienced not only physical pain and the burden of our sin on his shoulders, but he also experienced the complete separation from the Father, which is why he cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" He was spiritually separated from God. He experienced hell on our behalf (that's what hell is, being entirely separated from God, being completely void of his presence).
Jesus knew he had to die for our sins. He knew that it was ultimately the plan he was to follow. When he prayed in the garden before his arrest, he asked the Father to release him from the pain he was going to endure because he didn't want to have to go through it, but then he said "not my will, but yours." He willingly and voluntarily gave himself up for us while we were still sinners. Because he was sinless, he was the perfect sacrifice for our iniquity once and for all, which is why every time we sin we ought to ask for forgiveness "in Jesus' Name" because of who he is and what he has done.
His triumph was a combination of his death and his resurrection. When he hung on the cross, he said "it is finished!" and then soon died. Three days later, he rose from the dead. His triumph was defeating the power of sin and death by resurrecting to life, and ending the current practice of lawful sacrifice for sins that they had back then.
Just a couple examples of what I mean by that... Instead of having a high priest pray for our sins once a year, we can now personally come to God ourselves. Back then if anyone but the high priest entered the 'Most Holy Place' (behind the curtain), they would literally die because the presence of God was there and he is too holy for us to handle, literally. Jesus, who rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God, is now our high priest in heaven praying for us on our behalf, and letting his atonement cover our sins when we seek forgiveness through him by faith. Instead of offering a goat or lamb every time we sin, we can now pray in humbleness and ask for forgiveness through the blood of Jesus.
That's why in the Old Testament, there is a lot of foreshadowing and symbolism with sacrificing animals to atone for one's sin. It was all pointing towards Jesus and what he would ultimately do for us. It was the shedding of blood that atones. That's why at the first Passover, the angel of the Lord (or angel of death I suppose) would see the blood on the door frame as the atonement, and "pass over" them. Jesus did all this because he loves you and wants you to be made forever right with him, and he made it incredibly easy; by faith.
On September 26 2013 10:18 sam!zdat wrote:
in christianity god is split within himself. He is the father AND the son AND the holy ghost. So why couldn't he doubt himself? This is pretty much the most poetic thing in the whole book imo
In Genesis 1, God said "Let us make man in our image." Let us (plural) make man in our (singular) image.
This is the first verse in the Bible that expresses the Trinity: three unique, divine persons, but they are ONE God. As Christians it is a little confusing how that seems to be, and it's hard to fully understand how it looks. Point in case, God enables us, by faith, to believe that God is who he says he is. Faith itself is a gift from God so that we can believe.
On September 26 2013 10:18 sam!zdat wrote:
where does it say that god can't contradict himself? Isn't he all powerful? Does the law of non contradiction exist over and above the divine? That can't be so, because don't all things emanate from god, including (a fortiori) the law of non contradiction? I think if you say that god is subject to logical laws which exist over and above Him you are on a dangerous road to deism, which is just an interminable bore of a theology, wouldn't you say?
The Bible says that when we are unfaithful, God remains faithful, for God cannot deny himself. For God to deny himself, (his all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing nature), would be him literally denying his own deity. That would mean he is not eternal, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and therefore would doubt and even contradict himself because he would not be divine. God is a supernatural person with an incomprehensible nature. For God to doubt himself would mean that Jesus's death on the cross would have little to no effect on believers, meaning his blood might be able to cover your sins, but wouldn't know if his own divinity could make that possible. In other words, there would be no efficient way for God to make it possible for us to make it right with him, which would mean he is not omnipotent. The Bible says with full confidence that Jesus is able to forgive, and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
I really feel like you are just arguing for the sake of tripping me up and trying to find a way to attack me.
On September 26 2013 11:20 IgnE wrote:
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China?
The right way to come to God is the way he brings you. It could be through a person (friend, family, missionary, stranger, local church, etc), or it could be in a more divine way such as a dream or vision. However God wants to personally reveal himself to someone is his own choice and it will be sufficient for them.
|
On September 26 2013 14:52 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 11:20 IgnE wrote:
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China? The right way to come to God is the way he brings you. It could be through a person (friend, family, missionary, stranger, local church, etc), or it could be in a more divine way such as a dream or vision. However God wants to personally reveal himself to someone is his own choice and it will be sufficient for them.
So every person on earth, including people born in rural Pakistan and China will be sufficiently exposed to Christ, such that if they do not accept him and become Christians, they will be damned in hell?
|
no such thing as a personal belief, just beliefs.
the reason the old testament 'foreshadows' jesus is because jesus and the later christian tradition drew on that stuff. It's not like they didn't have it available to read.
the reason god is plural in genesis is because the people who wrote genesis were not monotheists, they were at best monolators (c.f. 'he will become like one of us'). That's because in early hebrew scripture they were still basically part of the mesopotamian religion and had not yet developed the monotheism of the post-exilic religion of the redactor who edited the tanakh.
but if god can't contradict himself, doesn't that make him not omnipotent also? Hell, he's less potent than walt whitman, if that's the case you say if he can contradict himself, then he's not omnipotent, but also if he can't, then he's not either.
if jesus knew he was going to be separated from god is this manner, why did he act all anguished when it actually happened?
also, wait, if jesus was separated from god to pay for our sins, how can he be the high priest in heaven now? Did god take him back? Not much of a punishment for the sins of all humanity, if he just has to be separated from god for a couple secs and then it's all good and he's in heaven
|
On September 26 2013 14:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:52 IronManSC wrote:On September 26 2013 11:20 IgnE wrote:
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China? The right way to come to God is the way he brings you. It could be through a person (friend, family, missionary, stranger, local church, etc), or it could be in a more divine way such as a dream or vision. However God wants to personally reveal himself to someone is his own choice and it will be sufficient for them. So every person on earth, including people born in rural Pakistan and China will be sufficiently exposed to Christ, such that if they do not accept him and become Christians, they will be damned in hell?
I can't speak for every human being on the planet, but I do know that God knows the heart of every individual. He knows who is, and who will be converted. I can't say that every person will hear OF Christ, but I do think everyone, at one point or another, will hear about God in general. Unfortunately, many will not believe in him. This is a tough question to answer only because I don't know much about international missionary work and how things operate in third world countries so I can't really give you a detailed answer on it, sorry.
But for the second part of the question I can give you an answer. You see, sin cannot co-exist with God's holiness, so it is fair and just for God to get rid of it, for God is a consuming fire. The wages of sin is death; not only physical but spiritual as well.
A lot of people say that God is mean for sending people to hell, but the reality is that he doesn't send us there - we choose hell for ourselves when we want nothing to do with God. What a lot of people don't realize is that hell is not made for man. It was made for Satan and his angels who rebelled against God in the beginning. Hell is the complete absence of God. Disobeying God and wanting nothing to do with him is all condensed there.
He made a way out, and even died for you to remove that penalty if only you'll accept it with a grateful heart, but many people will not care and would rather be the god of their own life; the "me myself and I" and "I'm content without God." God was loving enough to DIE for you and say "I am offering you life, I just ask that you accept it," but if people genuinely want nothing to do with God, then there is a place that has nothing to do with him at all: hell.
You may think i'm condemning people with these words, but this is what God says. It's a reality check straight out of multiple places in the Bible. He gave us the warning, he lovingly offers us a way out, and now it's your choice. Who will be your personal God: Jesus Christ, or your Self?
|
if people hear about 'god in general' and decide to become, say, hindus, does that make them saved?
|
On September 26 2013 15:17 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:58 IgnE wrote:On September 26 2013 14:52 IronManSC wrote:On September 26 2013 11:20 IgnE wrote:
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China? The right way to come to God is the way he brings you. It could be through a person (friend, family, missionary, stranger, local church, etc), or it could be in a more divine way such as a dream or vision. However God wants to personally reveal himself to someone is his own choice and it will be sufficient for them. So every person on earth, including people born in rural Pakistan and China will be sufficiently exposed to Christ, such that if they do not accept him and become Christians, they will be damned in hell? I can't speak for every human being on the planet, but I do know that God knows the heart of every individual. He knows who is, and who will be converted. I can't say that every person will hear OF Christ, but I do think everyone, at one point or another, will hear about God in general. Unfortunately, many will not believe in him. This is a tough question to answer only because I don't know much about international missionary work and how things operate in third world countries so I can't really give you a detailed answer on it, sorry. But for the second part of the question I can give you an answer. You see, sin cannot co-exist with God's holiness, so it is fair and just for God to get rid of it, for God is a consuming fire. The wages of sin is death; not only physical but spiritual as well. A lot of people say that God is mean for sending people to hell, but the reality is that he doesn't send us there - we choose hell for ourselves when we want nothing to do with God. What a lot of people don't realize is that hell is not made for man. It was made for Satan and his angels who rebelled against God in the beginning. Hell is the complete absence of God. Disobeying God and wanting nothing to do with him is all condensed there. He made a way out, and even died for you to remove that penalty if only you'll accept it with a grateful heart, but many people will not care and would rather be the god of their own life; the "me myself and I" and "I'm content without God." God was loving enough to DIE for you and say "I am offering you life, I just ask that you accept it," but if people genuinely want nothing to do with God, then there is a place that has nothing to do with him at all: hell. You may think i'm condemning people with these words, but this is what God says. It's a reality check straight out of multiple places in the Bible. He gave us the warning, he lovingly offers us a way out, and now it's your choice. Who will be your personal God: Jesus Christ, or your Self?
I am not sure if you are condemning people. Let's take the specific case of a Muslim born in rural Pakistan who lives and dies there, with little exposure to the outside world, including the internet. Firstly, does a Muslim "know God?" Essentially, can you get to heaven while being a Muslim, without recognizing Jesus as savior?
You say that God "knows the heart of every individual." I am not sure what that means. Could you elaborate?
Are you saying that God knows the Muslim wouldn't be a Christian even if he were born in a Christian country where he would be exposed to the Bible? Or a Christian family, where his parents would teach him about Jesus? That would essentially mean that God created a person that God knew was completely incapable of ever accepting Jesus. But you said that God makes himself known to every person and that every person has a chance to welcome Christ into their hearts.
Are you saying that God gives a free pass to the Muslim because he would have been a Christian if he had been born into different circumstances? That also seems problematic, because then the Muslim isn't really making a choice at all.
Are you saying something else?
If you think a Muslim can "know God" and be saved. What about a pygmy in the forest who literally never hears of the outside world? Is he saved? Can he be saved?
You seem very clear that God gives us a choice (the bolded part above) and yet I don't really understand what kind of choice is going on in cases like the above, which even if you argue are rare today (but still definitely exist and require an answer that is important for your theology), were undoubtedly very commonplace a couple hundred years ago.
|
On September 26 2013 15:04 sam!zdat wrote:
no such thing as a personal belief, just beliefs.
the reason the old testament 'foreshadows' jesus is because jesus and the later christian tradition drew on that stuff. It's not like they didn't have it available to read.
The Old Testament is a track record of God's mercy, grace, and his plan to redeem people, generally speaking.
On September 26 2013 15:04 sam!zdat wrote:
the reason god is plural in genesis is because the people who wrote genesis were not monotheists, they were at best monolators (c.f. 'he will become like one of us'). That's because in early hebrew scripture they were still basically part of the mesopotamian religion and had not yet developed the monotheism of the post-exilic religion of the redactor who edited the tanakh.
God uses his plurality multiple times throughout Scripture. Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8. This is a display of the unity of these three unique persons who are a single, eternal God. Like I said it's hard to comprehend even for believers at time, but it's not something we try to "figure out" because God limits our minds. I mean, why do we have to know how the Trinity is composed? We are given the faith to believe that God is who he says he is and that's all that should matter.
On September 26 2013 15:04 sam!zdat wrote:but if god can't contradict himself, doesn't that make him not omnipotent also? you say if he can contradict himself, then he's not omnipotent, but also if he can't, then he's not either.
What? I only said that if God could doubt or contradict himself, then he can't be all-powerful and all-knowing, because he himself wouldn't even know what was good and evil or how to make an efficient way for us to believe. Please don't put words in my mouth.
On September 26 2013 15:04 sam!zdat wrote:
if jesus knew he was going to be separated from god is this manner, why did he act all anguished when it actually happened?
Because knowing what he had to endure was different than actually experiencing the true pain of such a consequence. Just like knowing OF God doesn't mean you actually know him personally.
On September 26 2013 15:04 sam!zdat wrote:
also, wait, if jesus was separated from god to pay for our sins, how can he be the high priest in heaven now? Did god take him back? Not much of a punishment for the sins of all humanity, if he just has to be separated from god for a couple secs and then it's all good and he's in heaven
Because he was sinless. If Jesus had sinned, he would not be God. He would not be the Messiah, the Savior, the Redeemer, and the other hundred names that he is. He simply suffered the penalty that we deserve for OUR sins, but because he was perfect in every way, death couldn't handle him and the grave couldn't hold him. There was no fault in him.
the Father then raised Jesus from the dead, and because he was perfect, spotless, and carried out the righteous plan of God, he was honored and seated at the right hand of God, and is therefore our high priest because the shedding of his own blood is the final atonement for our sins that will cover the sins of those who ask for forgiveness in Jesus's Name.
|
'if god could [X] then he wouldn't be all powerful' is a logical absurdity. 'could' implies capability, all powerful implies capable of anything.
I wish christians actually wanted to argue about theology. You won't really address my points. I LIKE arguing about theology...
|
On September 26 2013 15:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 15:17 IronManSC wrote:On September 26 2013 14:58 IgnE wrote:On September 26 2013 14:52 IronManSC wrote:On September 26 2013 11:20 IgnE wrote:
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China? The right way to come to God is the way he brings you. It could be through a person (friend, family, missionary, stranger, local church, etc), or it could be in a more divine way such as a dream or vision. However God wants to personally reveal himself to someone is his own choice and it will be sufficient for them. So every person on earth, including people born in rural Pakistan and China will be sufficiently exposed to Christ, such that if they do not accept him and become Christians, they will be damned in hell? I can't speak for every human being on the planet, but I do know that God knows the heart of every individual. He knows who is, and who will be converted. I can't say that every person will hear OF Christ, but I do think everyone, at one point or another, will hear about God in general. Unfortunately, many will not believe in him. This is a tough question to answer only because I don't know much about international missionary work and how things operate in third world countries so I can't really give you a detailed answer on it, sorry. But for the second part of the question I can give you an answer. You see, sin cannot co-exist with God's holiness, so it is fair and just for God to get rid of it, for God is a consuming fire. The wages of sin is death; not only physical but spiritual as well. A lot of people say that God is mean for sending people to hell, but the reality is that he doesn't send us there - we choose hell for ourselves when we want nothing to do with God. What a lot of people don't realize is that hell is not made for man. It was made for Satan and his angels who rebelled against God in the beginning. Hell is the complete absence of God. Disobeying God and wanting nothing to do with him is all condensed there. He made a way out, and even died for you to remove that penalty if only you'll accept it with a grateful heart, but many people will not care and would rather be the god of their own life; the "me myself and I" and "I'm content without God." God was loving enough to DIE for you and say "I am offering you life, I just ask that you accept it," but if people genuinely want nothing to do with God, then there is a place that has nothing to do with him at all: hell. You may think i'm condemning people with these words, but this is what God says. It's a reality check straight out of multiple places in the Bible. He gave us the warning, he lovingly offers us a way out, and now it's your choice. Who will be your personal God: Jesus Christ, or your Self? I am not sure if you are condemning people. Let's take the specific case of a Muslim born in rural Pakistan who lives and dies there, with little exposure to the outside world, including the internet. Firstly, does a Muslim "know God?" Essentially, can you get to heaven while being a Muslim, without recognizing Jesus as savior? You say that God "knows the heart of every individual." I am not sure what that means. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that God knows the Muslim wouldn't be a Christian even if he were born in a Christian country where he would be exposed to the Bible? Or a Christian family, where his parents would teach him about Jesus? That would essentially mean that God created a person that God knew was completely incapable of ever accepting Jesus. But you said that God makes himself known to every person and that every person has a chance to welcome Christ into their hearts. Are you saying that God gives a free pass to the Muslim because he would have been a Christian if he had been born into different circumstances? That also seems problematic, because then the Muslim isn't really making a choice at all. Are you saying something else? If you think a Muslim can "know God" and be saved. What about a pygmy in the forest who literally never hears of the outside world? Is he saved? Can he be saved? You seem very clear that God gives us a choice (the bolded part above) and yet I don't really understand what kind of choice is going on in cases like the above, which even if you argue are rare today (but still definitely exist and require an answer that is important for your theology), were undoubtedly very commonplace a couple hundred years ago.
I like your honesty, but to be truthful I can't give a clear answer on this because I'm not a missionary, I've never been to a third world country other than Mexico to build a classroom for a church, and I don't truthfully know all the details about those who've gone their whole life never hearing the Gospel. I know it's important to my theology-to an extent. These are questions many Christians ask and ponder about. But, in one of my blogs I mention that God makes himself known all around us through nature. God is still there even if someone hasn't heard the Gospel, but I admit that I don't fully know how God makes himself known to others, whether big or small.
It sort of ties together with the question "Why does God save some, but not others?" The answer is I don't know. I don't know why God saves some and not others. But whatever his perfect reasoning is behind it all, it does not conflict or contradict with his character and divine nature. This is one of the hardest questions to answer because we simply don't know. The Bible says that "his ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts," so I can't give you a clear, definite answer on it. Then again you have to wonder, if everyone was saved anyway, then what would grace or mercy be? Would God be as awesome as he is right now? Would we understand the love of Christ the way we do now? God made us perfect, but he didn't want us to be "faith robots." He wanted us to genuinely love him; to choose him.
I know how curious people are about it these two subjects, and even I am as well, but I rest in the fact that I have Jesus as my Lord and I want to continue growing in my relationship with him and trusting in his promises. Hand in hand, I want to tell others that Jesus is good and that he loves you. I hope you realize i'm not trying to avoid the topic. There are just some things we do understand about God, and some things we don't, and this happens to be one of them.
|
On September 26 2013 15:38 sam!zdat wrote:
'if god could [X] then he wouldn't be all powerful' is a logical absurdity. 'could' implies capability, all powerful implies capable of anything.
Ugh. You know what I mean. It's the internet it's really hard to understand the tone and context of one's words. That's why I enjoy these topics in person because I feel like I can express it more clearly.
|
no I don't know what you mean. You sound like a ' faith robot', tbh
my theology DOES involve god as being inherently self contradictory. So I want you to explain to me why god can't be.
edit: whatever. Who cares. Just be happy in your little fundamentalist land. What's the point of talking about it? They will probably ban me again soon anyway. God bless you ironmansc, just stay out of politics ok?
|
On September 26 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 15:27 IgnE wrote:On September 26 2013 15:17 IronManSC wrote:On September 26 2013 14:58 IgnE wrote:On September 26 2013 14:52 IronManSC wrote:On September 26 2013 11:20 IgnE wrote:
How does God call you if you are born a Muslim in rural Pakistan or a farmer in rural China? The right way to come to God is the way he brings you. It could be through a person (friend, family, missionary, stranger, local church, etc), or it could be in a more divine way such as a dream or vision. However God wants to personally reveal himself to someone is his own choice and it will be sufficient for them. So every person on earth, including people born in rural Pakistan and China will be sufficiently exposed to Christ, such that if they do not accept him and become Christians, they will be damned in hell? I can't speak for every human being on the planet, but I do know that God knows the heart of every individual. He knows who is, and who will be converted. I can't say that every person will hear OF Christ, but I do think everyone, at one point or another, will hear about God in general. Unfortunately, many will not believe in him. This is a tough question to answer only because I don't know much about international missionary work and how things operate in third world countries so I can't really give you a detailed answer on it, sorry. But for the second part of the question I can give you an answer. You see, sin cannot co-exist with God's holiness, so it is fair and just for God to get rid of it, for God is a consuming fire. The wages of sin is death; not only physical but spiritual as well. A lot of people say that God is mean for sending people to hell, but the reality is that he doesn't send us there - we choose hell for ourselves when we want nothing to do with God. What a lot of people don't realize is that hell is not made for man. It was made for Satan and his angels who rebelled against God in the beginning. Hell is the complete absence of God. Disobeying God and wanting nothing to do with him is all condensed there. He made a way out, and even died for you to remove that penalty if only you'll accept it with a grateful heart, but many people will not care and would rather be the god of their own life; the "me myself and I" and "I'm content without God." God was loving enough to DIE for you and say "I am offering you life, I just ask that you accept it," but if people genuinely want nothing to do with God, then there is a place that has nothing to do with him at all: hell. You may think i'm condemning people with these words, but this is what God says. It's a reality check straight out of multiple places in the Bible. He gave us the warning, he lovingly offers us a way out, and now it's your choice. Who will be your personal God: Jesus Christ, or your Self? I am not sure if you are condemning people. Let's take the specific case of a Muslim born in rural Pakistan who lives and dies there, with little exposure to the outside world, including the internet. Firstly, does a Muslim "know God?" Essentially, can you get to heaven while being a Muslim, without recognizing Jesus as savior? You say that God "knows the heart of every individual." I am not sure what that means. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that God knows the Muslim wouldn't be a Christian even if he were born in a Christian country where he would be exposed to the Bible? Or a Christian family, where his parents would teach him about Jesus? That would essentially mean that God created a person that God knew was completely incapable of ever accepting Jesus. But you said that God makes himself known to every person and that every person has a chance to welcome Christ into their hearts. Are you saying that God gives a free pass to the Muslim because he would have been a Christian if he had been born into different circumstances? That also seems problematic, because then the Muslim isn't really making a choice at all. Are you saying something else? If you think a Muslim can "know God" and be saved. What about a pygmy in the forest who literally never hears of the outside world? Is he saved? Can he be saved? You seem very clear that God gives us a choice (the bolded part above) and yet I don't really understand what kind of choice is going on in cases like the above, which even if you argue are rare today (but still definitely exist and require an answer that is important for your theology), were undoubtedly very commonplace a couple hundred years ago. I like your honesty, but to be truthful I can't give a clear answer on this because I'm not a missionary, I've never been to a third world country other than Mexico to build a classroom for a church, and I don't truthfully know all the details about those who've gone their whole life never hearing the Gospel. I know it's important to my theology-to an extent. These are questions many Christians ask and ponder about. But, in one of my blogs I mention that God makes himself known all around us through nature. God is still there even if someone hasn't heard the Gospel, but I admit that I don't fully know how God makes himself known to others, whether big or small. It sort of ties together with the question "Why does God save some, but not others?" The answer is I don't know. I don't know why God saves some and not others. But whatever his perfect reasoning is behind it all, it does not conflict or contradict with his character and divine nature. This is one of the hardest questions to answer because we simply don't know. The Bible says that "his ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts," so I can't give you a clear, definite answer on it. Then again you have to wonder, if everyone was saved anyway, then what would grace or mercy be? Would God be as awesome as he is right now? Would we understand the love of Christ the way we do now? God made us perfect, but he didn't want us to be "faith robots." He wanted us to genuinely love him; to choose him. I know how curious people are about it these two subjects, and even I am as well, but I rest in the fact that I have Jesus as my Lord and I want to continue growing in my relationship with him and trusting in his promises. Hand in hand, I want to tell others that Jesus is good and that he loves you. I hope you realize i'm not trying to avoid the topic. There are just some things we do understand about God, and some things we don't, and this happens to be one of them.
Doesn't it bother you that there are Hindus and Muslims who are born into Hindu and Muslim countries in Hindu and Muslim families who think that they "know God" and that you are worshipping, at best, a Jewish prophet who might have had some good ideas? And that they have spiritual experiences like the ones you describe in your blog that reinforce their religious views and that they rejoice in the God they have come to know through their religious beliefs?
What makes you sure that they are wrong? What makes you sure that you will be saved but that they won't be saved?
Why do you think that you have the ultimate claim on what God says and does, when you know for a fact that they are just as sure that they are right, that they have similar kinds of spiritual experiences that you do, similar historical customs, and similar claims to know the Word of God?
|
Let's say, IronManSC, that you were born in Afghanistan, where 99.7% of the population is Muslim. Do you think that you would be a Christian in any case? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
If you were statistically overwhelmingly likely to be born and raised a Muslim in Afghanistan, and thought that you were following the one true religion, with all of the available evidence in front of you reaffirming your Islamic beliefs, don't you think it would be downright cruel of God to banish you from his kingdom for not accepting Jesus as your savior?
|
it's okay. He has his perfect reasons for choosing ironmansc to be saved and not joe bob muhammad of syria. Ironmansc must just be among the elect for reasons that are simply unfathomable to mortals, but who are we to question god's divine wisdom?
|
On September 26 2013 16:05 sam!zdat wrote:
it's okay. He has his perfect reasons for choosing ironmansc to be saved and not joe bob muhammad of syria. Ironmansc must just be among the elect for reasons that are simply unfathomable to mortals, but who are we to question god's divine wisdom?
I'm confident that IronManSC has thought about these issues before and has a well thought-out explanation for us.
|
On September 26 2013 16:00 IgnE wrote:
Let's say, IronManSC, that you were born in Afghanistan, where 99.7% of the population is Muslim. Do you think that you would be a Christian in any case? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
If you were statistically overwhelmingly likely to be born and raised a Muslim in Afghanistan, and thought that you were following the one true religion, with all of the available evidence in front of you reaffirming your Islamic beliefs, don't you think it would be downright cruel of God to banish you from his kingdom for not accepting Jesus as your savior?
I don't wanna put words into IronManSC's mouth, but from my understanding of the Bible, basically those people either A) knew of God from creation itself, but rejected God and turned to their sins (see Romans 1 for an explanation of this), or B) they have heard the gospel (and pretty much everyone everywhere has heard the gospel in some form or shape, and are therefore rejecting the gospel and are subject to the punishment due.
|
On September 26 2013 16:00 IgnE wrote:
Let's say, IronManSC, that you were born in Afghanistan, where 99.7% of the population is Muslim. Do you think that you would be a Christian in any case? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
If you were statistically overwhelmingly likely to be born and raised a Muslim in Afghanistan, and thought that you were following the one true religion, with all of the available evidence in front of you reaffirming your Islamic beliefs, don't you think it would be downright cruel of God to banish you from his kingdom for not accepting Jesus as your savior?
May I ask you if one of the reasons that you don't believe in God is because of justice and equality?
That, even after leading an unfair, poor, hard life, even after death, the great equalizer, you can't bear the thought that some people must be punished [for having the bad luck of not having heard of God/being born in a godless land]?
edit: Clarified to avoid misunderstanding, I don't wish muslims to hell.
|
punished for... What? Being born into a nonchristian society?
the whole point of the afterlife stuff is to make the world seem fair, so you can tell yourself that evil men with wordly success will get what's coming to them (as jameson puts it, to resolve in the imagination conflicts which cannot be resolved in society). Extending this logic to the great heathen masses is just a banal chauvinism that turns what may have been a comforting myth (though also a means of social control which defuses indignation at earthly injustice) into a self-righteous ethnocentrism.
edit: if you actually want your religious tradition to matter in the modern world, you should find an interpretation of it that WORKS in the modern world. Not some medieval bs about the unbaptized infidels who are going to hell because they weren't lucky enough to be born in christendom. Nobody who doesn't live in a fundamentalist fantasy land is going to take that seriously. But there are important ideas in the judeochristian tradition which it would be a lot easier to convince people to take seriously if it weren't for a bunch of fascists telling everyone they are the chosen people. You're doing a great disservice to christianity with this nonsense and I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.
|
On September 27 2013 01:58 sam!zdat wrote:
punished for... What? Being born into a nonchristian society?
Yep
the whole point of the afterlife stuff is to make the world seem fair, so you can tell yourself that evil men with wordly success will get what's coming to them (as jameson puts it, to resolve in the imagination conflicts which cannot be resolved in society). Extending this logic to the great heathen masses is just a banal chauvinism that turns what may have been a comforting myth (though also a means of social control which defuses indignation at earthly injustice) into a self-righteous ethnocentrism. That is if you already have made up your mind about religion and afterlife. True, those beliefs were partially abused by some powers. But Igne's concern's are at a theological level, not a sociocultural one.
edit: if you actually want your religious tradition to matter in the modern world, you should find an interpretation of it that WORKS in the modern world. Not some medieval bs about the unbaptized infidels who are going to hell because they weren't lucky enough to be born in christendom. Nobody who doesn't live in a fundamentalist fantasy land is going to take that seriously. But there are important ideas in the judeochristian tradition which it would be a lot easier to convince people to take seriously if it weren't for a bunch of fascists telling everyone they are the chosen people. You're doing a great disservice to christianity with this nonsense and I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.
You got it wrong, religious traditions shouldn't matter in the modern world. It is more important that the core message comes through.
I feel not responsible for that "bunch of fascists" and therefore feel not ashamed. I live by the words: "Do not be proud of your beliefs, but also don't be ashamed.
Neither do I try to judge those "bunch of fascists". (but man, not judging is hard, and since I just saw farva's post, I will give the most human answer: judging is human. Now, it is not a justification for judging, but it is the reason why we judge.)
Well, a bit of variance of believers in Christianity shouldn't hurt, as Taleb would say, and you can't disagree with Taleb, rite?
my post is a clusterfuck
And samzdat i regret that I can't hold a candle to you in theology and philosophy because I am not as well read as you are and sometimes really doubt my ability of rational thinking (fu kahnemann) but I appreciate your will for serious theological discussion.
farv u are annoying lately. Law of hammurabi so cool it's okay to be as annoying as others. No, it is not. A mature person should not reciprocate. (lol irony, by my answer i just reciprocated T_T)
and rly out
|
Why do you judge others based on something so utterly out of their control? Heavy weighs the gavel, ehh?
|
I care about theology also. And this theology is obsolete. But I deny that there can be any separation between these two levels. The unity of theory and praxis! You cannot understand some idea in isolation from its social efficacy - religion may not be true, but it works, that's why it needs to be taken seriously.
it's my tradition as much as anyone else's, and I think christianity needs to be saved from itself - from the dogmatic accretion around what is really a very important, fascinating, and multifaceted text.
if christianity is what you guys say it is, then it's a load of bullcrap. Luckily, it isn't.
did you know that jesus never preached of an afterlife? He taught that the kingdom of heaven would arrive soon, on earth. They had to put in the afterlife stuff when that didn't happen. So what's the true teaching of jesus? How do you recover the kerygma from the layers of interpretation and accretion?
edit:if you actually took the time to read and engage crotically with the text, you would find that it is a document of a people's relationship with god as it changes and evolves through time. The only way to respect that relationship is to see it as a living thing, which is still changing and evolving and growing, not as a dead thing that you recite in a credo. The idea that christianity died at the council of nicaea and now we are just lugging around it's rotting corpse, not allowed to reintrep and change it and develop our own relationship with god that respects and draws on the earlier tradition while recognizing it's limitations is a blasphemy of the worst sort and frankly stultifyingly boring. The only way to protect and respect the tradition is to change it, otherwise it is just a dead thing! Worshipping the text as perfect and true is just another idolatry. God is not dead, stop treating him that way!
|
On September 27 2013 02:19 sam!zdat wrote:
did you know that jesus never preached of an afterlife? He taught that the kingdom of heaven would arrive soon, on earth. They had to put in the afterlife stuff when that didn't happen. So what's the true teaching of jesus? How do you recover the kerygma from the layers of interpretation and accretion?
Jesus preached a little about heaven AND hell, and even said to the robber on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" which means there is something more after death, not to mention that Jesus even said if you believe in him then you'll have "eternal life" which is another statement of an afterlife. Throughout the New Testament there are other verses talking about having new bodies in heaven, rewards in heaven, being re-united with loved ones someday, Jesus preparing a place for us in his home and then returning to take us back there, and people being tossed into the lake of fire at the final judgment if their names were not written in the Book of Life, and a few other verses. All are indicators of an afterlife.
However Jesus came here to make things right and to show us a way. He was more concerned about making our hearts right with God than just saying "guess what guys?! There's an afterlife!"
|
On September 27 2013 02:10 blubbdavid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 01:58 sam!zdat wrote:
punished for... What? Being born into a nonchristian society?
Yep Show nested quote +the whole point of the afterlife stuff is to make the world seem fair, so you can tell yourself that evil men with wordly success will get what's coming to them (as jameson puts it, to resolve in the imagination conflicts which cannot be resolved in society). Extending this logic to the great heathen masses is just a banal chauvinism that turns what may have been a comforting myth (though also a means of social control which defuses indignation at earthly injustice) into a self-righteous ethnocentrism. That is if you already have made up your mind about religion and afterlife. True, those beliefs were partially abused by some powers. But Igne's concern's are at a theological level, not a sociocultural one. Show nested quote +
edit: if you actually want your religious tradition to matter in the modern world, you should find an interpretation of it that WORKS in the modern world. Not some medieval bs about the unbaptized infidels who are going to hell because they weren't lucky enough to be born in christendom. Nobody who doesn't live in a fundamentalist fantasy land is going to take that seriously. But there are important ideas in the judeochristian tradition which it would be a lot easier to convince people to take seriously if it weren't for a bunch of fascists telling everyone they are the chosen people. You're doing a great disservice to christianity with this nonsense and I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.
You got it wrong, religious traditions shouldn't matter in the modern world. It is more important that the core message comes through. I feel not responsible for that "bunch of fascists" and therefore feel not ashamed. I live by the words: "Do not be proud of your beliefs, but also don't be ashamed. Neither do I try judge those "bunch of fascists". (but man, not judging is hard, and since I just saw farva's post, I will give the most human answer: judging is human. Now, it is not a justification for judging, but it is the reason why we judge.) Well, a bit of variance of believers in Christianity shouldn't hurt, as Taleb would say, and you can't disagree with Taleb, rite? my post is a clusterfuck And samzdat i regret that I can't hold a candle to you in theology and philosophy because I am not as well read as you are and sometimes really doubt my ability of rational thinking (fu kahnemann) but I appreciate your will for serious theological discussion. farv u are annoying lately and out
As long as I'm as annoying as the notion that Christianity requires us to doom judge non-Christians, then I'm ok with it.
|
most of the new testament was written decades or centuries after christ. A bunch of stuffy assholes assembled it in 325 at council of nicaea, throwing away lots of other texts which they didn't like. How can you trust it? Don't be an idolator of the text, the text is not god it is just a fallible, flawed document of the relationship to god of some people who lived long ago in a very different world. Read! Interpet! Think! Do not fetishize the book that is blasphemy
edit: blubbdavid the only way for the ore message to come through is to extract it from its social context in the classical world and then reinterpet it in ours. It cannot exist in isolation! The eternal truth ONLY exists in its multiplicity of interpretations in different contexts. It is not dead it is alive! I BELIEVE in the truth of christianity, and that's why I can't believe in this nonsense about daddy god and afterlife because if you mistake that stuff for the kerygma then you worship a dead thing.
|
On September 27 2013 02:43 sam!zdat wrote:
most of the new testament was written decades or centuries after christ. A bunch of stuffy assholes assembled it in 325 at council of nicaea, throwing away lots of other texts which they didn't like. How can you trust it? Don't be an idolator of the text, the text is not god it is just a fallible, flawed document of the relationship to god of some people who lived long ago in a very different world. Read! Interpet! Think! Do not fetishize the book that is blasphemy
edit: blubbdavid the only way for the ore message to come through is to extract it from its social context in the classical world and then reinterpet it in ours. It cannot exist in isolation! The eternal truth ONLY exists in its multiplicity of interpretations in different contexts. It is not dead it is alive! I BELIEVE in the truth of christianity, and that's why I can't believe in this nonsense about daddy god and afterlife because if you mistake that stuff for the kerygma then you worship a dead thing.
What do you believe the truth of Christianity is?
|
god is love
edit: and god really IS love, no matter what dr. Hoenikker says
|
On September 27 2013 02:10 blubbdavid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 01:58 sam!zdat wrote:
punished for... What? Being born into a nonchristian society?
Yep
Wow.
|
On September 26 2013 19:34 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 16:00 IgnE wrote:
Let's say, IronManSC, that you were born in Afghanistan, where 99.7% of the population is Muslim. Do you think that you would be a Christian in any case? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
If you were statistically overwhelmingly likely to be born and raised a Muslim in Afghanistan, and thought that you were following the one true religion, with all of the available evidence in front of you reaffirming your Islamic beliefs, don't you think it would be downright cruel of God to banish you from his kingdom for not accepting Jesus as your savior? I don't wanna put words into IronManSC's mouth, but from my understanding of the Bible, basically those people either A) knew of God from creation itself, but rejected God and turned to their sins (see Romans 1 for an explanation of this), or B) they have heard the gospel (and pretty much everyone everywhere has heard the gospel in some form or shape, and are therefore rejecting the gospel and are subject to the punishment due.
So IronManSC, Birdie, and blubbdavid you are all OK with the idea that if you had been born in Afghanistan you would have grown up Muslim, thinking that Islam was the one true religion, experiencing God through the lens of Islam, and believing that you were following God's Word in the Koran? And that you then would have been thrust into hellfire because you didn't accept Jesus, regardless of whether you actually knew who he was or what he taught or what the Bible was?
Or do you really think you would have become Christians in rural Afghanistan as a poor goatherd?
|
On September 27 2013 02:53 sam!zdat wrote:
god is love
edit: and god really IS love, no matter what dr. Hoenikker says
Yes, the Bible does say that God is love, but that's just knowing a trait of God. Even demons know about God.
"You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror." - James 2:19
Jesus is in control of everything, including evil. He did not create it or cause it, but he can control it.
God allows evil, but he does not cause it. Don't confuse the two.
Demons can do nothing without getting permission from Jesus:
The demons kept begging Jesus not to send them into the bottomless pit. There happened to be a large herd of pigs feeding on the hillside nearby, and the demons begged him to let them enter into the pigs. So Jesus gave them permission. - Luke 8:31-32
Satan himself, a fallen angel, can't even do anything to people without first getting permission from the Lord:
One day the members of the heavenly court came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Accuser, Satan, came with them. "Where have you come from?" The Lord asked Satan.
Satan answered the Lord, "I have been patrolling the earth, watching everything that's going on." Then the Lord asked Satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth. He is blameless-a man of complete integrity. He fears God and stays away from evil."
Satan replied to the Lord, "Yes, but Job has good reason to fear God. You have always put a wall of protection around him and his home and his property. You have made him prosper in everything he does. Look how rich he is! But reach out and take away everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!"
"All right, you may test him," The Lord said to Satan. "Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don't harm him physically." So Satan left the Lord's presence.
-Job 1:6-12
Job remained faithful after he was raided, losing his animals and workers (too much for me to write), but Satan tries it again...
One day the members of the heavenly court came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Accuser, Satan, came with them. "Where have you come from?" The Lord asked Satan.
Satan answered the Lord, "I have been patrolling the earth, watching everything that's going on." Then the Lord asked Satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth. He is blameless-a man of complete integrity. He fears God and stays away from evil. And he has maintained his integrity, even though you urged me to harm him without cause."
Satan replied to the Lord, "Skin for skin! A man will give up everything he has to save his life. But reach out and take away his health, and he will surely curse you to your face!"
"All right, do with him as you please," The Lord said to Satan. "But spare his life." So Satan left the Lord's presence, and he struck Job with terrible boils from head to foot.
-Job 2:1-7
Job remained faithful and continued to trust in God despite all the troubles he faced, God rewarded him and blessed him:
So the Lord blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the beginning. For now he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 teams of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also gave Job seven more sons and three more daughters.
-Job 42:12-13
The do's and don'ts are there for our own good. God knows us more than we know ourselves. He knows our weaknesses, and he is basically warning us not to fall into this trap or that, so he he laid out a road for us to follow. Just because you know a few things about God, or believe that he is the ONLY God does not do justice in his book. You need to know who he is, and personally, through faith and a relationship with Jesus Christ. From that, you live a life of gratitude, doing good deeds that please the Lord. Now anyone can bear fruit (love, joy, peace, patience, etc), but the difference is the motive of the individual. Why do we, Christians, do what we do? Because of what Christ did for us. That's what Christianity is truly about.
"Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.' But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'" - Matthew 7:21-23
|
yeah man, the devil also comes quoting scripture. Think we got a good example of that right here.
no love, all dogma. Defeats the entire point
|
On September 27 2013 03:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 19:34 Birdie wrote:On September 26 2013 16:00 IgnE wrote:
Let's say, IronManSC, that you were born in Afghanistan, where 99.7% of the population is Muslim. Do you think that you would be a Christian in any case? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
If you were statistically overwhelmingly likely to be born and raised a Muslim in Afghanistan, and thought that you were following the one true religion, with all of the available evidence in front of you reaffirming your Islamic beliefs, don't you think it would be downright cruel of God to banish you from his kingdom for not accepting Jesus as your savior? I don't wanna put words into IronManSC's mouth, but from my understanding of the Bible, basically those people either A) knew of God from creation itself, but rejected God and turned to their sins (see Romans 1 for an explanation of this), or B) they have heard the gospel (and pretty much everyone everywhere has heard the gospel in some form or shape, and are therefore rejecting the gospel and are subject to the punishment due. So IronManSC, Birdie, and blubbdavid you are all OK with the idea that if you had been born in Afghanistan you would have grown up Muslim, thinking that Islam was the one true religion, experiencing God through the lens of Islam, and believing that you were following God's Word in the Koran? And that you then would have been thrust into hellfire because you didn't accept Jesus, regardless of whether you actually knew who he was or what he taught or what the Bible was? Or do you really think you would have become Christians in rural Afghanistan as a poor goatherd?
I don't think I would have become a Christian in such a scenario. Neither would I think that I would even exist in such a scenario. There is only one me and that me is not in Afghanistan. That makes hypothetical scenarios rather unbecoming.
Unless you believe in alternate universes (in which only people with too much time believe into).
To your first paragraph, if I talk the talk, I have to walk the walk, even though I don't want to. I cannot run from the fact (if it is true).
On September 27 2013 03:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 02:10 blubbdavid wrote:On September 27 2013 01:58 sam!zdat wrote:
punished for... What? Being born into a nonchristian society?
Yep Wow.
You misunderstood something here which makes me doubt that you are honest about this discussion. I asked if you do not believe because you find it unjust for a human being born into a nonchristian society being punished. It was a question to find out about your motivations behind this discussion, not to squarely attack you beliefs.
And I don't like you answer at all. wow
Edit: I don't actually think that people "must" be punished for blablabla, I just used the word "must" to express the inevitability of punishment. Sry for my little rant. And sry if it caused a misunderstanding, I am not a westboro guy who wishes nonbelievers to hell.
Maybe you should play a round of Mafia or two. And maybe I should too.
|
On September 27 2013 04:05 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah man, the devil also comes quoting scripture. Think we got a good example of that right here.
no love, all dogma. Defeats the entire point
Must you be so ignorant? You have nothing comprehensive to say against it other than "ya well, Satan can pretend to be an angel of light and quote scripture, so we agree to disagree?" Yes, he can pretend to be an angel of light, thus he is the deceiver and the father of lies. He is extremely intelligent and clever, and he is so powerful that even Michael the archangel considers him a foe.
That's why there are false prophets, fake Christians, churches who do not teach the truth, and a million other belief systems that do not teach about the grace of God and who Jesus is and what he did for you. Satan's goal is to twist the Word of God and lead us away from having faith in the one true God. You make it sound like Satan can say good things, and therefore we can't know for sure if it's really him saying it or if it's God saying it, or who is really telling the truth, so therefore you can't take the Bible seriously! To make such a statement, or even imply it is foolish.
None of the Scripture that I posted is a "quote from Satan" as you mention. I don't know how you even see that. God wanted these glimpses in Job to show us that even Satan and his demons were (and is) under the authority of God and even though he can wreak havoc in the world, he has limited restrictions. God made it very plain in Scripture that Satan is on a leash; he can only do so much. In the final judgment, he will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
To help you understand who Satan is, here are a few helpful links that best describe him (if you honestly care at all):
Who is Satan?
http://www.gotquestions.org/who-Satan.html
Why does God allow Satan to access heaven?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-access.html
Why did Satan think he could defeat God?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-defeat.html
Why did God allow Satan and his demons to sin?
http://www.gotquestions.org/angels-sin.html
If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he just kill Satan?
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-vs-Satan.html
|
yeah, I think you are a false christian in a church that does not teach the truth! I think you have been led astray by a satan twisting the words of god! I can say it just as well as you can.
because you fetishize the text and do not take it seriously as a text which demands critical engagement. It is extremely disrespectful to a text which you claim to value. In my eyes, you are an idolator of a dead god who uses their 'faith' as a weapon in the service of arrogance and hate.
I never said anything about 'quote from satan', I said the devil also comes quoting scripture. That's YOU, cquoting a text you do not even make any attempt to understand in its context.
edit: anyway, whatever, take your thread back idolator. If I keep at this I'll say what I REALLY think about you and get myself banned
|
So I've read the last blogpost and I just gotta ask how anything you've written on both the blogpost and your latest posts in this thread are "progressive". Or I suppose more importantly, what does the word "progressive" mean to you in your usage of the term "progressive faith"? I take Christianity very seriously as someone who attempts to follow Christ, and I have no interest in raising polemic against Christianity in-itself. But I'm just flat out going to have to be rather suspicious of your usage of the word "progressive" when all you're doing is offering rehashed and rather trite apologetics. It's just rather lacking of self-awareness as if you've learned nothing from the times you lost faith.
I apologize for not actually dealing with the actual text here as I'm rather busy lately with my seminars + thesis research, but when I find time to breath I'll try to directly respond to your text. Mainly I do want to understand what you're trying to say by the word "progressive faith" because the word "progressive" is such an abused word these days that is thrown around rather thoughtlessly.
edit: and as for the Matthew 7:21-23 quote - the loss of ironic awareness is such a catastrophic thing
|
On September 27 2013 02:13 farvacola wrote:
Why do you judge others based on something so utterly out of their control? Heavy weighs the gavel, ehh?
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
|
On September 27 2013 06:14 koreasilver wrote:
So I've read the last blogpost and I just gotta ask how anything you've written on both the blogpost and your latest posts in this thread are "progressive". Or I suppose more importantly, what does the word "progressive" mean to you in your usage of the term "progressive faith"? I take Christianity very seriously as someone who attempts to follow Christ, and I have no interest in raising polemic against Christianity in-itself. But I'm just flat out going to have to be rather suspicious of your usage of the word "progressive" when all you're doing is offering rehashed and rather trite apologetics. It's just rather lacking of self-awareness as if you've learned nothing from the times you lost faith.
I apologize for not actually dealing with the actual text here as I'm rather busy lately with my seminars + thesis research, but when I find time to breath I'll try to directly respond to your text. Mainly I do want to understand what you're trying to say by the word "progressive faith" because the word "progressive" is such an abused word these days that is thrown around rather thoughtlessly.
I don't think I'm totally clear on the word 'progressive' so I do apologize if it confused you or others. The idea behind is is that it is a progress of your faith if you *continue to believe, and you *continue to develop spiritual awareness (and how to recognize it instead of asking God for something radical to happen). In other words, the faith to "keep going." Mabye progressive isn't the right word for it, but I thought it was fitting. Perhaps you're not interpreting it the way I intended, or perhaps I'm not expressing it the way it ought to be. Whatever the case may be I hope you understand it a little more now, but I don't think you should necessarily talk down to me over a mere word.
Also, this thread is for announcing a new blog I wrote, and for having discussions.
|
My main problem with your posts was with your natural theology and unwillingness to actually deal with the problem of the Left Hand of God instead of throwing a veil over it by way of classic apologia, not with the word "progressive". I just wanted to raise the question on what you meant by "progressive" to get a sense of what you were/are trying to do to give me a broad idea of how to go about replying to your posts.
|
Did I just read someone saying God/Jesus didn't create evil, they only allowed it?
|
That would be the classical Augustinian formulation, yes.
|
So God didn't actually create everything, just everything except evil?
|
On September 27 2013 07:08 mizU wrote:
So God didn't actually create everything, just everything except evil?
but he created the opportunity of evil and free will. there you go.
|
He created the illusion of freewill, since he plans everything.
Or am I wrong and you can go against the will of God?
|
Just because God "knows" what you will choose before you choose it doesn't make it an illusion. You still have the freedom to choose and he won't intervene or force you to choose a or b. Which is why we see evil in the world, God allows evil to occur out of respect for holding true to this ultimate gift of free will, it's not like we have free will...until we try to choose evil.
Guys like Sam Harris use the "evil is in the world therefore God either a. doesn't exist or b. is a monster who isn't worth following anyway" fail to grasp the reality of what free will is from a religious standpoint.
In order for there to be a choice there has to be good/evil, otherwise there's no real choice. God could have created a good world with only good choices, but there's no real higher meaning to that sort of an existence. In order for there to be great good there has to be great evil.
|
But God planned our choices too, did he not?
|
Nah, somehow God created us with free will, which meant he didn't always plan what decisions we would make. Which then gets into the determinism and compatibilism debates, and that's a whole mess
|
On September 27 2013 10:56 mizU wrote:
But God planned our choices too, did he not?
Does him planning our choices affect how we choose?
|
I would just like to say that whether or not Christianity endorses free will or determinism via predestination is something that has been debated within Christianity through its entire history. Unfortunately for all the New Atheists that try to (with all seriousness) say that the concept of free will is fundamentally a religious idea, their assertion has no basis in history and is full of bunk given all the ink and curses that have been spilt over the topic. Apparently Calvin does not exist in their universal history, nor Luther's polemics against Dun Scotus over the question of free will. Honestly the question of free will is one of the worst questions ever and any real concerted effort to deal with whether there is or is not a free will is a true waste of time.
|
On September 27 2013 11:54 koreasilver wrote:
I would just like to say that whether or not Christianity endorses free will or determinism via predestination is something that has been debated within Christianity through its entire history. Unfortunately for all the New Atheists that try to (with all seriousness) say that the concept of free will is fundamentally a religious idea, their assertion has no basis in history and is full of bunk given all the ink and curses that have been spilt over the topic. Apparently Calvin does not exist in their universal history, nor Luther's polemics against Dun Scotus over the question of free will. Honestly the question of free will is one of the worst questions ever and any real concerted effort to deal with whether there is or is not a free will is a true waste of time.
But these days the usual line is that we have free will so God didn't plan everything we do. As far as I can tell, this is largely because after some of the atrocities of the 20th century, most notably the Holocaust, it's really hard to believe in a completely determinist God any more. Whereas if we have free will, then God only created us with free will, and WE committed the atrocities.
|
And I just can't get with that way of dodging the real hard questions. Even if we were to take free will as a given, that by itself doesn't just magick away the problem of theodicy because it still begs the question as to why God didn't intervene at all to begin with and allowed such atrocities to occur. This also doesn't magick away natural disasters that are utterly and completely beyond human control yet still cause untold destruction and agony towards both the innocent and the human trash (the rain falls on both the just and the unjust). The question of free will on its own is unable to adequately deal with the questions of theodicy because there are always events that are just morally incomprehensible and completely beyond the realm of the will, and any apologia that tries to "save" the divine grace and "defend" God from being questioned for his intervention/nonintervention is fascile and more importantly, hubristic to the point of near blasphemy (as if God needs to be defended to begin with; as if you have the authority to save divine grace). The Book of Job illustrates this perfectly.
|
On September 27 2013 11:11 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 10:56 mizU wrote:
But God planned our choices too, did he not? Does him planning our choices affect how we choose?
??? Obviously it does
|
clearly Gods planning of our choices affects what we can choose.
If God drops you off in the middle of a field and you're starving and there's just apples and oranges around, clearly you can't choose a banana. There are always constraints on our choices in this way.
But how does this affect how we choose once put in the situation? Do the constraints of the situation always dictate which choice we make? How do we explain the person who chooses neither the apple nor the orange and instead chooses to fast for Gods glory even though he is starving?
also koreasilver; love your insight in threads like this, great points. I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious and is the root of many other harder or higher level discussions that might be had around the subject.
|
I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious
.............. the entire point of my post was to say that saying something like this is absolutely ignorant of the history of thought given that many foundational theological figures strenuously argued that there could not be a free will in front of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Of course there were also many other theologians that placed their bets entirely on the free will (such as Kierkegaard), and there are countless atheistic figures that also argued for the free will or just took the free will as a given. Saying that the issue of free will is a dividing line between atheism and the religious is so comically wrong, not just conceptually but also historically, so whenever I hear/read a New Atheist or a religious person say that I can only say that the fact that such a premise is accepted so easily is a cultural victory for the ignorant polemicists and demagogues.
Personally I don't think the concept of free will is worth arguing over at all given how it's a fruitless exercise. No one that is to be taken seriously thinks of free will in the sense of a naive free will that is absolutely free in a completely abstract sense. All notions of free will are some form of compatibilism, and just thinking about how much time and ink and paper has been spent on trying to prove or disprove this form of free will makes my head hurt considering just how many millenniums have gone through this topic without much satisfactory end-product. Of course at a point you have to either go for it or not to do theology at all in a consistent way, but in all practicality you simply go to ground yourself on it or not and just get on with it. It's about as pointless of an exercise as "proving" or "disproving" the "existence of God". You would do more productive intellectual work by shooting yourself in the face.
|
On September 27 2013 14:50 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious .............. the entire point of my post was to say that saying something like this is absolutely ignorant of the history of thought given that many foundational theological figures strenuously argued that there could not be a free will in front of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Of course there were also many other theologians that placed their bets entirely on the free will (such as Kierkegaard), and there are countless atheistic figures that also argued for the free will or just took the free will as a given. Saying that the issue of free will is a dividing line between atheism and the religious is so comically wrong, not just conceptually but also historically, so whenever I hear/read a New Atheist or a religious person say that I can only say that the fact that such a premise is accepted so easily is a cultural victory for the ignorant polemicists and demagogues. Personally I don't think the concept of free will is worth arguing over at all given how it's a fruitless exercise. No one that is to be taken seriously thinks of free will in the sense of a naive free will that is absolutely free in a completely abstract sense. All notions of free will are some form of compatibilism, and just thinking about how much time and ink and paper has been spent on trying to prove or disprove this form of free will makes my head hurt considering just how many millenniums have gone through this topic without much satisfactory end-product. Of course at a point you have to either go for it or not to do theology at all in a consistent way, but in all practicality you simply go to ground yourself on it or not and just get on with it. It's about as pointless of an exercise as "proving" or "disproving" the "existence of God". You would do more productive intellectual work by shooting yourself in the face.
I don't disagree with you that discussions about free will with reasonable, thinking people are often of little practical use, moral or otherwise.
I do think, however, that discussions about free will with religious people who believe in a radical, contradictory, self-defeating species of free will can be fruitful insofar as they point out how non-sensical some of their views are, and how that can spiderweb into moral judgments and the like. This perspective could, of course, probably be gained by the fundamentalist Christians who like to start blogs and "bible-study" groups if they actually read and critically engaged with the ideas of the very smart Christian thinkers who came before them, rather than making it up as they go.
|
On September 28 2013 00:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 14:50 koreasilver wrote:I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious .............. the entire point of my post was to say that saying something like this is absolutely ignorant of the history of thought given that many foundational theological figures strenuously argued that there could not be a free will in front of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Of course there were also many other theologians that placed their bets entirely on the free will (such as Kierkegaard), and there are countless atheistic figures that also argued for the free will or just took the free will as a given. Saying that the issue of free will is a dividing line between atheism and the religious is so comically wrong, not just conceptually but also historically, so whenever I hear/read a New Atheist or a religious person say that I can only say that the fact that such a premise is accepted so easily is a cultural victory for the ignorant polemicists and demagogues. Personally I don't think the concept of free will is worth arguing over at all given how it's a fruitless exercise. No one that is to be taken seriously thinks of free will in the sense of a naive free will that is absolutely free in a completely abstract sense. All notions of free will are some form of compatibilism, and just thinking about how much time and ink and paper has been spent on trying to prove or disprove this form of free will makes my head hurt considering just how many millenniums have gone through this topic without much satisfactory end-product. Of course at a point you have to either go for it or not to do theology at all in a consistent way, but in all practicality you simply go to ground yourself on it or not and just get on with it. It's about as pointless of an exercise as "proving" or "disproving" the "existence of God". You would do more productive intellectual work by shooting yourself in the face. I don't disagree with you that discussions about free will with reasonable, thinking people are often of little practical use, moral or otherwise. I do think, however, that discussions about free will with religious people who believe in a radical, contradictory, self-defeating species of free will can be fruitful insofar as they point out how non-sensical some of their views are, and how that can spiderweb into moral judgments and the like. This perspective could, of course, probably be gained by the fundamentalist Christians who like to start blogs and "bible-study" groups if they actually read and critically engaged with the ideas of the very smart Christian thinkers who came before them, rather than making it up as they go.
Being a fundamentalist isn't a bad thing. It just means that one is embracing and practicing the basic truths that God gave us. How we display that is what can cause a lot of different perspectives toward the person. While I share my opinions of what I grew up to believe about different things in life, I try and use Scripture to back up my faith itself and some of the teachings that Christians were taught and called to do. Some people in this thread have an attitude toward me that reads, for example, "dude, be a christian, I don't care, just accept homosexuality because it makes people happy," and yet the Bible does not permit it (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27). So therefore I'm a horribly fundamental person who believes God's words to be true and infallible, and that God does not change, for the Bible says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" - Hebrews 13:8. If God never changes, neither do his words.
Many people dislike fundies (and i understand why) because they are generally viewed as adhering to one set of beliefs, strictly following it, and thus not embracing or "becoming friends" to the millions of other beliefs around the world. To the more extreme side, they become bible thumpers and tell people they are wrong in very harsh, arrogant ways. They're often seen as "close minded" and "anti intellectual" because they won't listen to others, respect their beliefs, or embrace other religions and integrate them into their faith. Probably the worst thing a Christian fundie could do is say "your way is wrong. my way is correct, and it's the only way to God." If you are referring to me at all in the underlined quote, I am talking about God's way, not my way. There is a huge difference.
God gave us the truth. He wants us to "hold tightly and firmly" to it.
"But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 3:14-15
"With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
What Paul means by these two verses is that in face of persecution, false teaching, worldliness, and apathy, we are to "hold on firmly to the truths of Jesus." Even Jesus told us to endure to the end through him when he was talking about the future, "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people. Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Matthew 24: 9-13
|
The odd thing about the fundamentalist movement in America is that it's a reaction to a perceived corruption of so-called "fundamental" Christian beliefs by modern liberal society, and so they want to return things to the way they were in the past – but the past was never actually "fundamentalist" the way they perceive it. Whether we're talking early US history, or the Renaissance in Europe, or the Middle Ages, or even around the time of Jesus, society never existed in the form fundamentalists are trying to restore. Instead they've constructed a bizarre vision of what they think the past must have been like based on their reading of certain scriptures, when their reading of those scriptures is often entirely removed from how they have always been interpreted.
Take the bizarre practice of snake handling. Those scriptures from which these individuals draw were always interpreted metaphorically in the past; now, fundamentalists defend the practice by claiming it was practiced throughout society's religious past, and was only recently abandoned as Western society became secular and liberal.
The most infamous example of fundamentalism is the Westboro Baptist Church (in Florida, I believe?). OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now.
|
On September 28 2013 04:08 ChristianS wrote:
OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now.
I'm not defending fundamentalism in a way that I think we should put ashes on our head every time we recognize our sins, or perform certain practices that the early church did or even long before then. Those are lifestyles. What I am fundamental about is the basic truths and teachings that God gave us. Times have changed, I know this, and we have to integrate God's Word in our daily lives and culture in an acceptable way without destroying the context of those truths. In the study book I'm going through, titled Believing God, by Beth Moore, there is a five statement pledge of faith:
1) God is who he says he is
2) God can do what he says he can do
3) I am who God says I am
4) I can do all things through Christ
5) God's Word is alive and active in me
I am fundamental about the fact that as Christians, we ought to live by faith, not by sight or by being a good person. Faith is a gift from God that enables us to believe and understand who he is, and we are motivated to do good deeds and be a better person with a grateful heart because of what Jesus did for us. I love Jesus not because of the things I do, but because he first loved me and gave his life for me. We ought to continue trusting in God and his promises for us, and to hold tightly to what God says is true, right, honorable, and pleasing to him. In no way am I stating that we ought to live in the same way that people did between 100-3000 years ago.
|
On September 28 2013 02:00 IronManSC wrote:
Probably the worst thing a Christian fundie could do is say "your way is wrong. my way is correct, and it's the only way to God." If you are referring to me at all in the underlined quote, I am talking about God's way, not my way. There is a huge difference.
Can you not see how obviously flawed and subjective this is? Are you so brain-washed into whatever interpretation that you have, that you don't see how someone can say you are wrong? What you say is "god's way," someone else might call "your way." You can't just say "no, its not my way, its gods way, it says so in the bible." There are different interpretations of the bible, or anything written by someone else, ever. That is what this whole thread has been about. What you claim as "god's way" is another person's wrong way, and they believe that they know "god's way."
This is why religious discussions never go anywhere. Because everyone thinks that they have the correct interpretation of "god's way" and that "god is on their side," so no one ever agrees. And because they all have the exact same amount of scientific, objective information backing them (read: none), they quickly devolve into baseless arguments about why one interpretation of some dusty text is "correct" versus another interpretation.
|
On September 28 2013 04:24 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:08 ChristianS wrote:
OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now. 1) God is who he says he is
God speaks through "things" though, never directly. How does that rule make any sense with that in mind?
Also, it reminds me of this.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 28 2013 04:26 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:00 IronManSC wrote:
Probably the worst thing a Christian fundie could do is say "your way is wrong. my way is correct, and it's the only way to God." If you are referring to me at all in the underlined quote, I am talking about God's way, not my way. There is a huge difference.
Can you not see how obviously flawed and subjective this is? Are you so brain-washed into whatever interpretation that you have, that you don't see how someone can say you are wrong? What you say is "god's way," someone else might call "your way." You can't just say "no, its not my way, its gods way, it says so in the bible." There are different interpretations of the bible, or anything written by someone else, ever. That is what this whole thread has been about. What you claim as "god's way" is another person's wrong way, and they believe that they know "god's way." This is why religious discussions never go anywhere. Because everyone thinks that they have the correct interpretation of "god's way" and that "god is on their side," so no one ever agrees. And because they all have the exact same amount of scientific, objective information backing them (read: none), they quickly devolve into baseless arguments about why one interpretation of some dusty text is "correct" versus another interpretation.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." - John 14:6
If Jesus himself, the Lord of all, says he is the only way to eternal life, and I come here saying that "Jesus is the only way," then how exactly does that become my way?
The problem is that most people believe in God, but they don't believe him or his words. People are so set in stone these days that most believe we are just put on earth to figure life out on our own and to figure out what is morally acceptable (beliefs included) as long as it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else.
If you want to interpret it as "my way," then fine, I can't stop you.
|
Can you not see the disconnect between what you are saying and what you are doing? The very notion that one must cite a book of the Bible, complete with chapter and verse line, is a tacit admission that God is not doing all the talking here; that is why we must INTERPRET the Bible and act accordingly. Now, you can say that the Bible is God speaking, but then you must follow the words without question, something you've already said that you don't do. So which is it? Are the words of the Bible entirely literal and to be followed as sacrosanct, or are you going to admit that mortal men wrote those words, mortal men whose expressions are to be taken as distinctly separate from God himself?
|
I think it is absolutely necessary for anyone that reads scripture or claims to read scripture to be absolutely aware of, or at least be absolutely honest about, the fact that there is no simple reading of scripture in the sense that you can't just read scripture and take what is read as an absolute given. Paraphrasing Augustine, scripture is full of ambiguities and as such, every reading needs interpretation (or perhaps more penetratingly, is always interpretation). Now these exegetical problems should never prevent someone from reading and acting upon what is understood and should never be used as an excuse to endlessly defer acting under the pretense of trying to find the real truth of what scripture means (Kierkegaard), but even a literal reading of scripture is still a method of interpretation, and this is why fundamentalism is a misnomer - biblical literalism is neither a return to the "fundamentals" of scripture nor a way of cutting through interpretation, and it most certainly is not a return to the fundamentals of the early church fathers.
What makes so much of the posts here difficult to take seriously is that there's just no real hermenutic substance which causes all exegetical attempts to be very poor. You learn exegesis from the masters. If you are simply going to say "this is what this passage means" in a naive, baldfaced, and perhaps even arrogant way, without any hermeneutics, then I don't even know what to say.
|
I think the problem is that IronMan seems to think there is only one "correct" interpretation of the bible. Coincidentally, he happens to know that one "correct" interpretation: the one he was raised with.
How does he know it is the correct interpretation? The bible says so, obviously.
I'm not sure if he is capable of seeing the irony or circular logic of this.
|
Honestly, the biggest problem of Protestantism is that the clergy just aren't educated enough in comparison to the Catholics. So we get absolutely abysmally trained clergy teaching badly and sometimes just preaching complete nonsense to their communities. I mean, I can't really blame the average layperson for saying stupid shit if that's what their pastors have been teaching them. How are they to know better? I'm not going to blame a student for saying really stupid shit if they had terrible teachers that taught them nonsense. We need much more rigorous scholarship for the priesthood.
|
On September 28 2013 05:01 koreasilver wrote:
I think it is absolutely necessary for anyone that reads scripture or claims to read scripture to be absolutely aware of, or at least be absolutely honest about, the fact that there is no simple reading of scripture in the sense that you can't just read scripture and take what is read as an absolute given. Paraphrasing Augustine, scripture is full of ambiguities and as such, every reading needs interpretation (or perhaps more penetratingly, is always interpretation). Now these exegetical problems should never prevent someone from reading and acting upon what is understood and should never be used as an excuse to endlessly defer acting under the pretense of trying to find the real truth of what scripture means (Kierkegaard), but even a literal reading of scripture is still a method of interpretation, and this is why fundamentalism is a misnomer - biblical literalism is neither a return to the "fundamentals" of scripture nor a way of cutting through interpretation, and it most certainly is not a return to the fundamentals of the early church fathers.
What makes so much of the posts here difficult to take seriously is that there's just no real hermenutic substance which causes all exegetical attempts to be very poor. You learn exegesis from the masters. If you are simply going to say "this is what this passage means" in a naive, baldfaced, and perhaps even arrogant way, without any hermeneutics, then I don't even know what to say.
Beth Moore interprets the Word for him. She got her bachelor's degree in political science from Southwest Texas State University before deciding to dedicate herself to the spreading of God's word.
|
On September 28 2013 04:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:24 IronManSC wrote:On September 28 2013 04:08 ChristianS wrote:
OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now. 1) God is who he says he is God speaks through "things" though, never directly. How does that rule make any sense with that in mind? Also, it reminds me of this. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw5UWqpcsDs
God can speak directly to you (audibly 1 on 1) if he chooses. He can also speak and teach to you through other people, life circumstances, or the Holy Spirit, which is something you receive when you accept Jesus. In fact, God talks to us through the Bible. Sure, the Bible is a physical "thing," but they are his words that speak directly to you. His Word most certainly applies today.
"For the word of the God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God. Everything is naked and exposed before his eyes, and he is the one to whom we are accountable." - Hebrews 4:12-13
and here's a section out of John 10 where the religious leaders confront Jesus:
The people surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly."
Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is the work I do in my Father's name. But you don't believe me because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."
-John 10:24-26
Many Christians yearn to experience the audible voice that God had with people in the Bible, and some actually do experience it. I can firmly say I had at least one moment in my life where I heard him speak to me in my conscience which led me to repent of a sin I was going through a couple years ago. But, I don't expect God to speak directly to me in ways like that because I know he can talk to me in many ways, the question is, will I take the time to listen and recognize it. The reason God audibly spoke so much back then was because the Bible was not a composed book yet; it was living itself out, so it was the primary way of communication. The Bible, today, is everything we need to understand and believe the truths, teachings, and ways that God did and can communicate.
Can God talk to you in more radical ways? Absolutely, if he deems it best for you.
'In the last days,' God says,
I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
-Acts 2:17
Please note above that when God says he will pour his Spirit on *all people, he means that everyone can receive his Spirit if they accept him. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was released to to the entire world-men, women, slave, free, jew, and gentile. This was a revolutionary thought for the Jews at the time because they were God's "chosen people," when actually God chose them to bring his Word out into the world. God came first to the Jews, so overtime they felt a sense of entitlement, but Jesus clearly wanted everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, to accept him.
And lastly, how the Holy Spirit can talk to you directly:
"But now I am going away to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking where I am going. Instead, you grieve because of what I've told you. But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don't, the Advocate won't come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God's righteousness, and of the coming judgment. The world's sin is that it refuses to believe in me. Righteousness is available because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more. Judgment will come because the rule of this world has already been judged.
There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can't bear it now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me."
-John 16:5-14
Why do we need a bright light to shine in our room and hear this loud audible voice when we have the Holy Spirit living inside us? Unless for selfish reasons and to boast, we don't need this kind of encounter when he lives inside of us anyways and re-affirms us through faith in Jesus.
|
On September 28 2013 05:30 IronManSC wrote:
Sure, the Bible is a physical "thing," but they are his words that speak directly to you. His Word most certainly applies today.
Say this again, but be more clear. Yes, the words on the page "speak" to the reader, but how does that change anything in regards to the authorship being very much human?
|
On September 28 2013 05:30 IronManSC wrote:
I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
-Acts 2:17
Why do we need a bright light to shine in our room and hear this loud audible voice when we have the Holy Spirit living inside us? Unless for selfish reasons and to boast, we don't need this kind of encounter when he lives inside of us anyways and re-affirms us through faith in Jesus.
When you put it that way, you make god sound like:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Let me point out that none of those passages are straightforward and that you have to interpret them in the context of the Bible's other writings, which were written at different times by different people.
'In the last days,' God says,
I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
-Acts 2:17
It quite plainly says, "in the last days" there. You seem to have ignored that part. Do the last two millennia seem like "last days" to you? You don't know when the last days are, yet you claim that this passage is proof that people will see visions, prophesy, and receive the "poured out" Spirit now and in the past.
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
-Matthew 24:36
The plain interpretation of that Gospel quote is that Jesus doesn't know when the last days will be. Neither will you. God is telling you plainly that the Son doesn't know when the end will be. I guess Jesus isn't really one with the Father, he is separate from the father.
By the way, IronManSC, where in the holy scriptures does it say God takes the form of the trinity? I see lots of quotes about the father and the son and the holy spirit, but these are all separate entities in the plain language of the text.
|
On September 28 2013 04:49 farvacola wrote:
Now, you can say that the Bible is God speaking, but then you must follow the words without question, something you've already said that you don't do. So which is it? Are the words of the Bible entirely literal and to be followed as sacrosanct, or are you going to admit that mortal men wrote those words, mortal men whose expressions are to be taken as distinctly separate from God himself?
I said earlier:
On September 28 2013 04:24 IronManSC wrote:
Times have changed, I know this, and we have to integrate God's Word in our daily lives and culture in an acceptable way without destroying the context of those truths.
To destroy the context of a verse means to twist the words of God. I said way earlier in the thread somewhere that we can't take the written words literally word for word, but we must understand the context of it and apply it to our lives today, because the New Testament was written during a time period where people were accustomed with a different culture and way of life.
Most of what I have learned comes from my family, former teachers in school, several christian websites, the Bible study I'm involved in for 5+ years (all with grown, middle-aged, married men, two of whom are elders), another Bible study with people my age, the study book i'm going through, other friends and people from my old church, and from the 4-5 pastors I've listened to. I'm really tired of the fact that some of you think I am not "interpreting" these Bible verses, or that i'm twisting it to think that "I was raised this way, therefore I am correct," and somehow that appears to mean that I am diminishing all other aspects of life.
When Jesus says he is the only way, he means that literally. What context is there behind such a statement? For example, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." That simply means if you believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and confess with your mouth that he is Lord and Savior, who died for your sins and to make a way for you to become right with God, then you are saved. But somehow, according to your guy's logic, I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you.
|
How do you integrate the rules of slavery and how to stone our women and teenagers without destroying the context of those truths? :o
|
On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you.
This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you
think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic:
1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation.
2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation.
3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want.
So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way.
|
On September 28 2013 05:43 IgnE wrote:Let me point out that none of those passages are straightforward and that you have to interpret them in the context of the Bible's other writings, which were written at different times by different people. Show nested quote +'In the last days,' God says,
I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
-Acts 2:17 It quite plainly says, "in the last days" there. You seem to have ignored that part. Do they last two millennia seem like "last days" to you? You don't know when the last days are, yet you claim that this passage is proof that people will see visions, prophesy, and receive the "poured out" Spirit now and in the past. "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36 The plain interpretation of that Gospel quote is that Jesus doesn't know when the last days will be. Neither will you. God is telling you plainly that the Son doesn't know when the end will be. I guess Jesus isn't really one with the Father, he is separate from the father. By the way, IronManSC, where in the holy scriptures does it say God takes the form of the trinity? I see lots of quotes about the father and the son and the holy spirit, but these are all separate entities in the plain language of the text.
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. It is true that nobody knows when the Second Coming is, but the Bible also teaches that a day on earth is like a thousand years in heaven, and a thousand years on earth is like a day in heaven (2 Peter 3:8). Humanly speaking, we can't take that literally by means of saying that a thousand days in heaven is *a day on earth, and a thousand years on earth is *a day in heaven. Peter said it's like a day, which means that God not regard man's time with his own, because there is no time in the spiritual realm/eternity.
What makes you think we just may not be in the last days? Humanly speaking, we see that Jesus says in Revelation 22:20, "Surely I am coming quickly," which was written nearly two thousand years ago, which seems a lot to man, but no more significant than a couple days to God. Before Jesus ascended to heaven, he told his disciples that he would come back to gather his elect, so I actually do think we've been in the "last days" since Jesus went back to heaven, who is now going to return as a judge to end evil once and for all. What seems like a long time to man is extremely short to God, just like how we think living to be 70-100 years old is a "long time," but God considers us short-lived:
"Our days on earth are like grass; like wildflowers, we bloom and die. The wind blows, and we are gone- as though we had never been here" - Psalm 103:15-16
Here's a website that talks a little better about the end times/last days. It goes more in depth with prophecy and warnings that Jesus gives us about the last days:
http://www.gotquestions.org/living-in-the-end-times.html
|
On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to.
0.o
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 28 2013 05:43 IgnE wrote:
By the way, IronManSC, where in the holy scriptures does it say God takes the form of the trinity? I see lots of quotes about the father and the son and the holy spirit, but these are all separate entities in the plain language of the text.
This webpage can help explain it better than I can. It addresses way more references than I could: http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
|
On September 28 2013 06:02 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you. This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic: 1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation. 2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation. 3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want. So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way.
The underlying problem in this entire discussion is that people, like yourself, seem to think that truth is tangible in a way that you want it to be. In other words, how you interpret the Bible is therefore truth to you. It's not a matter of cherry picking verses that you want to believe and then making it your personal truth. The truth - the Gospel - is Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven to die for our sins, so that we can be made right with God through him, that if we should accept him wholeheartedly and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, then we will be saved.
|
On September 28 2013 06:20 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:43 IgnE wrote:
By the way, IronManSC, where in the holy scriptures does it say God takes the form of the trinity? I see lots of quotes about the father and the son and the holy spirit, but these are all separate entities in the plain language of the text. This webpage can help explain it better than I can. It addresses way more references than I could: http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
See, you are just appealing to some randomly chosen Christian website for authority on interpreting the Scripture here. Why do you believe this site is correct, other than that it jives with your preconceived notions about what the Trinity is, from your experiences in your evangelical church?
It's perfectly legitimate to have other interpretations regarding this and to piece together Scripture to form an argument. The doctrine of the Trinity is one possible way of reconciling an internal inconsistency in the text. God is said to be both one and many. Many of the quotes in that link don't even explicitly say the Son is God. Saying "go and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" does not necessarily imply that Jesus was God. Jesus being a demigod seems like an entirely reasonable interpretation.
|
This also ties back into a bigger problem, IronManSC. Why do you believe that the books that are currently presented as the New Testament are the Word of God? Because someone told you they were.
Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible? It claims to be the Word of God, too. Is Tobit in your Bible or not? Thomas says some interesting things about the nature of God that you get to conveniently ignore, even though you still have to wrestle with how John fits into Luke.
|
On September 28 2013 06:32 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:02 HardlyNever wrote:On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you. This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic: 1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation. 2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation. 3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want. So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way. The underlying problem in this entire discussion is that people, like yourself, seem to think that truth is tangible in a way that you want it to be. In other words, how you interpret the Bible is therefore truth to you. It's not a matter of cherry picking verses that you want to believe and then making it your personal truth. The truth - the Gospel - is Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven to die for our sins, so that we can be made right with God through him, that if we should accept him wholeheartedly and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, then we will be saved.
Why is that "the truth?" How do you know that is the truth? How did you come to this conclusion?
|
On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to.
I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born.
where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it.
|
On September 28 2013 08:45 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born. where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it.
Could be talking about the last days of Jerusalem ;D
|
On September 28 2013 08:50 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:45 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born. where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it. Could be talking about the last days of Jerusalem ;D
I don't understand that, sorry.
|
On September 28 2013 08:45 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born. where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it.
What he was pointing out previously was that in the last several hundred (or thousand) years, how can we label them as the 'last days'? Thus I think he was saying that the 'last days' were literally the last handful of days, humanly speaking, before Jesus comes back. When I mention that we are "growing closer to," I simply meant that the end is nearer than it was yesterday and the day before. The Bible gives us a lot of foreknowing of what will happen as judgment day approaches, or as the Bible calls them 'Signs of the end of the age', and there's multiple resources (like the link I put) where it talks more in-depth about it.
I'm not sure why IgnE accused me of referencing other sources when he wanted just me to give all the answers. The thing is, I don't have all the answers. Some have better answers than me, and that's why I'm referencing someone else who can explain it better. I'm FAR from having all the answers, and in no way do I claim to be all-knowing in a way that many of you make me out to be. No Christian truly and completely understands everything about life or God. The only thing I truly know is that Jesus is the truth.
But the Bible gives us enough to understand who Jesus is, what he did, how to accept him, how to live in Christ, and how to please God, and that's where he gives us the Holy Spirit to guide us through faith and to continue trusting in God's promises. The Bible contains the fundamental truths of God and who he is. Of course, this is a very broad way of putting it.
I don't want to argue with certain people in this thread anymore because no matter how truthful Jesus may appear to them, they look past it and conclude that everyone just makes up their own personal truth as long as it's morally acceptable and it's what feels right for them. No matter how many angles or perspectives I give, some people will just go right back to that argument, completely overlooking the grace of Jesus and just saying "Yeah, that's what you believe for yourself. You picked that verse and chose to believe it." That's why religious debates suck and are not worth a dime 99% of the time, because most people don't want to seek the truth, they just want to be their own truth with whatever they will and decide.
Anyways, off to work. I do enjoy talking about God with others, but if it gets to a point where it's all about will power and personal decisions, then it's derailed because we're not focusing on the roots of Christianity.
|
On September 28 2013 09:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:50 Birdie wrote:On September 28 2013 08:45 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born. where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it. Could be talking about the last days of Jerusalem ;D I don't understand that, sorry.
Most people, when they see the words "the last days" immediately assume it's talking about the last days of the world. However, this is not necessarily the case (perhaps it is sometimes). Many verses talk about the last days in a context that couldn't possibly be the last days of the world.
|
On September 28 2013 09:14 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:45 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born. where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it. What he was pointing out previously was that in the last several hundred (or thousand) years, how can we label them as the 'last days'? Thus I think he was saying that the 'last days' were literally the last handful of days, humanly speaking, before Jesus comes back. When I mention that we are "growing closer to," I simply meant that the end is nearer than it was yesterday and the day before. The Bible gives us a lot of foreknowing of what will happen as judgment day approaches, or as the Bible calls them 'Signs of the end of the age', and there's multiple resources (like the link I put) where it talks more in-depth about it.
that thought never occurred to me. I always thought "the end days" are when the Apocalypse is upon us and Angels pour out their cups etc...
Edit:On September 28 2013 09:14 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:06 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 08:50 Birdie wrote:On September 28 2013 08:45 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 06:07 IronManSC wrote:
Here's the thing though, you are taking 'last days' by means of literally the last few days on earth. The last days are also known as the 'end times', which according to many studies, prophecies and resources we are growing closer to. I'm sorry to nitpick this part, but it is simply something that bothered me. This is often said with such a grave undertone while it is a matter of course: If the End times are not infinitely in the future then of course we are growing closer to it. As we are growing away(wording??) from the day jesus was born. where is the news about that? it is a necessity that if there are endtimes, then we are growing closer to it. Could be talking about the last days of Jerusalem ;D I don't understand that, sorry. Most people, when they see the words "the last days" immediately assume it's talking about the last days of the world. However, this is not necessarily the case (perhaps it is sometimes). Many verses talk about the last days in a context that couldn't possibly be the last days of the world.
yeah, could be. But since iirc there are some great promises made which are linked to the end of days, the end of anything but humanity/the world feels "not big enough"
|
On September 28 2013 06:40 IgnE wrote:
This also ties back into a bigger problem, IronManSC. Why do you believe that the books that are currently presented as the New Testament are the Word of God? Because someone told you they were.
Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible? It claims to be the Word of God, too. Is Tobit in your Bible or not? Thomas says some interesting things about the nature of God that you get to conveniently ignore, even though you still have to wrestle with how John fits into Luke.
The gospels and most of the new testament as we know it was assembled out of necessity in the early part of the second century when there was confusion going around about what was actually true and upheld tradition/history and what was fabrication. There were easily 20+ "gospels" floating around including eyewitness gospels of Thomas and Peter. The second/third generation of Christians had to defend guys like Marcion(one of the first legit "heretics" of Christianity I believe) who were going around picking and choosing which documents and writings to believe and what had been tampered with which was causing some extreme damage in the early days of Christianity.
Because of situations like this only the 4 that we have today which were considered to contain details that were reliably backed up through evidence and history by a collection of early Christians. Gospel of Thomas for example didn't make the cut because the facts there were not supported by any other writings/tradition/stories or historical evidence. Gospel of Peter was thrown out for similar reasons in favor of a more accurate second hand account from Mark who was Peters aid/scribe, it was written much clearer grammatically, Mark most likely was much more proficient in written Greek.
It's actually interesting to think about how we ended up with these gospels to be honest, if the early Christians wanted to deceive people with a story that isn't true, why would they choose gospels of Luke and Mark/non eye witnesses? the very fact that these particular gospels made the cut poses an interesting question in itself for those who are investigating the validity/authenticity of the bible.
|
This ironman guy is a real scary kind of christian. He really doesn't understand how crazy he sounds. You are like a posterboy for why atheists/agnostics dislike christians.
|
On September 28 2013 12:58 seequeue wrote:
This ironman guy is a real scary kind of christian. He really doesn't understand how crazy he sounds. You are like a posterboy for why atheists/agnostics dislike christians.
He's contributing to the thread. What exactly are you doing besides acting like a total jerk? You're the type of person that I hate. A person that put others down for their beliefs but can't be bothered to try and offer some insight on your side of things.
|
I could contribute to a thread about scientology beliefs, but it wouldn't change the fact that the "religion" is dangerous. This guy's blog is filled with ridiculous rationalizations and it's downright scary that people in society think the way this guy does enough that he thinks he can get an audience with this blog. This is dangerous, poisonous thinking that harms society because he can rationalize his beliefs without any shred of logic.
From the blog: "God loves us so much that He reveals Himself to all of us in pretty much every way that is visible to the naked eye. That’s how much He wants us to seek Him! While it may be hard to understand how God created everything through mere words, He gives us the faith to know that He can do all things and that He is the author of all life and everything in it. As a Christian living in faith, we can choose to believe the illogical, scientific explanations from mere human beings that contradict the Bible, or we can believe the Word of our omniscient and omnipotent God."
yeah that's great, keep promoting anti-intellectualism.
|
On September 28 2013 15:07 seequeue wrote:
I could contribute to a thread about scientology beliefs, but it wouldn't change the fact that the "religion" is dangerous. This guy's blog is filled with ridiculous rationalizations and it's downright scary that people in society think the way this guy does enough that he thinks he can get an audience with this blog. This is dangerous, poisonous thinking that harms society because he can rationalize his beliefs without any shred of logic.
From the blog: "God loves us so much that He reveals Himself to all of us in pretty much every way that is visible to the naked eye. That’s how much He wants us to seek Him! While it may be hard to understand how God created everything through mere words, He gives us the faith to know that He can do all things and that He is the author of all life and everything in it. As a Christian living in faith, we can choose to believe the illogical, scientific explanations from mere human beings that contradict the Bible, or we can believe the Word of our omniscient and omnipotent God."
yeah that's great, keep promoting anti-intellectualism.
Did you read these parts?
"God makes it really simple right at the start of his Word. At some point in the human life, he knew that every person with an ability to reason would eventually question where life itself came from, so God gives us the answer in the first five words of the Bible: In the beginning God created. For the Christian, that’s technically all you really need to know about where life came from, but we shouldn’t let this become a barrier to our curiosity to explore deeper into the complexity of his knowledge."
"The point is, science in all its vastness is a good thing. God gave us the curiosity to continually seek Him out in many ways including in the field of science. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning about the complexity of nature and the intelligence that God displayed in it, but we need to be wary that certain scientific topics may redirect us away from having faith in the one true, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God."
TLDR: I am not anti-intellectual.
This section, that you quoted:"God loves us so much that He reveals Himself to all of us in pretty much every way that is visible to the naked eye. That’s how much He wants us to seek Him! While it may be hard to understand how God created everything through mere words, He gives us the faith to know that He can do all things and that He is the author of all life and everything in it. As a Christian living in faith, we can choose to believe the illogical, scientific explanations from mere human beings that contradict the Bible, or we can believe the Word of our omniscient and omnipotent God."
is not talking about anti-intellectualism; it's referring to this:"but if it consumes you with obsession to a point where you are relying more on scientific facts rather than living by faith, then it can be questionable. It will always develop some type of belief that might otherwise be contrary to what you already believe to be true in the Bible. Creation was created by God, for God, and to point you to him alone. If anything in this world causes you question or deny God’s omnipotence, then consider it an arrow to your faith."
|
Saying "I'm not anti-intellectual" and then saying "As a Christian living in faith, we can choose to believe the illogical, scientific explanations from mere human beings that contradict the Bible, or we can believe the Word of our omniscient and omnipotent God" is pretty silly. If you want to nitpick at terms, whatever, but your beliefs are really scary to a lot of normal people and this is a lot of potentially dangerous thinking.
And "but we need to be wary that certain scientific topics may redirect us away from having faith in the one true, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God." isn't anti-intellectual? Sounds like you're discouraging the study of important topics such as abiogenesis and evolution.
|
On September 28 2013 15:19 seequeue wrote:
Saying "I'm not anti-intellectual" and then saying "As a Christian living in faith, we can choose to believe the illogical, scientific explanations from mere human beings that contradict the Bible, or we can believe the Word of our omniscient and omnipotent God" is pretty silly. If you want to nitpick at terms, whatever, but your beliefs are really scary to a lot of normal people and this is a lot of potentially dangerous thinking.
Again, you are taking it too literally. You are forgetting that I am speaking to Christians, not to the world. What I am saying in the blog is that it's fine to learn whatever you want in the field of science and beyond, BUT if it causes you to deny or question God's power and omnipotence when the Bible asks us to believe those things by faith, then it can be harmful for a believer's faith. They can renounce it and change to another type of faith, like Christian science, evolution, etc.
|
I dunno, questioning and denying that stuff is a good start. What's wrong with harming a believer's faith with facts? If your religion can't take into account the enormity of evidence that may contradict your beliefs, what kind of religion is it anyway? Doesn't that say something about how your religion might not make a lot of sense? There are certainly a lot of people that follow some sort of religion that have no problem coinciding with any scientific data that becomes available. Don't these religions make more sense?
|
On September 28 2013 15:30 seequeue wrote:
I dunno, questioning and denying that stuff is a good start. What's wrong with harming a believer's faith with facts? If your religion can't take into account the enormity of evidence that may contradict your beliefs, what kind of religion is it anyway? Doesn't that say something about how your religion might not make a lot of sense? There are certainly a lot of people that follow some sort of religion that have no problem coinciding with any scientific data that becomes available. Don't these religions make more sense?
Here I'll give you an example of what I mean in the blog.
The first commandment that God gives us is "You shall have no other gods before me." God is the only one. There is none other than God. The Bible also tells us that he created all things, and that by faith we understand that the universe came from nothing, and that he spoke it to be. God and creation are supernatural, so they can't merely be tested and observed and classified as scientific.
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs.
Do you see the conflict it can have on a believer's faith? I am not saying we can't find those things fascinating or even learn about them a little, but as I said if it causes a Christian to question or deny the Bible's teaching on it or God's omnipotence, then it can be dangerous. I am not against learning.
|
Do you see the conflict it can have on a believer's faith? I am not saying we can't find those things fascinating or even learn about them a little, but as I said if it causes a Christian to question or deny the Bible's teaching on it or God's omnipotence, then it can be dangerous. I am not against learning.
Yeah I see the conflict, and it's silly. If you learn about something with an enormous amount of evidence (like evolution) that causes you to question beliefs that contradict it, I think your religion is probably not as true as you think. This kind of thinking is a dangerous precedent and I genuinely believe that this kind of irrational train of thought can really potentially harm society.
|
On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs.
While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image".
One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis?
Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species.
|
On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species.
Do you believe that God takes care of his creation, or does he just leave it alone to care for itself?
|
Augustine weeps every time someone reads Genesis utterly literally. The tears of the theologians probably flood the heavens like the deluge.
|
On September 28 2013 23:50 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species. Do you believe that God takes care of his creation, or does he just leave it alone to care for itself?
I don't see how either would contradict evolution in any way.
|
On September 29 2013 03:51 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 23:50 IronManSC wrote:On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species. Do you believe that God takes care of his creation, or does he just leave it alone to care for itself? I don't see how either would contradict evolution in any way.
Can a skyscraper build itself without human hands and intelligence? I'd be impressed if it could.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
this thread is like heroin i can't stop clicking it
|
On September 30 2013 11:09 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 03:51 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 23:50 IronManSC wrote:On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species. Do you believe that God takes care of his creation, or does he just leave it alone to care for itself? I don't see how either would contradict evolution in any way. Can a skyscraper build itself without human hands and intelligence? I'd be impressed if it could.
Sorry, you lost me with the skyscraper analogy, as I don't see where the self-modifying part comes in. However, this TED Talk might interest you.
Could you explain why you asked me whether I believe that God takes care of His creation, and what you think this has to do with evolution? I just don't see the connection.
|
On September 30 2013 13:26 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:09 IronManSC wrote:On September 29 2013 03:51 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 23:50 IronManSC wrote:On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species. Do you believe that God takes care of his creation, or does he just leave it alone to care for itself? I don't see how either would contradict evolution in any way. Can a skyscraper build itself without human hands and intelligence? I'd be impressed if it could. Sorry, you lost me with the skyscraper analogy, as I don't see where the self-modifying part comes in. However, this TED Talk might interest you. Could you explain why you asked me whether I believe that God takes care of His creation, and what you think this has to do with evolution? I just don't see the connection.
So in other words, according to the logic of the video, for a skyscraper to "build itself," humans must first develop the mechanism that does it. The skyscraper still does not build itself.
As for the second part, God very much is involved in his own creation, much like you maintain your garden and lawn. The book of Job lists several verses where God himself claims sovereignty over creation and even claims involvement in it:
"Where does light come from, and where does darkness go? Can you take each to its home? Do you know how to get there?" - Job 38:19-20
"Who created a channel for the torrents of rain? Who laid out the path for the lightning? Who makes rain fall on barren land, in a desert where no one lives? Who sends rain to satisfy the parched ground and make tender grass spring up?" - Job 38:25-27
"Can you direct the movement of the stars--binding the cluster of the Pleides or loosening the cords of Orion? Can you direct the sequence of the seasons or guide the Bear with her cubs across the heavens? Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you use them to regulate the earth? Can you shout to the clouds and make it rain? Can you make lightning appear and cause it to strike as you direct? Who gives intuition to the heart and instinct to the mind?" - Job 38:31-36
"Can you stalk prey for a lioness and satisfy the young lions' appetites as they lie in their dens or crouch in the thicket? Who provides food for the ravens when their young cry out to God and wander about in hunger?" - Job 38:39-41
"Do you know when the wild goats give birth? Have you watched as deer are born in the wild? Do you know how many months they carry their young? Are you aware of the time of their delivery?" - Job 39:1-2
"Who gives the wild donkey its freedom? Who untied its ropes? I have placed it in the wilderness; its home is the wasteland. It hates the noise of the city and has no driver to shout at it." - Job 39:5-7
These are just a few of the sections in Job where God shows that he is in command of all that is created. This shows the clarity in Romans 1:20, which says "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." The very things you see in nature are just a glimpse of his character, intelligence, and power.
Life itself is not self-modifying. The odds of life being so complex and orderly by chance, self-modification, or "mutations," are like trying to roll a quadrillion dice at once and hoping they all land on four. The things of evolution come from dead things, whereby God is life and in him there is no death. Man was not an exception to evolution, but rather a personal likeness to the handiwork of God's creation. Man is the prized possession of God's creation; his best and most treasured creation. In fact, God loves us so much that he didn't just create us -- he formed us from dust; he formed us from something that had already been created. He didn't want to speak us into existence --- he made us with his own hands, in his own image, and still does. Even more so, he cares personally for us and eve knew us before we were born:
"O Lord, you have examined my heart
and know everything about me.
You know when i sit down or stand up.
You know my thoughts even when I'm far away.
You see me when I travel
and when I rest at home.
You know everything I do.
You know what I am going to say
even before I say it, Lord."
-Psalm 139:1-5
"You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
and knit me together in my mother's womb.
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
Your workmanship is marvelous--how well I know it.
You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
You saw me before I was born.
Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.
How precious are your thoughts about me, O God.
They cannot be numbered!
I can't even count them;
they outnumber the grains of sand!
And when I wake up,
you are still with me!"
-Psalm 139:13-18
|
On September 27 2013 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah, I think you are a false christian in a church that does not teach the truth! I think you have been led astray by a satan twisting the words of god! I can say it just as well as you can.
because you fetishize the text and do not take it seriously as a text which demands critical engagement. It is extremely disrespectful to a text which you claim to value. In my eyes, you are an idolator of a dead god who uses their 'faith' as a weapon in the service of arrogance and hate.
I never said anything about 'quote from satan', I said the devil also comes quoting scripture. That's YOU, cquoting a text you do not even make any attempt to understand in its context.
edit: anyway, whatever, take your thread back idolator. If I keep at this I'll say what I REALLY think about you and get myself banned
What's the proper way to quote Scripture then?
Satan does not just quote Scripture just because the Bible says he disguises himself as an angel of light. If anyone has not understood the context of Satan quoting Scripture, it's you. He can quote verses, but do you know why he quotes it? He uses Scripture to deceive us. I'll use a common verse that scares Christians:
"So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free." - John 8:36
The Christian reads this verse while having an addiction for years and years. He doesn't seem to break free from his sin, so he doubts his faith. The believer hears voices that say "yeah, Jesus said you would be free, but you still have this addiction, see? You're not actually free. God doesn't love you enough to help you." This is exactly how Satan uses Scripture: to drive people away from Jesus and to doubt his word and promises. He, or demons, does not quote truth, for there is no truth in evil. Evil is the absence of truth and anything good. I quoted truthful verses in Scripture, showing that even Satan and his minions are subject to God's authority. If I were a devil, as you claim me to be, I would not truthfully admit that all evil is under the authority of the Lord. What Jesus says about Satan:"He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" - John 8:44.
|
I still don't get why you are so sure that evolution isn't God's way of caring for His creations. You say evolution seems too unlikely, why not say it is testament to the ingenuity of God? After all, surely you don't claim God's interventions are without method, as that would be the very definition of chaos.
It seems to me that you are not using the bible to determine whether evolution is possible, but that for some weird reason you decided you don't like the idea of evolution, and now attempt to use the bible to justify this pre-formed conviction. This is like the people who disliked the idea of a really old earth so they tried to find passages from the bible they could use to justify the beliefs they formed before they had consulted those very passages. Or the people who thought Earth was the center of the solar system and tried to base that belief on the bible. Or the people who thought that stars were something fundamentally different from our sun and tried to base that belief on the bible. Etc, etc.
Eventually, all those people were proven wrong, and I am convinced that within 50 to 100 years, every good Christian will laugh at the notion that the bible contradicts evolution, and in fact see evolution as God's greatest creation.
I mean, you do acknowledge that natural selection is a thing, right?
For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution, many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just fifty years from the first dark moth being caught, nearly all of the moths in industrial Manchester were dark. The balance was reversed by the effect of the Clean Air Act 1956, and the dark moths became rare again, demonstrating the influence of natural selection on peppered moth evolution.
Natural selection, of course, has nothing to do with self-modification. But it does imply a reduction of complexity over time in cases where certain traits and even species go completely extinct, so where does the additional complexity that makes up for this come from?
|
The primary problem of evolution from a Biblical point of view is that it relies on the earth being very VERY old, whereas the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old. There are other problems with it just from a scientific standpoint but that's the main religious one that I can think of.
|
On September 30 2013 15:07 Birdie wrote:
the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old.
I am very sad right now. :-(
|
On September 30 2013 15:09 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 15:07 Birdie wrote:
the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old. I am very sad right now. :-(
Why :O if the dates in the Bible are to be taken literally (and there's little reason not to), then Bishop Ussher's chronology of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) and all the other estimates generally conclude on a 6000 year old earth.
|
In early biblical times people lived for 900 years. No we are only up to what ~70 years or so? Fact of the matter is that old school people like Noah had some crazy good health. Science is ruining the planet ;(
|
At this point it should be obvious that ironmansc is either a very well executed "religious troll," or is genuinely a brainwashed drone of the " christian fundamentalist movement" of the United States. He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact), and that he at the very least seems it is possible we are living in the "end times," which christians have been believing, off and on, for the past two millennia.
I didn't come here to "convert" anyone away from their religion, or even show why christianity is stupid. I came here to get a better understanding of why chrisitians chose to believe what they do in the modern age. I was hoping to get some interesting, original discussion from people who have thought about their religion critically and independently. What I got, for the most part, was regurgitated nonsense that you might expect to hear in in a children's bible study class. When too many poignant questions were asked, completely random non-sequiturs about jesus being great followed.
When asked to defend his position on why his interpretation was the "true" interpretation of the bible, the question was either dodged outright, or he linked some random website written by some guy that has about as much "religious" or theological training as I do (hint: none).
If you came here for "deep" exegetical or theological study, I recommend you just move along. You won't find it here. What you will find is regurgitated talking points pulled from fundamentalist doctrine that is designed to brainwash people when they are children, and keep them from asking difficult or complicated questions.
Ironmansc, I don't really care what you believe if it makes you happy in this life. What I do ask is that you please refrain from voting, or making any decision that might affect someone else's life in any way, as I find your world-view incredibly uneducated, archaic, and downright frightening. I'm done here, and thanks for the "discussion."
|
On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate.
To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications).
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised.
|
On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
At this point it should be obvious that ironmansc is either a very well executed "religious troll," or is genuinely a brainwashed drone of the " christian fundamentalist movement" of the United States. He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact), and that he at the very least seems it is possible we are living in the "end times," which christians have been believing, off and on, for the past two millennia.
So because I don't believe in evolution, and that we could possibly be in the end times (or at least very close), i'm either a troll or a brainwashed drone? Which one is it? What other names do you have for me that you can think of? What if I actually am telling you the truth? You may hear it and read it, but are you really listening?
On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
When asked to defend his position on why his interpretation was the "true" interpretation of the bible, the question was either dodged outright, or he linked some random website written by some guy that has about as much "religious" or theological training as I do (hint: none).
What am I defending against? What are your beliefs, and how are they working out for you? If I can't answer something, I will reference someone who can. There is no Christian who has all the answers, and no Christian stands alone. Also, I refuse to answer some questions because some people aren't really looking for truthful answers at all.
Of course, not answering a handful of questions suddenly means I'm "uneducated," and not believing in evolution suddenly means I am "anti-intellectual" as another pointed out. Intelligence is not the deciding factor of whether or not Christianity is true, because even intelligent people can believe a lie just as someone can ignorantly believe the truth. Christianity is not a blind faith that avoids knowledge and reasoning. Rather, it rests on the belief that true faith is reasonable, intelligent and that knowledge points to Jesus Christ and not away from him.
|
On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised.
I'm afraid many people might not like this insight, and I hate sucking up, but it's pretty much the best one I've heard in ages. I will definitely tell this to my kids, and in that sense hope that they become balanced enough that they don't feel the need to always pick one side and argue/defend it to death to feed to their own integrity/status of the so called ego.
The only difference though between research that is today investigated and proven to our best abilities, in the minds of many becomes more relevant than something created ages ago with virtually no proof. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact.
|
You just know Ohana had to be created by a creationist.
|
On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact.
Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis.
Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now.
|
On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species.
And what a great God that would be.
We can't explain why the planets move? That's God's domain. Well, except at some point we learned to understand why they move, so let's take that away from him. No problem, there's more.
Can't explain where life comes to being? Well, let's use God for that.
Oh, there's a couple of very sound theories about that already? Okay, no God then.
So God's domain is the one where he created consciousness from simple life.
Brilliant, let's hope that we don't understand to soon how that happened, so God can have a reason to exist for a couple of decades longer.
|
On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now.
It's called a theory because real scientists are willing to change theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. And they often do have to, so no, theories aren't "close to facts". Some theories have stood for a long time and are unlikely to ever change much (theory of gravitation), whereas other theories regularly change (and change in popularity among the scientific community). An example of this would be the steady state theory and the changes it underwent, and then later the big bang theory became more popular. The general theory of evolution has underwent many changes, such that modern evolutionists hardly uphold the same theory that Darwin first proposed. Perhaps it will eventually reach a stage of consistency, like the theory of gravity. Perhaps it will be superseded by a different theory (resurgence of the stopgap theory of evolution for example? ).
As a side note, if I recall correctly the reason scientists originally opposed the big bang theory was because it suggested a beginning to the universe, which would require a creation of the universe. In other words, scientists opposed the big bang theory because it seemed to be a religious theory Those were the kind of scientists who were NOT willing to change their theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. Unfortunately, many scientists (and "followers of science", those who never actually "do" science but have a certain "belief" in it) are unwilling to change their ideas unless those in authority first change their own ideas. And happily, many scientists DO change their ideas based on observations and experiments, resulting in scientific progress.
|
On October 01 2013 07:06 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now. It's called a theory because real scientists are willing to change theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. And they often do have to, so no, theories aren't "close to facts".
I still maintain they are, in the way that 'facts' don't portray the absolute truth, but the closest possible estimation.
|
On October 01 2013 07:12 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:06 Birdie wrote:On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now. It's called a theory because real scientists are willing to change theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. And they often do have to, so no, theories aren't "close to facts". I still maintain they are, in the way that 'facts' don't portray the absolute truth, but the closest possible estimation.
Well, facts by definition are absolute truth, hence why the scientific community doesn't deal in facts.
|
On September 30 2013 14:49 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah, I think you are a false christian in a church that does not teach the truth! I think you have been led astray by a satan twisting the words of god! I can say it just as well as you can.
because you fetishize the text and do not take it seriously as a text which demands critical engagement. It is extremely disrespectful to a text which you claim to value. In my eyes, you are an idolator of a dead god who uses their 'faith' as a weapon in the service of arrogance and hate.
I never said anything about 'quote from satan', I said the devil also comes quoting scripture. That's YOU, cquoting a text you do not even make any attempt to understand in its context.
edit: anyway, whatever, take your thread back idolator. If I keep at this I'll say what I REALLY think about you and get myself banned What Jesus says about Satan: "He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" - John 8:44.
I'm sorry, but this exact same thing can be said about priests everywhere.
Be it Muslims or Christians, those who have driven the Abrahamic religions have forever been opposed to truth.
Smartly so, because literally the only justification of their jobs and fields of study (I'm annoyed that bible study is accepted as an academic field whereas reading Marvel comics is regarded a past-time) is an old collection of scriptures that are obvious fabrications that are often directly contradictory.
On September 30 2013 11:09 IronManSC wrote:
Can a skyscraper build itself without human hands and intelligence? I'd be impressed if it could.
Your point being, for something complex to be built, there must be something even greater and more complex to have built it, right? That's great, so you agree that God is impossible, because the only explanation for God would be Meta-God, who in turn would have been created by Meta-Meta-God, creating an indefinite chain of Gods, each more complex than the next. How does that make any sense?
I really respect you for being a sophisticated Christian, however. There's nothing more annoying than Christians who claim the bible to be 100% factual without having read a single page of it.
|
On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
Of course there is, nobody doubts that.
Atheists know that there is a possibility God exists. It's about the same one that Harry Potter or Spider Man exist, but still there's a possibility.
|
On September 30 2013 15:13 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 15:09 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 15:07 Birdie wrote:
the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old. I am very sad right now. :-( Why :O if the dates in the Bible are to be taken literally (and there's little reason not to), then Bishop Ussher's chronology of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) and all the other estimates generally conclude on a 6000 year old earth.
Except you can't use the Bible as evidence when it itself contains the claims you are trying to support. Scientific evidence from an outside source is needed - most of which happens to contradict the bit of guesswork extrapolated from the Bible.
On October 01 2013 06:52 SixStrings wrote:
You just know Ohana had to be created by a creationist.
God is a mapmaker and we are all living in an extremely sophisticated video game.
Religion solved, debate's over, nothing to do here folks.
|
On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now.
A scientific theory is a system of interconnected statements that can be verified/falsified using the scientific method and is rarely true in an absolute sense. The word "theory" has nothing to with whether something is proven or true, and it has a completely different meaning from "conjecture" or "hypothesis".
Scientific theories are models, and some of them are more accurate than others. Wegener's theory of continental drift is a scientific theory that has been disproven, and everyone knows classical mechanics is an inadequate approximation. Like Birdie said, evolution is still being updated, so saying it is a "fact" as if that implied some sort of ultimate truth is naïve.
On October 01 2013 07:03 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species. And what a great God that would be. We can't explain why the planets move? That's God's domain. Well, except at some point we learned to understand why they move, so let's take that away from him. No problem, there's more. Can't explain where life comes to being? Well, let's use God for that. Oh, there's a couple of very sound theories about that already? Okay, no God then. So God's domain is the one where he created consciousness from simple life. Brilliant, let's hope that we don't understand to soon how that happened, so God can have a reason to exist for a couple of decades longer.
I never said you should use God whenever you can't explain something. I was arguing that from a Christian's perspective, there is little reason not to believe in evolution, as there is nothing in the bible that contradicts it. I mean, even Christians (except fundamentalist creationists) don't dismiss the star formation theory on the basis of the bible attributing the creation of stars to God, right? So why should the creation of species be any different?
|
A theory explains phenomena. A fact is merely a something that exists, it doesn't explain anything.
A rock fell - that's a single event. The theory of gravity explains that phenomena.
A theory are both established, well-accepted, and not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise. The colloquial definition for theory is not the same as the definition of a scientific theory. Stop taking your science lessons from Bible teachers. It blows my mind that people still spout the "its just a theory" retardation to this day.
|
On October 01 2013 12:09 opsayo wrote:
A theory are both established, well-accepted, and not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise..
Sorry, what?
|
On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. I'm afraid many people might not like this insight, and I hate sucking up, but it's pretty much the best one I've heard in ages. I will definitely tell this to my kids, and in that sense hope that they become balanced enough that they don't feel the need to always pick one side and argue/defend it to death to feed to their own integrity/status of the so called ego. The only difference though between research that is today investigated and proven to our best abilities, in the minds of many becomes more relevant than something created ages ago with virtually no proof. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact.
The original quote by And G is bullshit. No one "believes" in evolution like they believe in the fundamentalist Christian god. To say that you believe evolution is true is to say that you believe the theory explains the facts as they are currently known but that you are still open to countervailing evidence that modifies, corrects, or even repudiates the theory. I very much doubt that people who "talk big about 'science' today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists" are exactly the same kind of people who would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago.
Firstly, 300 years ago, there wasn't a good theory for how complex things came from simpler things, so obviously people are more likely to have believed in at least a "watchmaker" deist sort of god.
Secondly, people who "talk big about science" are generally educated enough to know that science relies on evidence and that the evidence is oftentimes contradictory.
"Belief" in science is not even close to the same kind of belief that "belief in god" is.
|
On October 01 2013 12:25 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 12:09 opsayo wrote:
A theory are both established, well-accepted, and not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise.. Sorry, what?
Falsifiability.
|
I am quite familiar with the concept of falsifiability. What I don't understand is the statement "a [scientific] theory [is] not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise."
New scientific theories tend to be established whenever a hole in an existing theory is found, often by the dozens. Evidence is something you usually don't find until much later. For a contemporary example, check out all the string theory variants: M-theory seems to be the most popular one these days; not because it has the most evidence in its favour (in fact string theory as a whole is difficult to falsify because it makes few predictions) but because it is the most simple and elegant theory, meaning it relies as little as possible on other unproven theories.
On October 01 2013 12:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. I'm afraid many people might not like this insight, and I hate sucking up, but it's pretty much the best one I've heard in ages. I will definitely tell this to my kids, and in that sense hope that they become balanced enough that they don't feel the need to always pick one side and argue/defend it to death to feed to their own integrity/status of the so called ego. The only difference though between research that is today investigated and proven to our best abilities, in the minds of many becomes more relevant than something created ages ago with virtually no proof. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. The original quote by And G is bullshit. No one "believes" in evolution like they believe in the fundamentalist Christian god. To say that you believe evolution is true is to say that you believe the theory explains the facts as they are currently known but that you are still open to countervailing evidence that modifies, corrects, or even repudiates the theory. I very much doubt that people who "talk big about 'science' today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists" are exactly the same kind of people who would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. Firstly, 300 years ago, there wasn't a good theory for how complex things came from simpler things, so obviously people are more likely to have believed in at least a "watchmaker" deist sort of god. Secondly, people who "talk big about science" are generally educated enough to know that science relies on evidence and that the evidence is oftentimes contradictory. "Belief" in science is not even close to the same kind of belief that "belief in god" is.
You can have the same kind of belief in science that religious people have in religion. Someone who also disagreed with the post you quoted sent me an angry PM, here's an excerpt of my reply that is relevant to your post:
People are brainwashed. Everyone knows the Earth orbits (a point within) the sun. Yet if you ask people how this could be experimentally proven, I'd be surprised if even one out of 100 could give you an answer, and half of them would probably not even comprehend the question.
Did you know Galileo was wrong? He dropped two balls of different masses from the tower of Pisa to demonstrate they took the same time to fall regardless of their mass. However, this is a wrong statement, as you can easily prove yourself: Take two balloons and fill one with air and one with water. Now drop them. Guess which one falls faster? Obviously Galileo's masses just weren't different enough.
Galileo's thesis is only true in a vacuum, and unfortunately there was not much vacuum in Pisa. Yet this is one of the most commonly quoted experiments in physics class when discussing classical mechanics.
People don't learn science; they learn scientific "facts", and that is a problem. I realize that on the internet, especially on forums related to activities that require or reward a certain minimum intelligence such as Starcraft, scientific illiterature isn't all that common. However, if you talk to random people you meet in a bar or wherever and try to find out what they believe in and why, you will see a vastly different picture. Even if they believe the right things, they will most often believe them for all the wrong reasons. In fact they will often have no problem believing in all those scientific "facts" and also in horoscopes and other bullshit.
Of course you can also believe in certain scientific theories because you have a fundamental understanding how science works and know how to apply Bayes' theorem to use evidence to update your priors. However, outside of academia this is quite rare, and people who understand science tend not to talk about scientific "facts".
|
On October 01 2013 15:04 And G wrote:I am quite familiar with the concept of falsifiability. What I don't understand is the statement "a [scientific] theory [is] not remotely up for debate until evidence shows otherwise." New scientific theories tend to be established whenever a hole in an existing theory is found, often by the dozens. Evidence is something you usually don't find until much later. For a contemporary example, check out all the string theory variants: M-theory seems to be the most popular one these days; not because it has the most evidence in its favour (in fact string theory as a whole is difficult to falsify because it makes few predictions) but because it is the most simple and elegant theory, meaning it relies as little as possible on other unproven theories. Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 12:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. I'm afraid many people might not like this insight, and I hate sucking up, but it's pretty much the best one I've heard in ages. I will definitely tell this to my kids, and in that sense hope that they become balanced enough that they don't feel the need to always pick one side and argue/defend it to death to feed to their own integrity/status of the so called ego. The only difference though between research that is today investigated and proven to our best abilities, in the minds of many becomes more relevant than something created ages ago with virtually no proof. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. The original quote by And G is bullshit. No one "believes" in evolution like they believe in the fundamentalist Christian god. To say that you believe evolution is true is to say that you believe the theory explains the facts as they are currently known but that you are still open to countervailing evidence that modifies, corrects, or even repudiates the theory. I very much doubt that people who "talk big about 'science' today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists" are exactly the same kind of people who would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. Firstly, 300 years ago, there wasn't a good theory for how complex things came from simpler things, so obviously people are more likely to have believed in at least a "watchmaker" deist sort of god. Secondly, people who "talk big about science" are generally educated enough to know that science relies on evidence and that the evidence is oftentimes contradictory. "Belief" in science is not even close to the same kind of belief that "belief in god" is. You can have the same kind of belief in science that religious people have in religion. Someone who also disagreed with the post you quoted sent me an angry PM, here's an excerpt of my reply that is relevant to your post: Show nested quote +People are brainwashed. Everyone knows the Earth orbits (a point within) the sun. Yet if you ask people how this could be experimentally proven, I'd be surprised if even one out of 100 could give you an answer, and half of them would probably not even comprehend the question.
Did you know Galileo was wrong? He dropped two balls of different masses from the tower of Pisa to demonstrate they took the same time to fall regardless of their mass. However, this is a wrong statement, as you can easily prove yourself: Take two balloons and fill one with air and one with water. Now drop them. Guess which one falls faster? Obviously Galileo's masses just weren't different enough.
Galileo's thesis is only true in a vacuum, and unfortunately there was not much vacuum in Pisa. Yet this is one of the most commonly quoted experiments in physics class when discussing classical mechanics.
People don't learn science; they learn scientific "facts", and that is a problem. I realize that on the internet, especially on forums related to activities that require or reward a certain minimum intelligence such as Starcraft, scientific illiterature isn't all that common. However, if you talk to random people you meet in a bar or wherever and try to find out what they believe in and why, you will see a vastly different picture. Even if they believe the right things, they will most often believe them for all the wrong reasons. In fact they will often have no problem believing in all those scientific "facts" and also in horoscopes and other bullshit. Of course you can also believe in certain scientific theories because you have a fundamental understanding how science works and know how to apply Bayes' theorem to use evidence to update your priors. However, outside of academia this is quite rare, and people who understand science tend not to talk about scientific "facts".
You are just changing the proposition and then claiming that the conclusion is unjustified. No one whose opinion matters cites Galileo's experiment regarding the truth value of the proposition "all objects fall at the same rate in any medium anywhere." It's commonly quoted in physics class precisely because most people think that a feather will fall slower than a rock. Is that lost on you? No one actually thinks a balloon will fall at the same speed as a bowling ball. You are just playing post-hoc semantic games to try and prove that people's "beliefs" about science are the same kind of beliefs that people have about religion. It's bullshit and you know it.
Just because a random uneducated person in a bar you meet wouldn't know how to conduct a scientific experiment to save his life, does not mean that he believes in "scientific facts" in the same way that a person believes that Jesus rose from the dead. Most people would be open to changing their mind about a particular scientific fact if you told them you had evidence that they were wrong (assuming of course that your credibility is such that it appears more likely to them that you are right than that you are a crank, if you are trying to convince them that gravity doesn't exist, they obviously won't believe you even if they've never heard of Galileo).
|
On the question of evolution and other natural phenomena, we cannot just use scripture uncritically as a source for proofs. This is simply a category mistake, and it not only does a disservice to the understanding of both the natural sciences and theology, but it is wrong on a fundamental level of being hubristic in the sense that it dismisses the astonishing amount of work scientists have done for centuries. You simply cannot just dismiss the sweat and blood of generations that have produced work where methods can be shown, data procured, and most of the time proofs to go with it, along with generations of debate and revision that continues to this day. To reject this so offhandedly with terrible understanding of the evolutionary theory that you are rejecting is just wrongheaded. Scripture is not God, nor is the written word abstracted from historical reality.
So let us say that we are engaging in a purely theological argument and just presuppose that scripture truly is divine. This still doesn't change that the word was written through human expression that is framed in particular cultural and historical contexts. We cannot read Paul without also being hit by an diverse cultural influences, of pre-Rabbinic Jewish messianism, Platonic philosophical concepts, the political climate of the Roman empire, etc. None of this will change that one could believe that the Pauline texts are divinely inspired and that there is a central message within it that is timeless for a Christian. But one cannot simply just read the text straight on as if there is an obviously true centrality to it - it is naive and potentially dangerous to the highest degree. There is a long history within Christianity where Pauline readings are borderline heretical, as Barth points out in his commentary to Romans. Barth himself wanted to actually interpret Paul instead of only doing historical and anthropological reviews of the contexts of the times of Paul as he believed that one really could connect with Paul in an intimate and personal way and I have no problem with that - many people do with age old figures in various disciplines in widely diverse contexts. But nowhere does Barth reject the validity of historical criticism of scripture and doctrine even if he wants to move beyond it.
Augustine lived ages before the development of historical and scientific research, so he did not have the privilege to have had all such resources at hand. After all, he lived in a time where it was difficult to even get your hands on manuscripts and there was a lot of shoddy translations going around because translating between Hebrew, Greek, and Latin wasn't very developed and this is something he comments on in De Doctrina Christiana. In there he goes over some common translating errors due to translating between languages in a purely literal way that loses the original meaning of passages and other problems he has encountered in texts. He asks the reader to read as many translations as possible due to this, and his concerns become further justified when the studies of the classics boons with the Humanists who find a slew of errors in the canonical Latin bible that was used by the Catholic Church (the Vulgate). The Protestant Reformers consequently reject it outright and go on with their own scholastic translations into the common language of their lands (Luther's German translation being the first major one).
What this has to do with the natural sciences and scripture is that the divine word isn't really unchangeable. Even if it is divinely inspired it is always a human product. Not only because it is by human expertise in exegesis and linguistics that it is translated and made intelligible to the vast majority of Christians that cannot read Hebrew or Greek, but because even the original written words by the biblical authors cannot be extricated from their historical contexts. It may be inspired by God but it was never God itself, it is not God itself, and it will never be God itself. The Christian traditions have always been careful about this so that the bible is not worshiped (which would be heresy). My theological argument would then be that scripture in itself is also not the Truth. It is a way, but it is not the only way, and in a sense it is not a way in itself. An Augustinian line would be that it is Christ that is both what shows the way and is the way, and scripture makes it intelligible.
This is why I think biblicalism is very, very misguided. Firstly because it rejects material reality, and secondly because it raises the text to heights that go far beyond what is proper. At points it seems to tread the line of heresy. But is not the text material? Is it not senseless to abstract the material text from the world? Scripture is necessary and it is one of, if not the centrality for the faith as that is where it starts from. It is what makes it intelligible and it is the cornerstone that serves as the axis for all understanding of what Christianity is. It is read and reread, always, and as such it is always interpreted. It has always been interpreted from the beginning of Christianity with the Patristic writers. There has never been a singular reading of the scripture as if there is only one meaning to it. From the beginning of Christianity the interpretation of scripture has never been univocal, it has always been pluralistic. Is this a sign that there is no Truth to the religion? Maybe. But I see it more as the sign that it's a religion that's still alive. If one day every scholar can agree on what Christianity is and what the correct interpretation of all the texts are then it would be because they are staring at the petrified corpse of Christianity.
I'm not going to say that you are a heretic or you are some sinister person or whathaveyou for your biblical literalism as samzdat is doing here because I don't think it's the right way to have a dialogue with someone who seems to take this all seriously. I myself did not have the right attitude in my posts for the past week and I do apologize about that to everyone. I have been unnecessarily antagonistic and it shouldn't be excused away just because I've lost my patience on this topic more than once on this forum. But I do want to say that I think you are very misguided along with countless other Protestants in the Anglo nations and South Korea. One must have the humility to defer to the experts on areas of life one is not an expert of. A theologian must not reject offhand what the biblical scholar's research may provide in uncovering the history of scripture just because he or she doesn't like it instinctively. And as a lay person would put their faith on the theologians for understanding their own faith, people also have to approach the scientists with good faith in their research of natural phenomena because they know better than us. To refuse to do this is nothing but hubris. There may be an absolute qualitative difference between God and man, but nevertheless Christian doctrine believes that Christ was fully God and fully man. Was the world rejected? No. Have you studied evolutionary theory? You haven't, so don't speak about it. You don't have the right to reject it or not by abusing scripture. Has Christian doctrine developed through a purely literal reading of scripture? No. Not only due to interpretation, but there are slews of poetic verses all throughout scripture. Not even literalists read the entirety of scripture literally - it would be absurd.
If you really are well meaning then I would only ask that you don't spend your time critiquing the world with a literal reading of scripture because it is insulting to all parties. If faith makes you lose sight of material reality and your place in the world as one small individual that doesn't have the expertise or authority to make judgement on things that you don't know, then that faith is questionable. Not only questionable, but perhaps also very insecure.
Karl Barth in the preface to the third edition to The Epistle to the Romans
No human word, no word of Paul, is absolute truth. In this I agree with Bultmann - and surely with all intelligent people. But what does the relativity of all human speech mean? Does relativity mean ambiguity? Assuredly it does. But how can I demonstrate it better than by employing the whole of my energy to disclose the nature of this ambiguity? More than one reader of my book has learned from it to understand the uncertainty of Paulinism. I do not object to the book being so used. But nevertheless, we must learn to see beyond Paul. This can only be done, however, if, with utter loyalty and with a desperate earnestness, we endeavour to penetrate his meaning.
|
On October 01 2013 15:26 IgnE wrote:
You are just changing the proposition and then claiming that the conclusion is unjustified.
I'm not claiming that scientists don't understand science. I'm claiming that average people don't understand science. Are you seriously disagreeing with that?
The reason why a feather falls slower than a rock lies not so much in its mass as in its shape. People know balloons fall slower than bowling balls, but they think Galileo proved anything with his ball experiment, and they are too untrained in scientific thinking to see a contradiction there unless you purposely draw their attention to it. Schools do not teach that experiment as an example how not to prove scientific theories.
I'm not arguing about what kind of beliefs people have, I'm arguing about why people have the beliefs they have. Science is all about the why; if your reasoning is wrong then it doesn't matter if you arrive at the correct result. People know the results, but they don't know how to get there.
Effectively, most educated people outside academia believe in scientific facts/theories because they read them in books, because their authorities tell them so, and because they are accepted by their peers. That's hardly any different from believing in the world being ~10000 years in a time where books/authorities/peers promoted that particular belief. It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years.
If people can believe in unbelievably stupid crap like blood type horoscopes, what makes you think their belief in scientific facts is any more well-founded than other people's belief in religion?
|
On October 01 2013 15:53 And G wrote:
It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years.
No, however, we have become far more critical. When it comes to religion, you're not allowed to criticize. You're supposed to simply believe and have faith. In modern society (at least western society), being critical is one of the first things they teach you in school, you should never trust something at face value, you should read up on alternatives then decide what you believe.
This doesn't mean someone can't be critical of scientific beliefs, read up on a religion and decide that's what they believe in. However, it does change the fundamentals of religion and science. Even if faith in science and faith in religion was identical, the very fact that science encourages critical thinking makes it vastly different.
|
People may not be all that more rational or intelligent than before, but I don't think anyone could honestly look at how productive the natural sciences have been through modern times and just how substantive it has been not just for theoretical knowledge but also for the practical life and say that it's not doing something right. The average person might not know exactly how the scientific method works and how scientific research really operates but they have the right to trust in scientific output because it has proven itself to be useful again and again. The average Christian doesn't know shit about scriptural exegesis or even the detail of the doctrines of the faith either. Even if this all might be problematic, I don't think it's fair or sensible to expect everyone to know all that stuff if it isn't their field of research and expertise. I would not expect someone listening to music on a bus to be able to write a song or even play in instrument competently. There is nothing wrong with deferring this or that to this or that authority as long as you are listening to the right authority for each thing. You would go to an evolutionary biologist to learn about the theory of evolution, but you wouldn't go to the same person to learn about Hegel or something. I don't think what's really important is "critical thinking" (what a hilariously loaded term) but more about actually respecting the fact that you can't know everything and that the experts of each field are experts for a reason. I think it's really about productivity. The modern natural sciences is immensely productive and often tangible for the everyday person. It's proven its usefulness and thus people will trust it, and with good reason.
|
On October 01 2013 15:53 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 15:26 IgnE wrote:
You are just changing the proposition and then claiming that the conclusion is unjustified. I'm not claiming that scientists don't understand science. I'm claiming that average people don't understand science. Are you seriously disagreeing with that? The reason why a feather falls slower than a rock lies not so much in its mass as in its shape. People know balloons fall slower than bowling balls, but they think Galileo proved anything with his ball experiment, and they are too untrained in scientific thinking to see a contradiction there unless you purposely draw their attention to it. Schools do not teach that experiment as an example how not to prove scientific theories. I'm not arguing about what kind of beliefs people have, I'm arguing about why people have the beliefs they have. Science is all about the why; if your reasoning is wrong then it doesn't matter if you arrive at the correct result. People know the results, but they don't know how to get there. Effectively, most educated people outside academia believe in scientific facts/theories because they read them in books, because their authorities tell them so, and because they are accepted by their peers. That's hardly any different from believing in the world being ~10000 years in a time where books/authorities/peers promoted that particular belief. It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years. If people can believe in unbelievably stupid crap like blood type horoscopes, what makes you think their belief in scientific facts is any more well-founded than other people's belief in religion?
Belief in a blood type horoscope is exactly the kind of belief that belief in science is not. It does not respond to evidence.
Most people have the beliefs they have because someone trustworthy told them that it was so. You can not verify the vast majority of things you are told. That does not make your belief about those things unjustified. It also does not make those beliefs the same kinds of beliefs that people have about god or about astrology.
It really doesn't matter whether someone understands how physics works for their beliefs about gravity or electromagnetism to be justified, because, in principle, they could investigate those beliefs for themselves. The why only matters for the belief in general, not for each individual who holds the belief.
|
Coincidentally, this is what makes belief in identifiable gods or astrology so frightening. It involves believing in something based on authority or pure fancy (purely fanciful beliefs only held by one person tend to be dismissed as quackery pretty quickly), knowing that, even in principle, it would be impossible to verify. Such a belief is completely impervious to empirical evidence.
When someone has so little regard for the real, it makes you wonder what kind of cockamamie beliefs they have about things that actually matter.
|
On October 01 2013 16:02 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 15:53 And G wrote:
It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years. No, however, we have become far more critical.
I agree that being critical (of pretty much anything in fact) has become far more accepted by society. However, the number of people who actually think critically is alarmingly low. This is because of fundamental aspects of the human psyche, namely the tendency to accept that as true what one wants to be true, and a general aversion to focused thinking.
Also, I have no idea what kind of school you went to, but I went to a (not entirely unprestigious) "science-oriented" high school in Germany, and critical thinking was only allowed within certain bounds, that is if it led to the answers given in the textbooks. From what I have gathered from people I know (although admittedly none of them went to school in the US) this seems to be the standard in Europe and Asia.
Of course I agree that there exists a fundamental difference between science and religion, namely the scientific method. Basically, you can believe in scientific theories for rational reasons, and you can't believe in theological teachings for rational reasons. However, you can also believe in scientific theories for irrational reasons, and this is what far too many do, and why I am wary of people who cheer for "scientific facts" just as loudly as fundamentalists cheer for whatever their religions promotes.
On October 01 2013 16:19 koreasilver wrote:
The average person might not know exactly how the scientific method works and how scientific research really operates but they have the right to trust in scientific output because it has proven itself to be useful again and again.
This is a key statement and one I largely agree with. However, there are two problems with it; namely that for the average person, real scientific output is undistinguishable from pseudo-scientific output, and secondly, that most of the things we have been discussing in this thread such as evolution aren't exactly the kind of output that has real-life applications.
|
There will always be people who reason poorly. Poor reasoning and faith are two very different things. The problem is that you are tying in this monolith of Science and likening beliefs in Science to things that religious people believe, when Science as a monolith doesn't really exist in the first place, and when the same criticisms you are leveling against Science can be made about any fact that a person believes, including something you might overhear in gossip. If Becky believes that her man cheated on her with Mary last night, even though Mary was off trying to get her car back from the shop, that has very little to do with science, but is the same kind of error that Becky might make by believing that vaccines cause autism (which ostensibly has more to do with science, or at least Science).
|
On October 01 2013 16:27 IgnE wrote:
Belief in a blood type horoscope is exactly the kind of belief that belief in science is not. It does not respond to evidence.
I don't know how to make my point more clear, because I think we're talking past each other. So I'll just quote what I wrote in reply to Tobberoth:On October 01 2013 16:36 And G wrote:
You can believe in scientific theories for rational reasons, and you can't believe in theological teachings for rational reasons. However, you can also believe in scientific theories for irrational reasons, and this is what far too many do. Scientific theories are (usually) falsifiable, but most people don't say "I believe X because I could verify it if I wanted to". The reason why they believe in X is because X is a socially accepted belief, and the reason why X is a socially accepted belief is usually because X has been endorsed by the scientific community. However, religion, astrology and so on are also socially accepted, so you will also find respective believers.
Theoretically, beliefs in science and religion/astrology are vastly different. In practice, however, your average (educated) person believes them for comparable reasons, and these are the same reasons why people 300 years ago believed in whatever their priests told them.
|
On October 01 2013 17:02 And G wrote:
In practice, however, your average (educated) person believes them for comparable reasons, and these are the same reasons why people 300 years ago believed in whatever their priests told them.
I disagree very much. You are running roughshod over important, distinguishable features that illustrate the difference between the two kinds of belief (there might even be a third kind of belief here, the kind that people had 300 years ago as a result of whatever their priests told them).
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?"
Those two questions lead to two very different conversations.
The belief in the first question begins and ends with an inherently implacable, indefensible faith.
The belief in the second question begins with reasons. The first reason out of the person's might be that they heard it on the news, but the second belief does not assume its own veracity like the first does. If enough evidence were marshaled with enough credibility the belief in the second question would give way and be replaced with a new belief. Perhaps something like "vaccines probably don't cause autism."
The point is that ignorance and shoddy reasoning have nothing to do with science. The problem of uncritically holding beliefs has more to do with philosophy and logic than it does with science. But the two kinds of belief that you are trying to equate are fundamentally different, despite your protestations. You can say "average (educated) people believe in evolution in the same way that they believe jesus was divine" because they are both derived from the pronouncements of authority figures, but that doesn't make them the same kind of belief. One is fundamentally based on empiricism and one is fundamentally based on faith.
|
On October 01 2013 16:36 And G wrote:
Also, I have no idea what kind of school you went to, but I went to a (not entirely unprestigious) "science-oriented" high school in Germany, and critical thinking was only allowed within certain bounds, that is if it led to the answers given in the textbooks. From what I have gathered from people I know (although admittedly none of them went to school in the US) this seems to be the standard in Europe and Asia.
I'm very surprised by this, this is most definitely not the standard in Sweden and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the rest of Scandinavia. If a textbook says something is true and you question it, it's up to the teacher to explain why it's true, if the teacher says "Because the textbook says so", he would probably lose his job. Now obviously, we're not asked to question every single thing we read in our textbooks, we're supposed to learn what it contains, but learning how to find sources for absolute statements and evaluate how reliable the information is, is key.
If a teacher knows what he's doing, I seriously doubt a student will successfully argue the point to a position where the answer is actually different from the textbook. And if that happens, great, write a paper on it.
|
On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:02 And G wrote:
In practice, however, your average (educated) person believes them for comparable reasons, and these are the same reasons why people 300 years ago believed in whatever their priests told them. I disagree very much. You are running roughshod over important, distinguishable features that illustrate the difference between the two kinds of belief (there might even be a third kind of belief here, the kind that people had 300 years ago as a result of whatever their priests told them). "Why do you believe Jesus is divine?" "Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" Those two questions lead to two very different conversations. The belief in the first question begins and ends with an inherently implacable, indefensible faith. The belief in the second question begins with reasons. The first reason out of the person's might be that they heard it on the news, but the second belief does not assume its own veracity like the first does. In theory, marshalling enough evidence with enough credibility the belief in the second question would give way and be replaced with a new belief. Perhaps something like "vaccines probably don't cause autism." The point is that ignorance and shoddy reasoning have nothing to do with science. The problem of uncritically holding beliefs has more to do with philosophy and logic than it does with science. But the two kinds of belief that you are trying to equate are fundamentally different, despite your protestations. You can say "average (educated) people believe in evolution in the same way that they believe jesus was divine" because they are both derived from the pronouncements of authority figures, but that doesn't make them the same kind of belief. One is fundamentally based on empiricism and one is fundamentally based on faith.
If you asked "What proof do you have that Jesus is divine?" and "What proof do you have that vaccines cause autism", the answers would be much the same. "The Bible says so/the church says so/I think so". "I read it in a peer reviewed journal/some scientists say so/the news said so/I think so".
On October 01 2013 16:02 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 15:53 And G wrote:
It's not as if people got spectacularly more intelligent and rational over the last few hundred years. No, however, we have become far more critical. When it comes to religion, you're not allowed to criticize. You're supposed to simply believe and have faith. In modern society (at least western society), being critical is one of the first things they teach you in school, you should never trust something at face value, you should read up on alternatives then decide what you believe. This doesn't mean someone can't be critical of scientific beliefs, read up on a religion and decide that's what they believe in. However, it does change the fundamentals of religion and science. Even if faith in science and faith in religion was identical, the very fact that science encourages critical thinking makes it vastly different.
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
I don't know what schools you've been going to but New Zealand state schools do not teach you to read up on alternatives and decide what you believe. You're told what is truth according to the state, and then expected to believe it.
And religion doesn't discourage critical thinking, from my experience of it at least. I can't speak for everyone's experience, of course, but I've been taught for a very long time to be analytic of the different religions, beliefs, and so on, and have not been discouraged from questioning and criticizing. From what I know of state schooling, essentially the opposite is taught. You're expected to not question the status quo, but merely accept what you are told. Anything less will result in worse grades in most schools and subjects.
|
On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?"
"Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia."
Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there.
Edit: Also, what Birdie said.
|
On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
If you asked "What proof do you have that Jesus is divine?" and "What proof do you have that vaccines cause autism", the answers would be much the same. "The Bible says so/the church says so/I think so". "I read it in a peer reviewed journal/some scientists say so/the news said so/I think so".
That isn't much the same. Someone can read the peer reviewed journals, find the experiments and reproduce them to get empirical evidence to persuade themselves that it's true. Someone can read the bible, but it doesn't go any further than that, because there is nothing beyond that.
|
On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
Successfully criticising scientific theory gets you medals. What does heresy get you?
|
On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said.
That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar.
As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology.
|
On October 01 2013 17:48 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
Successfully criticising scientific theory gets you medals. What does heresy get you?
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nowadays heresy gets you loads of cash most of the time.
On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology.
I think you're missing the point here. MOST PEOPLE do not worry about what the text is that they get their proof of. As long as it's a religious/scientific authority, they believe it blindly, without thinking critically about it. The point here is not "science = religion", the point is that MOST PEOPLE believe in science the way they believe in religion. The veracity and legitimacy of what they're believing in is not the point.
I daresay (with all due respect) that you yourself will often believe things written in journals or perhaps in the media without questioning it. New planet discovered? You don't get a telescope out and have a look for it yourself (or maybe you do! Props to you if you do haha), rather you believe that NASA is telling the truth and not making up a story.
|
On October 01 2013 18:07 Birdie wrote:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nowadays heresy gets you loads of cash most of the time.
I'm trying to get my inital point accross since you obviously missed it. Criticism is ENCOURAGED by science. By criticising known theories and coming up with your own evidence, you're helping progress knowledge.
Criticism is DISCOURAGED by religion. Historically heresy got you killed. Nowadays, it will probably just get you disliked and ignored.
|
On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology.
You're missing the point. 300 years ago, scripture had at least as much credibility among authorities on pretty much any subject as Wikipedia or even scientific papers have today. John Doe doesn't give a flying fuck about empiricism and reason.
I am not trying to discredit science here, only those who accept, adopt and affirm whatever they've been told, and then feel smugly superior to others because they have been told other things. That applies to religious people as well, of course.
|
On October 01 2013 18:07 Birdie wrote:
I daresay (with all due respect) that you yourself will often believe things written in journals or perhaps in the media without questioning it. New planet discovered? You don't get a telescope out and have a look for it yourself (or maybe you do! Props to you if you do haha), rather you believe that NASA is telling the truth and not making up a story.
Of course you do. You don't have to look yourself, because NASA checked the results first. Then tons of other astronomers did, both agencies in other countries, and amateur astronomers. Most people will not take a report which was released a few minutes ago and immediately believe it to be true, they will wait for it to be reproduced and tested by other scientists. When the majority of the scientific community agrees with the results, you realize you do not have the knowledge to question it any better than they did, so you accept it.
|
On October 01 2013 18:07 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:48 Tobberoth wrote:On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
Successfully criticising scientific theory gets you medals. What does heresy get you? Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nowadays heresy gets you loads of cash most of the time. Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology. I think you're missing the point here. MOST PEOPLE do not worry about what the text is that they get their proof of. As long as it's a religious/scientific authority, they believe it blindly, without thinking critically about it. The point here is not "science = religion", the point is that MOST PEOPLE believe in science the way they believe in religion. The veracity and legitimacy of what they're believing in is not the point. I daresay (with all due respect) that you yourself will often believe things written in journals or perhaps in the media without questioning it. New planet discovered? You don't get a telescope out and have a look for it yourself (or maybe you do! Props to you if you do haha), rather you believe that NASA is telling the truth and not making up a story.
The irony is that you are missing the point. I know that most of what I believe I haven't and can't practically verify. No fucking shit. You don't say. I even said as much a few posts ago. But it does not matter that everyone believes things they hear from authority figures. The only thing that matters here is that, in principle, one type of belief is verifiable and one type of belief is not; one type of belief is based in empiricism and one type of belief is not.
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. People can and do change their minds in response to new, empirically derived evidence all the time about facts that they have no way of actually verifying. Most of that evidence is actually secondhand from experts or popularizers or an acquaintance or whatever. It does not matter. It is still a fundamentally different kind of belief than belief in religious propositions.
|
|
|
On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence.
This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim.
|
On October 01 2013 18:23 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim.
You're saying that in your sample, you asked people about their beliefs, they cited some authority, you proved them wrong and they didn't accept it? That doesn't sound reasonable at all.
|
On October 01 2013 18:10 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology. You're missing the point. 300 years ago, scripture had at least as much credibility among authorities on pretty much any subject as Wikipedia or even scientific papers have today. John Doe doesn't give a flying fuck about empiricism and reason. I am not trying to discredit science here, only those who accept, adopt and affirm whatever they've been told, and then feel smugly superior to others because they have been told other things. That applies to religious people as well, of course.
I am well aware that scripture had and still has a lot of credibility. Both kinds of beliefs that I have been talking about might have appealed to scripture in the 1600s in an attempt to fumble at truth.
On the one hand someone might cite scripture for the proposition that the orbits of the planets were circular. That kind of belief is still an empirical one for most people, because it is not impervious to evidence. It just so happened that in the 1600s, until Kepler rolls around, scripture might have been the best evidence available for most people.
On the other hand, someone might cite scripture for the proposition that Jesus was divine. That kind of belief was, and still is, an entirely different kind of belief from the first one.
Your original quote does not appreciate this difference:
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised.
The people who talk big about Science today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists would not necessarily have been "brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago." They are exactly the kind of people that would have believed Kepler about the orbits of the planets when it became clear that he was right, even if they had no idea how to read or do basic math. The problem with your statement is that in the past it was more intellectually defensible to believe certain things. While those believing those things might appear to be the same kind of thing as believing Jesus was divine, they are quite different. It was easier to believe the scriptures as an authority figure on natural phenomena because people had not yet figured out better methods for discovering the laws of nature. There was no Kepler. There was no Darwin. There was no Einstein. But you are conflating scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition (however bad the evidence is) with scripture as an epistemic end in itself.
And in an effort to avoid misunderstanding, using scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition back in 1600 is different from now. While before it might have been used as an authority on a variety of subjects, now we have compiled enough evidence that anyone with an average level of critical thinking skills and ratiocination believes that the scripture writers were no authority at all on things like the orbits of the planets.
|
On October 01 2013 18:23 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim.
The average person on public transit has no fucking clue what they think or why they think, even less how to articulate the what and the why. Taking people's answers at face value in an informal poll is your first problem.
And everyone who is involved in science at a graduate level knows the problems involved in "doing" science. It does not change the fact that beliefs about facts and beliefs concerning religious propositions are two very different things.
|
On October 01 2013 18:24 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:23 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim. You're saying that in your sample, you asked people about their beliefs, they cited some authority, you proved them wrong and they didn't accept it? That doesn't sound reasonable at all.
Ah, it was a little more complicated than that. I didn't explicitely ask people about their beliefs; I tried to strike up a normal conversation, find out what they roughly believed in, and then either challenge those beliefs or figure out what they were based upon. I rarely got "authority" as an answer; usually I heard "because that's how it is, duh" or somesuch, accompanied by a weird look. I must say I did only bring up pretty "standard" theories such as plate tectonics, natural selection (not even evolution), and phenomena related to classical mechanics. There were cases where people had outright false beliefs, one (somewhat retarded) guy thought the seasons were caused by the elliptic orbit of the earth, and when I tried to explain Earth's axial tilt he said this had nothing to with the seasons because of the earth's rotation, at which point I ended the conversation as I was getting a headache.
All in all, I had no scientific ambitions when I did this, but the whole thing caused me to adjust my assumptions about other people's scientific literacy significantly downwards.
On October 01 2013 18:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:10 And G wrote:
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. The people who talk big about Science today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists would not necessarily have been "brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago." They are exactly the kind of people that would have believed Kepler about the orbits of the planets when it became clear that he was right, even if they had no idea how to read or do basic math. The problem with your statement is that in the past it was more intellectually defensible to believe certain things. While those believing those things might appear to be the same kind of thing as believing Jesus was divine, they are quite different. It was easier to believe the scriptures as an authority figure on natural phenomena because people had not yet figured out better methods for discovering the laws of nature. There was no Kepler. There was no Darwin. There was no Einstein. But you are conflating scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition (however bad the evidence is) with scripture as an epistemic end in itself.
You seem to assume that the prime method by which most people adopt beliefs is through careful consideration and reasoning. And that, according to my experience, is so untrue it's not even funny anymore.
Again, you seem pretty confident about this, so I'm genuinely interested to hear what this confidence is based on.
|
On October 01 2013 19:07 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:36 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 18:10 And G wrote:
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. The people who talk big about Science today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists would not necessarily have been "brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago." They are exactly the kind of people that would have believed Kepler about the orbits of the planets when it became clear that he was right, even if they had no idea how to read or do basic math. The problem with your statement is that in the past it was more intellectually defensible to believe certain things. While those believing those things might appear to be the same kind of thing as believing Jesus was divine, they are quite different. It was easier to believe the scriptures as an authority figure on natural phenomena because people had not yet figured out better methods for discovering the laws of nature. There was no Kepler. There was no Darwin. There was no Einstein. But you are conflating scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition (however bad the evidence is) with scripture as an epistemic end in itself. You seem to assume that the prime method by which most people adopt beliefs is through careful consideration and reasoning. And that, according to my experience, is so untrue it's not even funny anymore. Again, you seem pretty confident about this, so I'm genuinely interested to hear what this confidence is based on.
I am not assuming that at all. I'm merely assuming that if I told someone who didn't know anything about it that mountain ranges were formed by meteors, and they believed me because I was a credible source, that they would change their mind if a world renowned geologist told them about the theory of plate tectonics. And that they believe the geologist has good empirical reasons for saying what he said. I.e. that it has been proven insofar as it can be. Even if they don't realize that they believe this last point, even if it's subconscious, most people in modern society have this implicit belief. If you asked them how the geologist knows that, they might not be able to articulate it, but people would not assume the geologist knows about plate tectonics through divine revelation. They would assume he knows because there is empirical evidence of some sort.
|
To be fair some people's religious beliefs are based on a similar structure. I've heard people say there's historical evidence Jesus was a real person (as far as I know there's little to no evidence outside the Bible). I've similarly heard people say that traditional medicine must work because otherwise it would not have survived. Or that the fact that so many people believe in Astrology suggests that 'there might be some truth in it'.
Some people experience visions and that evidence strengthens their faith. They might lack the techniques to evaluate their evidence correctly, but their belief is not arbitrary. It may not even be dogmatic, they might change their mind given the right type of evidence (for example seeing a different person express similar conviction in visions that are more obviously wrong, or just reading the right article about human perception or memory).
I suspect most religious people would give up their faith given the right arguments and right circumstances. Many even know this. Now, whether they would admit to it in an adverserial situation is a different question.
|
On October 01 2013 23:20 hypercube wrote:
To be fair some people's religious beliefs are based on a similar structure. I've heard people say there's historical evidence Jesus was a real person (as far as I know there's little to no evidence outside the Bible).
To your specific point about Jesus being a real person: his existence is well-accepted by historians through both Biblical and non-Biblical sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
|
There certainly is a difference between accepting a religious doctrine and accepting a scientific theory when one doesn't know the methodologies of either. Simply put, scientific theories deal with material reality and therefore they actually can be proved in substance. The methods are never just abstract because experimentation always occurs immanently - they aren't just thought experiments or logical games. The same cannot be said with religious doctrine (I only wish to speak of Christianity here since its my area of study). So even if the structure of thought that follows when an individual adheres to the authority of professional scientists may be the same as when one adheres to the authority of the church, there's a real qualitative difference between the two when it comes to real material verifiability. It would be unwise to gloss over this and this is something that scripture admits to anyway.
But yes, there is a real problem of scientific methodology not being taught properly which causes all sorts of problems with pseudo-sciences and comically misguided notions of proof and evidence. But these kind of misunderstandings are rife at every aspect of life and in every field of study.
|
New short blog is up. It's not really a topic or journal, but rather an article I found on facebook that talks, in medical terms, about what kind of pain Jesus most likely had to endure on the cross. It goes beyond what we see (which we often take for granted): flogging, thorns on his head, and nails in his hands/wrists. Take a moment to read about the excruciating torment and appreciate what Jesus willingly endured for you.
http://theprogressivefaith.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-torment-of-jesus-death/
|
On September 28 2013 06:32 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:02 HardlyNever wrote:On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you. This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic: 1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation. 2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation. 3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want. So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way. The underlying problem in this entire discussion is that people, like yourself, seem to think that truth is tangible in a way that you want it to be. In other words, how you interpret the Bible is therefore truth to you. It's not a matter of cherry picking verses that you want to believe and then making it your personal truth. The truth - the Gospel - is Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven to die for our sins, so that we can be made right with God through him, that if we should accept him wholeheartedly and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, then we will be saved.
Damn, I thought this was a great post from HardlyNever and I was really hoping you would consider it and provide a thoughtful response to why you believe the gospel or your interpretation of it is true. The reason I was hoping for this is because it is probably the key reason that I do not consider myself a Christian, because I can't find any reasons to have faith in the bible that do not require me to already have faith.
This is also, I think, why many people accuse you of being closed-minded and anti-intellectual, when asked "Why do you have faith?" your answer is something along the lines of "Because the bible is truth and it tells me to have faith" but if you were truly thinking and discussing open-mindedly you would realise that that doesn't answer the question at all because stating the bible as truth must mean you already have faith.
So I'm asking you this because I truly want to know the answer, but I don't want an answer that stems from the bible, why is it that you believe that the bible is the true word of God?
|
I also would like to hear your answer to that question.
|
On October 02 2013 15:45 Myrddraal wrote:
So I'm asking you this because I truly want to know the answer, but I don't want an answer that stems from the bible, why is it that you believe that the bible is the true word of God?
/deep breath ...ok, but it may not necessarily be the answer you're looking for because it's the work of God alone, not my own, to how and why I believe the Bible to be the true Word of God. I might sound crazy or deluded to you, but I'm not making this up, so I'll just be plain and honest with you.
I believe the Bible to be the true Word of God because it's not about choosing what verses you want to have faith in, but rather God choosing you before you even came to him, as Romans 9:16 says, "So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it." Whether through a sermon, life circumstance, incident, or other people, God can call you internally and prompt you to believe in him by means of the Holy Spirit (this is what the Holy Spirit does, he prompts you to believe, and when you do he dwells within you and sanctifies you throughout your lifetime).
Now I was naturally sheltered by many Christians and I grew up in the church and in a Christian home - and i'm thankful for that, however going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. I still had to make a personal choice at one point to accept Jesus into my heart when I felt the curiosity to know him more and a prompting to pray. I did this at a younger age (6-8, i can't remember).
When I said yes to Jesus, the Holy Spirit took permanent residence in me and "re-generated" me, or what we call "born again by the Spirit." You can't exactly "feel" the Holy Spirit, but at times you can feel his presence through worship, prayer, or talking deeply with other Christians. Overtime he teaches you, comforts you, guides you, and re-assures you through your conscience, the Bible, prayer, other people, sermons, missions trips, etc. Over the years, he's convinced me that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, that Jesus is truth, and that the Bible is truly divine-inspired. It wasn't about picking verses and choosing to believe them or comparing one book to another, it was the Holy Spirit who "opened my eyes" spiritually to the truth so that I can understand Jesus and his word, know it, and trust in his promises. That's what the Holy Spirit does to you, he enables you to not only believe, but to understand the truth and what faith in Jesus really is. The Bible points to Jesus, and Jesus is the Gospel.
That's probably as boldly as I can put it for you. I'm sorry if I sound like a nut to you, but that's me being completely honest. Jesus does all the work through his Holy Spirit. I didn't just believe, he enabled me to believe and caused me to understand Jesus, his teachings, and the Bible more and more over the years. It was an internal change of heart that only he can do.
In the spoiler below are some verses to explain a little better what it means to have the Holy Spirit in you, and what he teaches you, assures you of, etc.+ Show Spoiler +"And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God" - 1 John 5:20 "Since we believe human testimony, surely we can believe the greater testimony that comes from God. And God has testified about his Son. All who believe in the Son of God know in their hearts that this testimony is true .... And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." - 1 John 5 -11 "But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true-it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ." - 1 John 2:27 "Through Christ you have come to trust in God. And you have placed your faith and hope in God because he raised Christ from the dead and gave him great glory." - 1 Peter 1:21 "You love him even though you have never seen him. Though you do not see him now, you trust him; and you rejoice with a glorious, inexpressible joy. The reward for trusting him will be the salvation of your souls." 1 Peter 1:8-9 "For when we brought you the Good News, it was not only with words but also with power, for the Holy Spirit gave you full assurance that what we said was true." - 1 Thessalonians 1:5 "But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative-that is, the Holy Spirit-he will teach you everything and will remind you everything I have told you. I am leaving you with a gift-peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give is a gift the world cannot give. So don't be troubled or afraid." - John 14: 26-27 "We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are." - Romans 3:22 "We can rejoice too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly God loves us, because he has given us the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts with his love." - Romans 5:3-5 "For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God's children." - Romans 8:16 And probably the set of verses that can piss people off... "But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God's deep secrets. No one can know a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit, and no one can know God's thoughts except God's own Spirit. And we have received God's Spirit (not the world's spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.
When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. For,
Who can know the Lord's thoughts?
Who knows enough to teach him?
But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ" - 1 Corinthians 2:10-16
|
On October 03 2013 17:35 IronManSC wrote:
I still had to make a personal choice at one point to accept Jesus into my heart when I felt the curiosity to know him more and a prompting to pray. I did this at a younger age (6-8, i can't remember).
So you don't remember the most important date of your life? The day you reached out your hands to grab god's hand and to accept him into your heart?
Must have been quite the impression if you don't remember it.
It's almost as if you 're just making all of this up in order to explain your delusion. That's classic psychology.
|
no he's not making it up. that's really how he experiences it. religion is not true, but it works.
edit: which is why you guys miss the point when you tell him it isn't true. he knows that. he doesn't really care whether it's true or not, that's not the point. he's emotionally invested in believing that he believes that it's true. religion is not about truth it is about emotion.
|
On October 04 2013 01:36 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 17:35 IronManSC wrote:
I still had to make a personal choice at one point to accept Jesus into my heart when I felt the curiosity to know him more and a prompting to pray. I did this at a younger age (6-8, i can't remember).
So you don't remember the most important date of your life? The day you reached out your hands to grab god's hand and to accept him into your heart? Must have been quite the impression if you don't remember it. It's almost as if you 're just making all of this up in order to explain your delusion. That's classic psychology.
Or you're using my lack of a specific date as a reason to call me a nonbeliever. I can tell you what happened that day and how I came to God, but I was young, I can't remember the specific date it happened. If I was much older, sure, but some people grow up in the faith more gradually.
|
On October 04 2013 01:47 sam!zdat wrote:
no he's not making it up. that's really how he experiences it. religion is not true, but it works.
edit: which is why you guys miss the point when you tell him it isn't true. he knows that. he doesn't really care whether it's true or not, that's not the point. he's emotionally invested in believing that he believes that it's true. religion is not about truth it is about emotion.
Faith is a firm belief. It is not an emotion or a feeling because those always change.
|
I believe that you believe that you believe but I don't believe that you believe
|
On October 04 2013 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:
I believe that you believe that you believe but I don't believe that you believe
Dude, are you so full of hate that you have to use your time to go around and mock, criticize, and completely disregard the Christian faith simply because you don't want to believe or because you don't agree with it? What does it do for you? What are you achieving in life or for yourself by doing so? Quit being a tool in this thread. If you don't want to believe in Jesus, then let it rest on your shoulders, but don't come around and ignorantly bash people for having a God-given faith that you can't understand unless you receive it yourself.
|
don't feel bad I do it to atheists also. It's my religion
|
Alright, sam, while I understand your point of view regarding IronMan's thinking, I think you're being too abrasive without really being constructive on explaining exactly why you are saying the things you are saying. And while you and I may disagree with him (for different reasons) it isn't really helpful to anyone or for any discourse on Christianity to just label the opponent as a "heretic" or "not a true Christian/true believer" etc. And IronManSC, sam!zdat is a "Christian". This will become more understandable once you become familiar with this particular tradition of Christianity. I won't really fault you for not understanding that because in the context of American Christianity it's minuscule if not utterly nonexistent in large areas of the country. I really have no interest in engaging in the rather banal argument of what is "true Christianity" or "true belief" or whathaveyou.
Anyway, I hope you read my long post on my view of scripture in relation to revelation a couple pages back.
|
it's true I'm an asshole. But I think his thinking is dangerous and should be fought with mockery. I'll try to stay away from here, but on the other hand, posting this thread in the first place is obvious gadfly bait and I think you shouldn't complain when gadflies arrive.
User was warned for this post
|
Yeah but how is he going to be convinced that maybe some of this thinking might be wrong if you don't really explain why. Mockery isn't a very good motivator.
|
Especially with a typical Evangelical/Fundamentalist American Christian type.
|
On October 04 2013 07:39 koreasilver wrote:
Alright, sam, while I understand your point of view regarding IronMan's thinking, I think you're being too abrasive without really being constructive on explaining exactly why you are saying the things you are saying. And while you and I may disagree with him (for different reasons) it isn't really helpful to anyone or for any discourse on Christianity to just label the opponent as a "heretic" or "not a true Christian/true believer" etc. And IronManSC, sam!zdat is a "Christian". This will become more understandable once you become familiar with this particular tradition of Christianity. I won't really fault you for not understanding that because in the context of American Christianity it's minuscule if not utterly nonexistent in large areas of the country. I really have no interest in engaging in the rather banal argument of what is "true Christianity" or "true belief" or whathaveyou.
Anyway, I hope you read my long post on my view of scripture in relation to revelation a couple pages back.
It's easy to call yourself a Christian. Anyone can do it for a thousand different reasons, but there is one God, one faith, one truth. Those who believe Jesus as their Lord and Savior, that he is the Son of God, and that God raised him from the dead after dying on the cross for our sins will be saved. Being raised in the church, private school, a Christian family, having Christian friends, owning a Bible, being a republican, living in a Christian "nation," saying that God exists, or whatever other excuse you have does not mean you are a real Christian. Standing in a garage doesn't make you a car, holding a wrench doesn't make you a mechanic, and cleaning your computer of a virus doesn't make you a computer tech repair specialist. Also, a true believer will not disregard the true faith of another believer because they are like-minded with the same Spirit of God in them.
|
On October 04 2013 07:48 sam!zdat wrote:
it's true I'm an asshole. But I think his thinking is dangerous and should be fought with mockery. I'll try to stay away from here, but on the other hand, posting this thread in the first place is obvious gadfly bait and I think you shouldn't complain when gadflies arrive.
The gadfly is you. I specifically said in the OP that you can have discussions if you're open-minded and if you're not here to attack Christians. You are doing just the opposite. You're doing everything in your power to disprove and disregard my faith and trying to make me look like some public disgrace among the other readers and viewers. On top of it all, you're telling me to basically "deal with it" when you decide to break the blog rules and bash on others.
|
On October 02 2013 15:45 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:32 IronManSC wrote:On September 28 2013 06:02 HardlyNever wrote:On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you. This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic: 1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation. 2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation. 3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want. So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way. The underlying problem in this entire discussion is that people, like yourself, seem to think that truth is tangible in a way that you want it to be. In other words, how you interpret the Bible is therefore truth to you. It's not a matter of cherry picking verses that you want to believe and then making it your personal truth. The truth - the Gospel - is Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven to die for our sins, so that we can be made right with God through him, that if we should accept him wholeheartedly and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, then we will be saved. Damn, I thought this was a great post from HardlyNever and I was really hoping you would consider it and provide a thoughtful response to why you believe the gospel or your interpretation of it is true. The reason I was hoping for this is because it is probably the key reason that I do not consider myself a Christian, because I can't find any reasons to have faith in the bible that do not require me to already have faith. This is also, I think, why many people accuse you of being closed-minded and anti-intellectual, when asked "Why do you have faith?" your answer is something along the lines of "Because the bible is truth and it tells me to have faith" but if you were truly thinking and discussing open-mindedly you would realise that that doesn't answer the question at all because stating the bible as truth must mean you already have faith. So I'm asking you this because I truly want to know the answer, but I don't want an answer that stems from the bible, why is it that you believe that the bible is the true word of God?
Just wanted to pop in and respond to this... I think that the Christian ought to reject premise 2 - that there can be or are multiple and potentially conflicting interpretations of the Bible. There is only one correct interpretation and that is God's interpretation. After all, who else would perfectly know what a person means except for the very person, right? This doesn't mean however that we can't get at what God is intending to tell us just like sometimes I'll be right about what you intend to say even when you might not express it very clearly or in a way that I understand.
|
I'm not going to waste time anymore on anyone that tries to play Grand Inquisitor that judges what is true Christianity or not. I really am not interested in talking to sectarians. Moreover, opposing a Christian does not therefore mean that one is opposing Christianity. samzdat has not attacked Christianity throughout this entire thread. Nor does repeating the Christological premise ad infinitum actually have any relevancy in replying to what I've been bringing up.
On October 04 2013 08:56 arsenic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 15:45 Myrddraal wrote:On September 28 2013 06:32 IronManSC wrote:On September 28 2013 06:02 HardlyNever wrote:On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you. This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic: 1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation. 2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation. 3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want. So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way. The underlying problem in this entire discussion is that people, like yourself, seem to think that truth is tangible in a way that you want it to be. In other words, how you interpret the Bible is therefore truth to you. It's not a matter of cherry picking verses that you want to believe and then making it your personal truth. The truth - the Gospel - is Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven to die for our sins, so that we can be made right with God through him, that if we should accept him wholeheartedly and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, then we will be saved. Damn, I thought this was a great post from HardlyNever and I was really hoping you would consider it and provide a thoughtful response to why you believe the gospel or your interpretation of it is true. The reason I was hoping for this is because it is probably the key reason that I do not consider myself a Christian, because I can't find any reasons to have faith in the bible that do not require me to already have faith. This is also, I think, why many people accuse you of being closed-minded and anti-intellectual, when asked "Why do you have faith?" your answer is something along the lines of "Because the bible is truth and it tells me to have faith" but if you were truly thinking and discussing open-mindedly you would realise that that doesn't answer the question at all because stating the bible as truth must mean you already have faith. So I'm asking you this because I truly want to know the answer, but I don't want an answer that stems from the bible, why is it that you believe that the bible is the true word of God? Just wanted to pop in and respond to this... I think that the Christian ought to reject premise 2 - that there can be or are multiple and potentially conflicting interpretations of the Bible. There is only one correct interpretation and that is God's interpretation. After all, who else would perfectly know what a person means except for the very person, right? This doesn't mean however that we can't get at what God is intending to tell us just like sometimes I'll be right about what you intend to say even when you might not express it very clearly or in a way that I understand.
Scripture in of itself already is mediated just by it being in a material and historical form. Scripture isn't God and the written scripture is never absolute truth in-itself. God doesn't interpret the Bible as if scripture is the primary source upon which God presents something secondary. Scripture is full of ambiguities that require interpretation (Augustine), and because of its ambiguous state every reading is by its very fact an interpretation. This doesn't mean that we can't actually get to what scripture is trying to say but nevertheless, because of the nature of scripture and human knowing all reading is interpretation. There is no one correct interpretation because God does not interpret the Bible. The Bible is not revelation in-itself, it is a testimony to revelation that cannot be extricated from its historical, material, and linguistic framework (Barth). IronMan's reply in that quotetrain doesn't actually solve anything. There are no orthodox interpretations that deny that Christ was God incarnate in flesh that died for the sins of mankind. That does not solve anything. It is ignorant to the history of Christian thought and all the questions and problems that have accompanied it in its long history as if there are varying interpretations just because some people didn't believe in the basic orthodox Christological premise or the Trinity (then can you please explain the Reformation?). Even saying something like there is an interpretation of scripture by God is a pretty serious theological error...
|
On October 04 2013 08:03 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:48 sam!zdat wrote:
it's true I'm an asshole. But I think his thinking is dangerous and should be fought with mockery. I'll try to stay away from here, but on the other hand, posting this thread in the first place is obvious gadfly bait and I think you shouldn't complain when gadflies arrive. The gadfly is you.
yes yes that's what I'm saying. i'm a gadfly and proud of it
On October 04 2013 07:50 koreasilver wrote:
Yeah but how is he going to be convinced that maybe some of this thinking might be wrong if you don't really explain why. Mockery isn't a very good motivator.
i have a whole rant about the proper attitude toward texts somewhere in here, about reinterpreting the kerygma and about how biblical literalism is just about the most blasphemous attitude you can have toward a text. paragraphs and paragraphs. i've explained why. then he ignores me and quotes from a book he doesn't understand to prove how i'm wrong
On October 04 2013 09:11 koreasilver wrote:
samzdat has not attacked Christianity throughout this entire thread.
yes exaclty in fact i take myself to be DEFENDING christianity from someone who wants to destroy it by making it a dead thing
|
I forgot why I come to TL, after reading this thread I remembered.
I've actually really appreciated koreasilver's views on this, at least they are consistent.
+ Show Spoiler +I am actually really sad that IgnE got banned, his mental gymnastics were hilarious.
While I'm not actually interested in seriously putting my views online in quite a so hostile place I just wanted to voice support for IronMan and his willingness to come back to this again and again and defend his views (even if I don't agree with all them).
To the few of you that are attempting to undermine/criticize (can't think of a positive way to spin that adjective) this thread has been a great place for me to test my views against your positions. I have managed to twist some pretty complex theological and scientific heresy's in the past few years.
|
I actually think that in many ways a discourse on religion (even if a little hostile) is very constructive. Religious truth is something that is impossible to arrive at fully but I think that, if you choose to at least entertain the notion that there may be something to faith after all, arguments such as this help us get closer to that truth. And getting to that truth is all important if there is an afterlife on the line.
|
the afterlife is such a distraction. there's no afterlife, get over it
questing after immortality is such a horrible blasphemy
|
Yeah, I am actually with you. But if you think that some religions may be right and that an afterlife is an actual possibility, it becomes incredibly important to arrive as close to truth as possible because literally your entire existence could depend on how close you are to religious truth.
If there is no afterlife then there is basically no point to most religions. It's pretty obvious from day to day that there is not some petty divine being that will make you unlucky or lucky depending on if you worship it, so that basically just leaves the afterlife for why someone should actually do anything religious.
|
On October 04 2013 09:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the afterlife is such a distraction. there's no afterlife, get over it
questing after immortality is such a horrible blasphemy
You literally haven't contributed anything to this thread, why are you still here?
(I just went through all your posts, you went from flippant->cynical->aggressive->dismissive->accusational->flippant; You are both attacking Ironman and making yourself look like the 'defender' of Christianity and the Bible when you are neither.)
|
no religions are right. including atheism. all you can do is pick what you think is the best way to be wrong.
On October 04 2013 09:52 Gofarman wrote:
making yourself look like the 'defender' of Christianity and the Bible when you are neither.)
but i believe that I am! and ironman believes that God is his daddy! so how do you choose?
I'm someone who cares very much about the Western tradition. that means taking christianity seriously. the only way to take it seriously is to engage with it critically. so yes, I believe that I am defending it from those who want to destroy it by taking it literally.
edit: seriously. I study literature. my advisor thinks I'm crazy because I want to spend so much time talking about jesus. in my context it's almost professional suicide to take christianity as seriously as I do. I argue with almost everyone in my program who bashes christianity and they all think I am a strange person because of it. I defend Paul against feminists with alcohol involved!!! do you guys have any idea how dangerous that is?
|
On October 04 2013 09:47 Chocolate wrote:
I actually think that in many ways a discourse on religion (even if a little hostile) is very constructive. Religious truth is something that is impossible to arrive at fully but I think that, if you choose to at least entertain the notion that there may be something to faith after all, arguments such as this help us get closer to that truth. And getting to that truth is all important if there is an afterlife on the line.
I really agree with this statement, but I also propose that for any serious discussion to be had there needs to be atleast some level of mutual respect and honesty. While a couple of the posters on either sides have shown the necessary commitment the grand majority of posts have been simple jabs with no expectation or follow-up.
|
On October 04 2013 09:52 sam!zdat wrote:no religions are right. including atheism. all you can do is pick what you think is the best way to be wrong. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:52 Gofarman wrote:
making yourself look like the 'defender' of Christianity and the Bible when you are neither.) but i believe that I am! and ironman believes that God is his daddy! so how do you choose? I'm someone who cares very much about the Western tradition. that means taking christianity seriously. the only way to take it seriously is to engage with it critically. so yes, I believe that I am defending it from those who want to destroy it by taking it literally. edit: seriously. I study literature. my advisor thinks I'm crazy because I want to spend so much time talking about jesus. in my context it's almost professional suicide to take christianity as seriously as I do. I argue with almost everyone in my program who bashes christianity and they all think I am a strange person because of it.
^^
O
|
you missed the part in your quote about how I defend Paul against feminists while drinking. really, can I reiterate this? I defend Paul. to feminists. while drinking. This is like martyrs in the coliseum territory here kids
so being painted as the enemy of christianity because I attack ironman's sectarian fundamentalism for the BS it is is just wrong
I WISH I were the enemy of christianity, it would make my social life a hell of a lot easier...
|
To me It would seem That The most annoying Part of Being A christian would Be having to Capitalize any Word you think Might has to Do with god/jesus/Word/faith/Etc.
Edit: capitalization
|
I don't see how capitalizing proper nouns is annoying. No really, but I do kinda understand. Sometimes theology just looks like a parade of capitalized words.
|
On October 04 2013 10:21 koreasilver wrote:
I don't see how capitalizing proper nouns is annoying. No really, but I do kinda understand. Sometimes theology just looks like a parade of capitalized words.
It amuses me sometimes when they say "He" as if not to anger "Him". Gotta respect the Dude.
|
not as good as "the LORD"
|
On October 04 2013 11:03 sam!zdat wrote:
not as good as "the LORD"
Another evidence of your ignorance, they capitalize LORD because it is a translation of a specific word. A stylistic choice to convey a complicated process.
And in response to you claiming that defending Paul to fems makes you some kind of 'legit' defender of christianity is bullshit, that is totally irrelevant to our argument and unverifiable. I read the evidence you put forward and to ME it looks like you are some kind of hipster ass hole who has decided that religion is your thing that you will berate people over to make you feel superior. You don't get a free pass just because you claim you should have one, go be negative somewhere else.
And since my theology allows for it, cya in heaven, looking forward to your face-palm.
|
On October 04 2013 11:03 sam!zdat wrote:
not as good as "the LORD"
How can you claim to defend Christianity from "fundamentalists" when in turn you deny an afterlife (a fundamental belief in Christianity) and mock the fact that God's name is capitalized? I capitalize it out of reverence for who he is, much like I take my hat off while praying. If an afterlife doesn't exist, then do you believe God is eternal?
You also mock the fact that I call God my "daddy," when in fact, he is indeed our "heavenly father." I know (and have heard of) many Christians who don't have a earthly dad, but rest in the fact that they have a dad in heaven who loves them unconditionally. Romans 8:15 says, "...you received God's Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, 'Abba, Father.'"
The fact of the matter is that you're not defending the faith like you claim, you're actually trying to keep people away from it with your ignorant nonsense. It is impossible to please God without faith, and you are denying the very fundamental beliefs of faith itself. Saying you're a Christian (if you have said it), having an interest in the religion, talking about it a lot, and reading all about it doesn't mean anything if you don't have the faith that God freely and lovingly gives you if you humbly admit that you're a sinner and accept Jesus.
|
yes I know why 'lord' is capitalized. It's still hilarious.
the afterlife was not part of jesus' teaching. He taught that the kingdom of heaven would arrive SOON. They had to add the part about the afterlife when the original christians started dying and the KOH hadn't arrived yet. 'dont worry' they said. 'they will all be resurrected when the KOH arrives and then we will be happy together in heaven'. Jesus never taught any of that he was a jewish apocalyptic prophet (very common thing in that part of the world at the time). He also never claimed to be the son of god (ever wonder why he is the son of MAN in mark and then only the son of GOD in the later gospels? They made that up later)
the quest for immortality is a terrible blasphemy and has nothing to do with christianity. You are not going to live forever, you will die and then there will be nothing. The only question is, what now?
the stupid thing is that the whole point of judaism was to get away from the immortality bullshit. There's a reason they eat from the tree of knowledge and not the tree of life. Red pill blue pill biatch. The babylonians wanted to be immortal. The revolution of the hebrews was to make religion about ethics instead of immortality. This fundamentalist christian focus on immortality is just a reversion.
|
On October 04 2013 14:52 sam!zdat wrote:
yes I know why 'lord' is capitalized. It's still hilarious.
the afterlife was not part of jesus' teaching. He taught that the kingdom of heaven would arrive SOON. They had to add the part about the afterlife when the original christians started dying and the KOH hadn't arrived yet. 'dont worry' they said. 'they will all be resurrected when the KOH arrives and then we will be happy together in heaven'. Jesus never taught any of that he was a jewish apocalyptic prophet (very common thing in that part of the world at the time). He also never claimed to be the son of god (ever wonder why he is the son of MAN in mark and then only the son of GOD in the later gospels? They made that up later)
the quest for immortality is a terrible blasphemy and has nothing to do with christianity. You are not going to live forever, you will die and then there will be nothing. The only question is, what now?
Instead of correcting you, I want to hear your thoughts this time.
Jesus himself said in John 3:16, the most famous verse of all: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." Why would he lie about an afterlife? There is no sin in God, so how can he lie to begin with? Why would he give us false hope if an afterlife did not exist?
'Son of Man' is referring to Christ's humanity because he was both God and human in the flesh. 'Son of God' is referring to Christ's deity. So let me ask you, what does that mean to you? If you think this is incorrect, then who came up with 'Son of God' later and why? In what way? In what ways does this show false testimony about Jesus, according to you?
Jesus also did not explicitly use the words "I am God," but he certainly proclaimed it:
John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Jews criticized him for saying this by stating in the next couple verses, "...but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus, in the next few verses, says "why do you call it blasphemy when I say, 'I am the Son of God?' .... Then you will know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father."
John 8:58: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM!" Go way back in time, roughly 1400 years or more, to Exodus 3:14, "God replied to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM. Say this to the people of Israel: I AM has sent me to you."
John 1:1-2: "In the beginning the Word [Jesus] already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God."
|
woops, meant to edit the last post, not quote (sorry mod)
|
John was written like 80 years after the death of christ. Matthew and Luke both used Mark for a source (Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels). Matthew was written for a jewish community, not gentile, and you will notice if you compare the texts that Matthew quotes Mark but edits out parts that would be offensive for Jews. The gospel of John is completely different (not a "synoptic" gospel) and was written much later and contains a much more elaborate theology highly influenced by greek philosophy. you will notice that the gospel of john begins with "in the beginning was the word." this is not a coincidence, as anybody who knows the first thing about greek philosophy will know that "word" or "logos" is a central part of that tradition. jesus himself would have known basically nothing about greek philosophy or anything about the logos or whatever. everything in John, which is the most theologically elaborate gospel, was written way later and under the influence of greek philosophy especially Plotinus. The Johannine author was also a sectarian who was totally paranoid about all people who were not part of his cult. John is interesting, but you can't trust anything that John says about the historical Jesus, it's just not a reliable source. For example, the trial of Jesus. You think the Roman overlords needed a TRIAL to crucify some annoying jewish heretic? there was no trial it's all made up. it's just an excuse for Johannine author to put elaborate theological theories in the mouth of the character "Jesus".
edit: but please, don't listen to me, go take in some actual, serious scholarship about the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu, under "religious studies." it's SUCH a fascinating book and deserves to be taken seriously, not fetishized. if I didn't care so passionately about ancient texts and believe that they are too valuable to be misused in the way that you misuse them, I would not be here arguing with you about it. If you actually care about this text as much as you claim to (and not just care about getting to feel you are better than everyone else because you have the TRUTH and they are going to hell, like the vain sinner that you are) go actually try to learn something about it and the people who produced it. Try to understand why it mattered to them, and try to learn something from their experience. That is the ONLY way to make it matter in the modern world, not just blindly applying it to a totally different context like some uncritical moron. It's so fucking disrespectful to the text it makes me want to scream. It's not literally true, THEY didn't think it was literally true in the way in which you conceive this notion, so stop treating it that way, it's just disrespectful and intellectually dishonest and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.
|
On October 04 2013 15:42 sam!zdat wrote:
John was written like 80 years after the death of christ. Matthew and Luke both used Mark for a source (Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels). Matthew was written for a jewish community, not gentile, and you will notice if you compare the texts that Matthew quotes Mark but edits out parts that would be offensive for Jews. The gospel of John is completely different (not a "synoptic" gospel) and was written much later and contains a much more elaborate theology highly influenced by greek philosophy. you will notice that the gospel of john begins with "in the beginning was the word." this is not a coincidence, as anybody who knows the first thing about greek philosophy will know that "word" or "logos" is a central part of that tradition. jesus himself would have known basically nothing about greek philosophy or anything about the logos or whatever. everything in John, which is the most theologically elaborate gospel, was written way later and under the influence of greek philosophy especially Plotinus. The Johannine author was also a sectarian who was totally paranoid about all people who were not part of his cult. John is interesting, but you can't trust anything that John says about the historical Jesus, it's just not a reliable source. For example, the trial of Jesus. You think the Roman overlords needed a TRIAL to crucify some annoying jewish heretic? there was no trial it's all made up. it's just an excuse for Johannine author to put elaborate theological theories in the mouth of the character "Jesus".
edit: but please, don't listen to me, go take in some actual, serious scholarship about the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu, under "religious studies." it's SUCH a fascinating book and deserves to be taken seriously, not fetishized. if I didn't care so passionately about ancient texts and believe that they are too valuable to be misused in the way that you misuse them, I would not be here arguing with you about it. If you actually care about this text as much as you claim to (and not just care about getting to feel you are better than everyone else because you have the TRUTH and they are going to hell, like the vain sinner that you are) go actually try to learn something about it and the people who produced it. Try to understand why it mattered to them, and try to learn something from their experience. That is the ONLY way to make it matter in the modern world, not just blindly applying it to a totally different context like some uncritical moron. It's so fucking disrespectful to the text it makes me want to scream. It's not literally true, THEY didn't think it was literally true in the way in which you conceive this notion, so stop treating it that way, it's just disrespectful and intellectually dishonest and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.
Tell me about John, the author. Who was he?
|
he's the guy who wrote john. all else we know about him is just inferred from the text.
|
On October 04 2013 16:24 sam!zdat wrote:
he's the guy who wrote john. all else we know about him is just inferred from the text.
John was one of the disciples of Jesus, witnessed the crucifixion, was one of the first to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and had visions of Revelation. He was commonly known as the 'disciple whom loved Jesus' because of his trust and faith in Jesus.
Why would he twist, add or change Jesus's words in the Gospel if they aren't true?
|
what's your source for all of that
edit: also please explain how somebody who knows how to write like an educated greek was one of the people following some hebrew prophet around?
|
On October 04 2013 16:29 sam!zdat wrote:
what's your source for all of that
You tell me.
|
Dale Martin, who is the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University.
|
The Gospel of John is not a life of Christ; it is a powerful argument for the incarnation, a conclusive demonstration that Jesus was, and is, the very heaven-sent Son of God and the only source of eternal life. John 1:1-2 is the theme for the whole book of John. Each chapter reveals Christ's deity, and John also provides an eyewitness account of finding the empty tomb. So yes of course the book of John is different from the rest. Matthew, mark, and luke talk more about the life of Jesus whereas John talks about the power of Jesus and who he is eternally.
|
i dare you to go watch the lectures
|
On October 04 2013 16:29 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also please explain how somebody who knows how to write like an educated greek was one of the people following some hebrew prophet around?
John was an eyewitness of Christ and was even one of his disciples, and in the Gospel of John he aims toward the divinity of Jesus, who he is, his power, and that he is the only source of eternal life. Explain to me why getting some philosophical education a few years later suddenly omits his fellowship with God?
If you're trying to make a point that education is supreme over everything ever created, and that the smarter you get the more your past means nothing, then what do you say about Paul, who himself was highly educated and then became nothing when he followed Christ and became the greatest Apostle?
|
nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man
tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11
|
On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11
John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D.
Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life?
|
it wasn't written until then because the person who wrote it was not a disciple of christ, the person who wrote it was a sectarian greek living in a totally different part of the ancient world. yes, anybody who followed an apocalyptic prophet around the desert of galilee would have been an "uneducated no-life" by the standards of the day.
The gospel of john is certainly "false" in a naive sense about historical accuracy. whether or not it is valuable is another question altogether. certainly I am the most uneasy with the gospel of john because of its extreme sectarianism (this is also why you like to quote it, because you are a sectarian). On the other hand, what is most INTERESTING about christianity is that it is the product of the intersection of greek and hebrew thought, and john is the most hellenistic gospel (although hellenistic people who are trying to separate themselves in a very extreme way from their social milieu).
don't base your faith on the historical truth of unreliable textual documents, the only way to make that work is to lie to yourself and twist yourself into insane delusional knots. that's just playing the atheist's game anyway. was the council of nicaea divinely inspired? what's so fancy about the texts they chose in 325? there were LOTS of texts purporting to be gospels of jesus, how do you know they picked the right ones? that's not faith in god, that's faith in the council of nicaea, and that sounds like blasphemy to me
|
Now this thread is getting interesting.
|
Regardless of the historical validity of the Gospel of John, it is the gospel among the canonical four that absolutely drips with neoplatonic elements right from the beginning. It is obvious that the writer(s) of the Gospel of John was a completely different person from the writers of the synoptic gospels. And given the development of biblical studies it's beyond naive to think that the gospels actually were written and only written by the apostles they are attributed to. Same goes for the Pauline epistles.
When it comes to the importing of Greek philosophy into scripture, it's pretty much completely absent in the synoptics and only enters into the Bible with John and some of the Pauline epistles. Historically it's a later development and Christ himself doesn't speak of Greek influenced themes. This isn't really a problem in-itself but it does point out to a historical development that can make the theological themes of John questionable at times.
|
On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life?
You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John.
But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways.
|
On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11
Oh really?
How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis?
|
On October 05 2013 04:37 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 Oh really? How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis?
you mean... two greeks?
|
On October 05 2013 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:37 HardlyNever wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 Oh really? How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis? you mean... two greeks?
That are classically trained and educated in greek scholastic tradition... that wander around the Mediterranean and middle east with weirdo prophecies... at the same time Jesus supposedly did...
|
On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways.
You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today.
|
On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11
I'm curious about something. Do you believe in the event known as Pentecost as it is described in the book of Acts? For those unfamiliar, this is the day when the disciples were gathered together and the Spirit of God came down upon them and they began speaking in different languages that they had never known before in order to spread the Gospel to the people coming to Jerusalem for a feast day. According to Acts, that day Peter delivered a sermon/speech in a way that he never would have been able to before the Spirit came down on him. That day, all the disciples were changed drastically. I don't think it's far fetched that John the Disciple was given the ability to minister directly to the educated greeks and philosophers and God gave him the ability to write the Gospel in the way that he did. Of course he would not have been able to do this when he was with Jesus. With the Holy Spirit, though, he can.
|
On October 05 2013 04:51 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 04:37 HardlyNever wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 Oh really? How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis? you mean... two greeks? That are classically trained and educated in greek scholastic tradition... that wander around the Mediterranean and middle east with weirdo prophecies... at the same time Jesus supposedly did...
why don't you read the second sentence in the wikipedia article you linked about apollonius
@Janaan: I don't believe that a single word of Acts is historically accurate, no
|
On October 04 2013 15:42 sam!zdat wrote:
John was written like 80 years after the death of christ. Matthew and Luke both used Mark for a source (Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels). Matthew was written for a jewish community, not gentile, and you will notice if you compare the texts that Matthew quotes Mark but edits out parts that would be offensive for Jews. The gospel of John is completely different (not a "synoptic" gospel) and was written much later and contains a much more elaborate theology highly influenced by greek philosophy. you will notice that the gospel of john begins with "in the beginning was the word." this is not a coincidence, as anybody who knows the first thing about greek philosophy will know that "word" or "logos" is a central part of that tradition. jesus himself would have known basically nothing about greek philosophy or anything about the logos or whatever. everything in John, which is the most theologically elaborate gospel, was written way later and under the influence of greek philosophy especially Plotinus. The Johannine author was also a sectarian who was totally paranoid about all people who were not part of his cult. John is interesting, but you can't trust anything that John says about the historical Jesus, it's just not a reliable source. For example, the trial of Jesus. You think the Roman overlords needed a TRIAL to crucify some annoying jewish heretic? there was no trial it's all made up. it's just an excuse for Johannine author to put elaborate theological theories in the mouth of the character "Jesus".
edit: but please, don't listen to me, go take in some actual, serious scholarship about the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu, under "religious studies." it's SUCH a fascinating book and deserves to be taken seriously, not fetishized. if I didn't care so passionately about ancient texts and believe that they are too valuable to be misused in the way that you misuse them, I would not be here arguing with you about it. If you actually care about this text as much as you claim to (and not just care about getting to feel you are better than everyone else because you have the TRUTH and they are going to hell, like the vain sinner that you are) go actually try to learn something about it and the people who produced it. Try to understand why it mattered to them, and try to learn something from their experience. That is the ONLY way to make it matter in the modern world, not just blindly applying it to a totally different context like some uncritical moron. It's so fucking disrespectful to the text it makes me want to scream. It's not literally true, THEY didn't think it was literally true in the way in which you conceive this notion, so stop treating it that way, it's just disrespectful and intellectually dishonest and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.
Plotinus wasn't born till a hundred years after Gospel of John was written
|
On October 05 2013 05:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:51 HardlyNever wrote:On October 05 2013 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 04:37 HardlyNever wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 Oh really? How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis? you mean... two greeks? That are classically trained and educated in greek scholastic tradition... that wander around the Mediterranean and middle east with weirdo prophecies... at the same time Jesus supposedly did... why don't you read the second sentence in the wikipedia article you linked about apollonius @Janaan: I don't believe that a single word of Acts is historically accurate, no
Well of course they put that shit in there. But couldn't you say that about jesus and all the apostles? That's an absolutely terrible response. Hardly any of this is "known with certainty."
My point is your argument doesn't make a lot of sense, when considering who you are arguing with. This is a guy who believes there is an invisible man in the sky with 0 evidence. All I was pointing out was that there was at least a possible precedent for someone like John. Is it unlikely? Definitely. Is it a greater than 0% chance? Yes. Ironman believes most of what he believes with 0 evidence, and now he has a greater than 0 evidence reason to believe it?!? That's like, winning the lottery.
It is certainly not probable that someone who was classically trained in greek philosophy would follow around a random doomsday prophet in the first century AD. But it isn't impossible. Look at what that guy above me wrote. He thinks that shit is real. And you're simply going to argue against what is unlikely?
|
On October 05 2013 05:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 15:42 sam!zdat wrote:
John was written like 80 years after the death of christ. Matthew and Luke both used Mark for a source (Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels). Matthew was written for a jewish community, not gentile, and you will notice if you compare the texts that Matthew quotes Mark but edits out parts that would be offensive for Jews. The gospel of John is completely different (not a "synoptic" gospel) and was written much later and contains a much more elaborate theology highly influenced by greek philosophy. you will notice that the gospel of john begins with "in the beginning was the word." this is not a coincidence, as anybody who knows the first thing about greek philosophy will know that "word" or "logos" is a central part of that tradition. jesus himself would have known basically nothing about greek philosophy or anything about the logos or whatever. everything in John, which is the most theologically elaborate gospel, was written way later and under the influence of greek philosophy especially Plotinus. The Johannine author was also a sectarian who was totally paranoid about all people who were not part of his cult. John is interesting, but you can't trust anything that John says about the historical Jesus, it's just not a reliable source. For example, the trial of Jesus. You think the Roman overlords needed a TRIAL to crucify some annoying jewish heretic? there was no trial it's all made up. it's just an excuse for Johannine author to put elaborate theological theories in the mouth of the character "Jesus".
edit: but please, don't listen to me, go take in some actual, serious scholarship about the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu, under "religious studies." it's SUCH a fascinating book and deserves to be taken seriously, not fetishized. if I didn't care so passionately about ancient texts and believe that they are too valuable to be misused in the way that you misuse them, I would not be here arguing with you about it. If you actually care about this text as much as you claim to (and not just care about getting to feel you are better than everyone else because you have the TRUTH and they are going to hell, like the vain sinner that you are) go actually try to learn something about it and the people who produced it. Try to understand why it mattered to them, and try to learn something from their experience. That is the ONLY way to make it matter in the modern world, not just blindly applying it to a totally different context like some uncritical moron. It's so fucking disrespectful to the text it makes me want to scream. It's not literally true, THEY didn't think it was literally true in the way in which you conceive this notion, so stop treating it that way, it's just disrespectful and intellectually dishonest and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT. Plotinus wasn't born till a hundred years after Gospel of John was written
well shit. other neoplatonists then
@above: it's not just what is unlikely (although it is and I don't believe any greeks followed jesus), the tone of John goes completely against the philosophical content of the synoptic gospels which don't display any greek influence.
edit: but it's true. I don't think jesus ever claimed to be the son of god either, and I rather think he'd have been appalled at the idea, so we are certainly not working from the same basic assumptions, ironman and I
|
On October 04 2013 16:47 sam!zdat wrote:
i dare you to go watch the lectures
coincidentally ironmansc i just finished watching all the lectures and would definitely recommend them. if you are sincere in your desire to better god through study of the bible i suggest replacing your nightly bible study program w a lecture from that yale series until youve watched them all. otherwise you are shutting yourself off from real criticism. and who knows maybe your faith will comw out better and stronger for it
|
According to philosophy, what is truth?
|
not sure why you are asking that or why you are changing the subject.
|
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him
|
On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him
You seem to rest on philosophy being supreme when it comes to intellect and choosing your way of life (or faith). You say that someone (namely, the author) with philosophical reasoning couldn't have been a low-life, uneducated follower/disciple of Christ. In other words, you claim otherwise that if you are therefore philosophically educated, you "know better" than those with zero reasoning who say they are followers of Christ as if they had nothing better to believe in. Why then do you call the book of John a false account if indeed it uses philosophical wording? John, through philosophical teaching, emphasizes Jesus's power and that he is indeed the Son of God, and was even an eyewitness himself. He is pointing out the deity of Christ - the only source of eternal life. You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer, let alone the book of John. Does that mean philosophy is not all that it's cracked up to be if you disagree with the very reasoning that you're telling me to "go learn?" Also, are you not a sectarian yourself by constantly referencing some random Yale professor as if he has all the answers? Did you not say earlier in the thread that there is no truth in religion? If there is no truth in religion, then not even a true "falsehood" could be identified regardless of facts or any sort of evidence. What makes John false then and why? You've imploded your own argument.
|
On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer
completely and utterly false
edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." he never claims to have "all the answers" nor have I claimed that of him. is he one of the pre-eminent scholars in new testament? yes.
watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something
not going to bother to respond to your incoherent ramblings about "truth" and how my argument "implodes itself." you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, and you think "philosophy" is some singular thing that exists. good grief. for example this sentence is entirely incoherent: On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:
If there is no truth in religion, then not even a true "falsehood" could be identified regardless of facts or any sort of evidence. .
|
On October 05 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer completely and utterly false edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something
On October 05 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer completely and utterly false edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something
If you do not have Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then you do not have the Holy Spirit in you, and if you don't have the Holy Spirit, then you cannot understand truth in spiritual context. It's a fundamental of the Christian faith that every true believer in Christ knows, believes, and understands very plainly, because the Holy Spirit makes it known to us. Whether i've said that harsh or not is beside the point. The Bible tells it plainly:
"But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God's deep secrets. No one can know a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit, and no one can know God's thoughts except God's own Spirit. And we have received God's Spirit (not the world's spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.
When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others" - 1 Corinthians 2:10-15
Also I like how you completely voided the rest of my previous post and just say "false! watch the lecture you anti-intellectual philistine!" The lecture, based on my understanding (and rushing because I had errands to run) was talking about the philosophical style of writing. Whether or not I interpreted the lecture correctly, I do want to ask a question: How does a different, or more "intelligent" style of writing omit truth of Scripture when the author, John or some random "greek" that you say, proclaims it himself?
|
you didn't even load the lecture liar
|
On October 05 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer completely and utterly false edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." he never claims to have "all the answers" nor have I claimed that of him. is he one of the pre-eminent scholars in new testament? yes. watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something not going to bother to respond to your incoherent ramblings about "truth" and how my argument "implodes itself." you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, and you think "philosophy" is some singular thing that exists. good grief. for example this sentence is entirely incoherent: Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:
If there is no truth in religion, then not even a true "falsehood" could be identified regardless of facts or any sort of evidence. .
How is it completely and utterly false? In what way?
What is "entirely incoherent" about my last quote and why?
I don't have a clue of what i'm talking about? What clue am I missing? What gives it away that philosophy is a "singular thing that exists?" What does that even mean?
You also say I disrespect "historical context" multiple times and that it's "blasphemy." What specific historical context am I disrespecting? How is that blasphemy if, by definition, it is attributing God's power to satan and/or profane talk toward God.
I did not say you claimed the professor had all the answers, but you referenced him so many times as if he had all the answers to this argument.
You are doing more attacking than answering.
|
you think the spiritual content of christianity is some ridiculous myth about how jesus is the son of god and is going to make you live forever because you believe this absurd thing? that's what you think is the sum total of the value of your tradition? god, that's so disrespectful
the historical context that you ignore is THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult
User was temp banned for this post.
|
It's a shame how this thread turns into another "evidence bro or GTFO thread". Tolerance and respect is a beautiful thing, learn it.
|
i'm not sure which boggles me more
the idea that religion has to battle science
or the idea that asking for logic / evidence is seen as disrespectful
|
On October 05 2013 04:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today.
I didn't claim it to be impossible. If I read this correctly, the life expectation of a 10 y.o. was ~45-47. So 80 would still be a huge outlier!
|
|
|
On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
you think the spiritual content of christianity is some ridiculous myth about how jesus is the son of god and is going to make you live forever because you believe this absurd thing? that's what you think is the sum total of the value of your tradition? god, that's so disrespectful
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life. We live by faith, not by sight - trusting God in who he is, what he did for us on the cross, and what he promised to those who love him. As plainly as I can make it, if you accept Jesus, you have eternal life, so yes he will let you live forever because that was God's original plan from the beginning. That's why he made us in the first place: to live with God, but we rebelled by sinning. Therefore, God, who is perfect, laid down his life to pay our death penalty for sin, and through Christ we find forgiveness of sins and can be made right with God through Jesus. God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to live, so he made a way and is offering it to everybody. Why do we Christians do what we do (life of gratitude)? Because of what Christ did for us. Why do we Christians love Jesus? Because he first loved us.
"When were were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." - Romans 5:6-8
This is the context behind spiritual truth, but hey I don't know about what kind of sandals they wore, the names of the Pharisees, or the customs of that day, so I guess all of this is invalid because I am somehow "disrespecting historical context."
On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
the historical context that you ignore is THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD
Again I ask, what specific context am I ignoring? "The entire historical context of the entire ancient world" is not a specific answer. You're just spouting out insults. What did I ignore or disrespect and in what regard?
On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult
If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death.
Faith is only useless if you don't practice it (Check out James 2:14-26). How do you know I'm not making it matter in my life and with the people around me? Can you think for one second that mabye there is more to Christianity than just being a good person and understanding the history of the Bible?
See you in a week hopefully.
|
On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death.
People all throughout history have sacrificed their lives for ideas/beliefs which they personally believed to be true, but weren't necessarily actually true. Case in point - every martyr for every other religion throughout human history, combatants on both sides of every religious war (e.g. Crusades), extremist Muslim suicide bombers, or soldiers influenced by wartime government propaganda. Clearly not all of these people could have known that their beliefs were true seeing as how every religion cannot possibly be true (and some of the propaganda is provably false) - rather, they believed that they knew that their beliefs were true, which is simply an extension of the actual belief itself.
Also, does there have to be something to live for? Personally I think "not being dead" is a perfectly valid reason to want to be alive.
On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life.
How is this in any way distinguishable from your own thoughts/conscience?
|
On October 06 2013 16:33 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death. People all throughout history have sacrificed their lives for ideas/beliefs which they personally believed to be true, but weren't necessarily actually true. Case in point - every martyr for every other religion throughout human history, combatants on both sides of every religious war (e.g. Crusades), extremist Muslim suicide bombers, or soldiers influenced by wartime government propaganda. Clearly not all of these people could have known that their beliefs were true seeing as how every religion cannot possibly be true (and some of the propaganda is provably false) - rather, they believed that they knew that their beliefs were true, which is simply an extension of the actual belief itself. Also, does there have to be something to live for? Personally I think "not being dead" is a perfectly valid reason to want to be alive. Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life.
How is this in any way distinguishable from your own thoughts/conscience?
My point with the death thing was that despite how odd Christianity is to people, and how "blind faith" it may appear to others, there's more to the faith than what you see. The secular world says you have to learn it and see it to believe. It's about believing and then seeing and learning. As previously mentioned, the faith itself is God-given. We don't just believe it and then let our carnal mind take over. It's not of this world, and it's not carnal, it's supernatural.
|
On October 05 2013 21:58 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today. I didn't claim it to be impossible. If I read this correctly, the life expectation of a 10 y.o. was ~45-47. So 80 would still be a huge outlier!
I didn't realize it was still that low. My point was that its still a "realistic" life time. We are talking about a book that claims people lived for 100s of years before, after all. I don't contend the point that its unlikely the author John and apostle John are probably 2 different people. I didn't think the life expectancy argument was as good as it was though.
|
On October 07 2013 00:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 21:58 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 04:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today. I didn't claim it to be impossible. If I read this correctly, the life expectation of a 10 y.o. was ~45-47. So 80 would still be a huge outlier! I didn't realize it was still that low. My point was that its still a "realistic" life time. We are talking about a book that claims people lived for 100s of years before, after all. I don't contend the point that its unlikely the author John and apostle John are probably 2 different people. I didn't think the life expectancy argument was as good as it was though.
You are definitely right: If you approach the bible from a faithful PoV, it's a small feat to make John 80 years old while there were people over 900 years old before him.
But now i'm curious to see the standard deviation of those numbers (if they exist), to know if it's really that strong of an argument.
|
Whether it be religion, pro-gaming, w/e, I have great respect for people who have the passion to place that above all else and being humble about it. I believe that builds character, and most people don't see that.
|
On October 07 2013 00:22 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 16:33 -NegativeZero- wrote:On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death. People all throughout history have sacrificed their lives for ideas/beliefs which they personally believed to be true, but weren't necessarily actually true. Case in point - every martyr for every other religion throughout human history, combatants on both sides of every religious war (e.g. Crusades), extremist Muslim suicide bombers, or soldiers influenced by wartime government propaganda. Clearly not all of these people could have known that their beliefs were true seeing as how every religion cannot possibly be true (and some of the propaganda is provably false) - rather, they believed that they knew that their beliefs were true, which is simply an extension of the actual belief itself. Also, does there have to be something to live for? Personally I think "not being dead" is a perfectly valid reason to want to be alive. On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life.
How is this in any way distinguishable from your own thoughts/conscience? My point with the death thing was that despite how odd Christianity is to people, and how "blind faith" it may appear to others, there's more to the faith than what you see. The secular world says you have to learn it and see it to believe. It's about believing and then seeing and learning. As previously mentioned, the faith itself is God-given. We don't just believe it and then let our carnal mind take over. It's not of this world, and it's not carnal, it's supernatural.
Then your belief will necessarily color your experience and your learning, leading everything to reinforce your belief even more. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and there will be no way out as long as you continue to follow this path.
I don't think that the secular world says that you have to learn it and see it to believe. I think the secular world (or rather, I, since I can only speak for myself ...) simply asks you to not refuse yourself learning because of your faith. After all, if your faith is true, there is no question of your faith, and so what harm does it do to expose yourself to other approaches towards the text?
|
On October 07 2013 04:40 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2013 00:22 IronManSC wrote:On October 06 2013 16:33 -NegativeZero- wrote:On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death. People all throughout history have sacrificed their lives for ideas/beliefs which they personally believed to be true, but weren't necessarily actually true. Case in point - every martyr for every other religion throughout human history, combatants on both sides of every religious war (e.g. Crusades), extremist Muslim suicide bombers, or soldiers influenced by wartime government propaganda. Clearly not all of these people could have known that their beliefs were true seeing as how every religion cannot possibly be true (and some of the propaganda is provably false) - rather, they believed that they knew that their beliefs were true, which is simply an extension of the actual belief itself. Also, does there have to be something to live for? Personally I think "not being dead" is a perfectly valid reason to want to be alive. On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life.
How is this in any way distinguishable from your own thoughts/conscience? My point with the death thing was that despite how odd Christianity is to people, and how "blind faith" it may appear to others, there's more to the faith than what you see. The secular world says you have to learn it and see it to believe. It's about believing and then seeing and learning. As previously mentioned, the faith itself is God-given. We don't just believe it and then let our carnal mind take over. It's not of this world, and it's not carnal, it's supernatural. Then your belief will necessarily color your experience and your learning, leading everything to reinforce your belief even more. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and there will be no way out as long as you continue to follow this path. I don't think that the secular world says that you have to learn it and see it to believe. I think the secular world (or rather, I, since I can only speak for myself ...) simply asks you to not refuse yourself learning because of your faith. After all, if your faith is true, there is no question of your faith, and so what harm does it do to expose yourself to other approaches towards the text?
Exactly this - "believing and then seeing" is a prime example of confirmation bias. Everyone wants to be correct, so people with pre-existing beliefs tend to subconsciously interpret or twist information so it suits their beliefs, or selectively focus on information which supports their beliefs while ignoring information that contradicts it. What religious people might see as "God-given faith" may in fact simply be the act of looking at the world through the lens of their particular religion and interpreting what they see to be consistent with that religion.
The only way to look at information objectively is to disregard all personal biases and draw your conclusions only from the information you gather - in essence, the basis of the scientific method.
|
On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
you think the spiritual content of christianity is some ridiculous myth about how jesus is the son of god and is going to make you live forever because you believe this absurd thing? that's what you think is the sum total of the value of your tradition? god, that's so disrespectful You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life. We live by faith, not by sight - trusting God in who he is, what he did for us on the cross, and what he promised to those who love him. As plainly as I can make it, if you accept Jesus, you have eternal life, so yes he will let you live forever because that was God's original plan from the beginning. That's why he made us in the first place: to live with God, but we rebelled by sinning. Therefore, God, who is perfect, laid down his life to pay our death penalty for sin, and through Christ we find forgiveness of sins and can be made right with God through Jesus. God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to live, so he made a way and is offering it to everybody. Why do we Christians do what we do (life of gratitude)? Because of what Christ did for us. Why do we Christians love Jesus? Because he first loved us. "When were were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." - Romans 5:6-8 This is the context behind spiritual truth, but hey I don't know about what kind of sandals they wore, the names of the Pharisees, or the customs of that day, so I guess all of this is invalid because I am somehow "disrespecting historical context." Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
the historical context that you ignore is THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD Again I ask, what specific context am I ignoring? "The entire historical context of the entire ancient world" is not a specific answer. You're just spouting out insults. What did I ignore or disrespect and in what regard?
Do you believe that John, the named apostle, is identical with the writer of the Gospel of John? By the way, where in the Bible does it say that the "one whom Jesus loved" is identical with John? That's just a guess that has become accepted in some church mythologies.
More importantly, do you think it matters whether the writer of the Gospel of John is identical with the apostle named John?
The context that you are ignoring is that there were a number of apocalyptic prophets wandering around the ancient world at the same time as Jesus. The Gospel of John was the last gospel to be written and displays numerous inconsistencies with the synoptic gospels and a much different theology, that isn't seen in the other gospels. If you were familiar with Plato and the platonists that followed him, you would see a lot of similarities between the theological teachings in John and the philosophical ideas of the platonists and the neoplatonists who emerged around the same time as the early church began to spread throughout the east.
The problem with your interpretation of the bibles is that you are cross-referencing other gospels when explaining the meaning of the one you are currently reading. It's bad practice to interpret the historical validity of Mark by referring to John, an author who wrote much later, was very likely from a different cultural milieu, and had a very different agenda. So when Sam says that you are reading an afterlife into the gospels, that's what he is talking about. You are taking quotes from John, out of historical context, and saying that they apply to Mark and Matthew, arguably gospels that are closer to the message that Jesus himself actually preached. You would have a much tougher time making the case that the early Christians believed in an afterlife if you restricted your analysis to one Gospel/author at a time, and focused on the synoptic gospels.
The sectarians that included the author of John were one of many smaller groups of Christians who each had very different theologies, including very different christologies (beliefs about the nature of Christ) and eschatologies (beliefs about the nature of the apocalypse/death/afterlife). You are ignoring the conflict between these different groups and their competing interpretations of Jesus' message, mostly because you don't even know what early Christianity looked like. What's your understanding of how Christianity developed and spread? Have you thought about it?
|
|
|
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible.
|
On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible.
I believe you missed this part of the OP:
I don't expect non-Christians to participate but, you may if you are open minded...
He said nothing of any requirement on his part about being open minded. To be fair, that was at least stated from the outset...
|
Terrible. Stuff you're saying:
* God is intolerant to people having fun. If you enjoy skateboarding, he breaks your arm until you do exactly as he says. What a terrible God to have.
* Using your other arm instead of your main arm turns you from an idiot to a smart kid over a month. Wow, you should tell educators that.
* Being in a skateboard accident because you're terrible at skating is comparable to being in a car accident where you lose your loved ones and survive on your own. It's just Gods way of telling you to do as he pleases.
I know you mean this blog to be inspiring to people of faith... but honestly, I can't help but feel terribly sad for people who believe like this.
|
On October 09 2013 15:39 Tobberoth wrote:Terrible. Stuff you're saying: * God is intolerant to people having fun. If you enjoy skateboarding, he breaks your arm until you do exactly as he says. What a terrible God to have. * Using your other arm instead of your main arm turns you from an idiot to a smart kid over a month. Wow, you should tell educators that. * Being in a skateboard accident because you're terrible at skating is comparable to being in a car accident where you lose your loved ones and survive on your own. It's just Gods way of telling you to do as he pleases. I know you mean this blog to be inspiring to people of faith... but honestly, I can't help but feel terribly sad for people who believe like this.
If you don't want to be apart of it, then don't read any of it?
You are using a carnal interpretation of my accident. There's a difference between having fun (a hobby) and actually worshiping it by means of letting it consume your every day life to a point where you have no time, or desire, to sit down and spend time with God. It's called an idol, which is anything that takes God's place as #1 - whatever is most important to you in life. The first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me."
Also, you think this is God's way of forcing me to do as he pleases, and yet there were blessings/good things that came from it: passing grades, caring much more about the rest of my school years, and having the friends I do now (If I was a year behind, I wouldn't be hanging out with my current friends).
Did you know that each side of your brain actually does different things?
http://www.livescience.com/32935-whats-the-difference-between-the-right-brain-and-left-brain.html
I didn't say I became a "smart kid" in a month, nor was I an idiot (why the name calling?), but that I was using a part of my brain that I hadn't used before which somehow triggered my capabilities to improve in school relatively fast. This is not rocket science.
Following God doesn't guarantee prosperity or safety in life. If it did, people would only believe in God to become wealthy and healthy. He can certainly bless you richly if he wants, but it's a tough road of faith where God wants us to trust in his promises and love, and he tests and refines our faith through trials; big or small. When something bad happens, where do you ultimately place your hope and trust to keep going forward?
|
On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible.
3 reasons.
1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject.
2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL.
3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of.
|
On October 09 2013 17:00 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 15:39 Tobberoth wrote:Terrible. Stuff you're saying: * God is intolerant to people having fun. If you enjoy skateboarding, he breaks your arm until you do exactly as he says. What a terrible God to have. * Using your other arm instead of your main arm turns you from an idiot to a smart kid over a month. Wow, you should tell educators that. * Being in a skateboard accident because you're terrible at skating is comparable to being in a car accident where you lose your loved ones and survive on your own. It's just Gods way of telling you to do as he pleases. I know you mean this blog to be inspiring to people of faith... but honestly, I can't help but feel terribly sad for people who believe like this. If you don't want to be apart of it, then don't read any of it? You are using a carnal interpretation of my accident. There's a difference between having fun (a hobby) and actually worshiping it by means of letting it consume your every day life to a point where you have no time, or desire, to sit down and spend time with God. It's called an idol, which is anything that takes God's place as #1 - whatever is most important to you in life. The first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me." Also, you think this is God's way of forcing me to do as he pleases, and yet there were blessings/good things that came from it: passing grades, caring much more about the rest of my school years, and having the friends I do now (If I was a year behind, I wouldn't be hanging out with my current friends). Did you know that each side of your brain actually does different things? http://www.livescience.com/32935-whats-the-difference-between-the-right-brain-and-left-brain.htmlI didn't say I became a "smart kid" in a month, nor was I an idiot (why the name calling?), but that I was using a part of my brain that I hadn't used before which somehow triggered my capabilities to improve in school relatively fast. This is not rocket science. Following God doesn't guarantee prosperity or safety in life. If it did, people would only believe in God to become wealthy and healthy. He can certainly bless you richly if he wants, but it's a tough road of faith where God wants us to trust in his promises and love, and he tests and refines our faith through trials; big or small. When something bad happens, where do you ultimately place your hope and trust to keep going forward?
The first commandment should obviously be "You shall have no other gods, which includes dumb temporary hobbies like skateboarding, beside me or I'll hurt you badly instead of using my devine power to make you realize this yourself, because I prefer hurting people". Doesn't matter if good things come of it, an omnipotent being doesn't have to go to such lengths to harm you to have good things happen to you, and regardless, what about that sweet freedom?
I'd say going from about to have to redo a year (close enough to being an idiot from my experience, though I use that word lightly) to having decent grades in a month is more than just "using the other side of your brain". Believe it or not, you use both sides of your brain all the time. Seems more logical to me that you would consider this improvement an act of god rather than changing which arm you write with.
I place my hope and trust in my humanity. I have a drive to go forward, to improve myself. I also know why accidents happen, without having to connect it to the will of a mean omnipotent being, so I can handle misfortune rationally. If I fall off my skateboard, instead of blaming it on God telling me not to skate, I would blame my own inadequacy at skateboard and either stop doing it because I didn't want to put in the time, or work at it harder.
|
I wrote out a big reply for this thread but its just a lost cause, i urge the rest of you to leave him be and carry on your seperate ways. There is little to no support for his views and opinions here anyway and i dont know how popular his blog is but that should pretty much confirm anything you have to say before posting. He does no harm and he's entitled to those opinions, but there is zero point arguing
|
i wonder why he didnt also break your right arm aswell when you had to change ur masturbation arm
also ur "faith" is far from being "progressive"
|
On October 09 2013 17:05 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible. 3 reasons. 1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject. 2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL. 3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of.
Do you think the historicity of the Bible matters? Do you think it has implications for what you believe?
|
On October 09 2013 17:00 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 15:39 Tobberoth wrote:Terrible. Stuff you're saying: * God is intolerant to people having fun. If you enjoy skateboarding, he breaks your arm until you do exactly as he says. What a terrible God to have. * Using your other arm instead of your main arm turns you from an idiot to a smart kid over a month. Wow, you should tell educators that. * Being in a skateboard accident because you're terrible at skating is comparable to being in a car accident where you lose your loved ones and survive on your own. It's just Gods way of telling you to do as he pleases. I know you mean this blog to be inspiring to people of faith... but honestly, I can't help but feel terribly sad for people who believe like this. If you don't want to be apart of it, then don't read any of it? You are using a carnal interpretation of my accident. There's a difference between having fun (a hobby) and actually worshiping it by means of letting it consume your every day life to a point where you have no time, or desire, to sit down and spend time with God. It's called an idol, which is anything that takes God's place as #1 - whatever is most important to you in life. The first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me." Also, you think this is God's way of forcing me to do as he pleases, and yet there were blessings/good things that came from it: passing grades, caring much more about the rest of my school years, and having the friends I do now (If I was a year behind, I wouldn't be hanging out with my current friends). Did you know that each side of your brain actually does different things? http://www.livescience.com/32935-whats-the-difference-between-the-right-brain-and-left-brain.htmlI didn't say I became a "smart kid" in a month, nor was I an idiot (why the name calling?), but that I was using a part of my brain that I hadn't used before which somehow triggered my capabilities to improve in school relatively fast. This is not rocket science. Following God doesn't guarantee prosperity or safety in life. If it did, people would only believe in God to become wealthy and healthy. He can certainly bless you richly if he wants, but it's a tough road of faith where God wants us to trust in his promises and love, and he tests and refines our faith through trials; big or small. When something bad happens, where do you ultimately place your hope and trust to keep going forward?
The problem with your blog post is that your interpretation of the event puts a Panglossian spin on everything, hearkening back to some Leibnizian theology. Pangloss from Voltaire's _Candide_ teaches people that they live in the "best of all possible worlds" and that everything that happens is the best thing that could have happened. You are taking that approach with your arm breaking.
Many things could have happened instead of your arm breaking, including your arm not breaking, and nothing significant happening. If this alternate history had happened you might very well have written a blog post recently about how failing a grade and staying behind a year was the best thing that ever happened to you and that God was speaking to you. But now, at least, you have great friends who are better than your original friends, a reinvigorated interest in your studies, and a respect for those who overcome adversity.
Or maybe instead you had met some more hardcore skaters and had gone on to become a professional skateboarder making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Then you may have written a blogpost about how great God is that he set up this meeting for you that led to your great success in life, and how you owe it all to him. You've learned the hard work of studying and perfecting a craft, gotten a lot of material wealth, and gotten a lot of satisfaction.
You can interpret you breaking your arm any way that you like. But God could have acted in any of an infinite number of other ways. And all the consequences of those other ways could very well have been interpreted by you to be equal to, or, far better than the real consequences of you breaking your arm. Yet somehow you want us to believe that this was God's plan for you because it was the best thing that could possibly have happened. It doesn't ring true. It doesn't even pass the sniff test.
|
Ignorance is bliss.
Good luck OP
|
On October 09 2013 18:36 Capped wrote:
I wrote out a big reply for this thread but its just a lost cause, i urge the rest of you to leave him be and carry on your seperate ways. There is little to no support for his views and opinions here anyway and i dont know how popular his blog is but that should pretty much confirm anything you have to say before posting. He does no harm and he's entitled to those opinions, but there is zero point arguing
The urge that most of the people feel here to contest someone's beliefs. It's his belief, everyone is entitled to their own belief and the possibility to connect with those that believe a similar thing or want to listen to them. Yet, quite franctly I'm not sure if everyone respects his opinion, you don't have to agree with eachother, just respect eachother. And bluntly stating someone is a lost cause is just not very respectful.
I strongly advise most of you to read the OP again, it says clearly don't argue for the sake of arguing. And let's be honest are you arguing people really interested in learning about religion or more so in proving someone wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, a very selfish, close minded and evil approach if you ask me.
An argument can only take place if you really listen to the other, not the one directional blind-sided approach or pre-assumptions before going into an argument.
PS. I'm not religious myself.
|
|
|
On October 10 2013 03:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 17:05 IronManSC wrote:On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible. 3 reasons. 1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject. 2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL. 3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of. Do you think the historicity of the Bible matters? Do you think it has implications for what you believe?
History is important, yes, but it is not what we rely on. Jesus showed us how to live by faith, not by historical value. History is just that: history. Faith continues, and it produces trust in God.
|
On October 10 2013 09:21 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:29 IgnE wrote:On October 09 2013 17:05 IronManSC wrote:On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible. 3 reasons. 1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject. 2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL. 3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of. Do you think the historicity of the Bible matters? Do you think it has implications for what you believe? History is important, yes, but it is not what we rely on. Jesus showed us how to live by faith, not by historical value. History is just that: history. Faith continues, and it produces trust in God.
You didn't answer the second question. Do you think the historicity of the Bible has implications for what you believe? That is, do you think the likelihood of something having happened or happened a certain way should influence what you believe about the nature and teachings of Jesus?
|
On October 10 2013 09:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 09:21 IronManSC wrote:On October 10 2013 03:29 IgnE wrote:On October 09 2013 17:05 IronManSC wrote:On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible. 3 reasons. 1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject. 2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL. 3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of. Do you think the historicity of the Bible matters? Do you think it has implications for what you believe? History is important, yes, but it is not what we rely on. Jesus showed us how to live by faith, not by historical value. History is just that: history. Faith continues, and it produces trust in God. You didn't answer the second question. Do you think the historicity of the Bible has implications for what you believe? That is, do you think the likelihood of something having happened or happened a certain way should influence what you believe about the nature and teachings of Jesus?
Yes. Jesus's death and resurrection.
|
On October 10 2013 09:41 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 09:33 IgnE wrote:On October 10 2013 09:21 IronManSC wrote:On October 10 2013 03:29 IgnE wrote:On October 09 2013 17:05 IronManSC wrote:On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible. 3 reasons. 1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject. 2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL. 3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of. Do you think the historicity of the Bible matters? Do you think it has implications for what you believe? History is important, yes, but it is not what we rely on. Jesus showed us how to live by faith, not by historical value. History is just that: history. Faith continues, and it produces trust in God. You didn't answer the second question. Do you think the historicity of the Bible has implications for what you believe? That is, do you think the likelihood of something having happened or happened a certain way should influence what you believe about the nature and teachings of Jesus? Yes. Jesus's death and resurrection.
So that is all you believe about Jesus? As long as people believe Jesus died and rose from the dead then they are privy to the fullness of God's divine grace?
|
On October 10 2013 09:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 09:41 IronManSC wrote:On October 10 2013 09:33 IgnE wrote:On October 10 2013 09:21 IronManSC wrote:On October 10 2013 03:29 IgnE wrote:On October 09 2013 17:05 IronManSC wrote:On October 09 2013 11:22 IgnE wrote:
I guess you don't have an interest in discussing the historicity of the Bible. 3 reasons. 1) In all honesty I could answer it with what I know, but I am not a historian or a theologian, so I don't feel qualified to go into that subject. 2) More or less, I've been busy lately with work and planning a proposal in the next month, so I haven't had too much time to check TL. 3) I'm sort of burned out on all the discussions so far. They're not leading to anything good, and they are mostly people who just try to disregard the Christian faith in any way they can with what I say. I'm not trying to convince people, i'm just telling you what I believe and what I've been assured of. Do you think the historicity of the Bible matters? Do you think it has implications for what you believe? History is important, yes, but it is not what we rely on. Jesus showed us how to live by faith, not by historical value. History is just that: history. Faith continues, and it produces trust in God. You didn't answer the second question. Do you think the historicity of the Bible has implications for what you believe? That is, do you think the likelihood of something having happened or happened a certain way should influence what you believe about the nature and teachings of Jesus? Yes. Jesus's death and resurrection. So that is all you believe about Jesus? As long as people believe Jesus died and rose from the dead then they are privy to the fullness of God's divine grace?
I was just giving you an example that the things that happened in Jesus' life definitely impact our beliefs about him and how we should live our lives.
|
On October 10 2013 06:19 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 18:36 Capped wrote:
I wrote out a big reply for this thread but its just a lost cause, i urge the rest of you to leave him be and carry on your seperate ways. There is little to no support for his views and opinions here anyway and i dont know how popular his blog is but that should pretty much confirm anything you have to say before posting. He does no harm and he's entitled to those opinions, but there is zero point arguing The urge that most of the people feel here to contest someone's beliefs. It's his belief, everyone is entitled to their own belief and the possibility to connect with those that believe a similar thing or want to listen to them. Yet, quite franctly I'm not sure if everyone respects his opinion, you don't have to agree with eachother, just respect eachother. And bluntly stating someone is a lost cause is just not very respectful. I strongly advise most of you to read the OP again, it says clearly don't argue for the sake of arguing. And let's be honest are you arguing people really interested in learning about religion or more so in proving someone wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, a very selfish, close minded and evil approach if you ask me. An argument can only take place if you really listen to the other, not the one directional blind-sided approach or pre-assumptions before going into an argument. PS. I'm not religious myself.
I did not state he was a lost cause at all, i said arguing with him was. He is set in his ways and you wont change his mind. Everyone here is arguing with him because their views are different and they find his wrong, not for the sake of arguing. As i said at the end of my post "He does no harm and he's entitled to those opinions, but there is zero point arguing".
It doesnt matter how batshit wrong we think he is (dont even get me started.)
I was just saying there is zero point arguing with him as he is here blindly stating his opinion as fact, daring people to challenge him and then not even bothering to argue. What is the point in talking to somebody like that? Just let him get on with his day. He challenged everyone to disagree with him in the OP, he's basically egging people on and i suspect he enjoys it in some way or didnt know what he was doing because once you make a statement like that and then begin stating your opinion as fact people WILL argue with you, at which point he just dismisses them completely.
So TL;DR - Let him get on with it, its a pointless endeavor.
+ Show Spoiler +If you really want my opinion there is no way god could exist outside of creating this whole universe to operate the way it does (evolution and everything else) and being so "powerful" that we have no way of detecting him or his presence at all yet he can influence us at will.
Evolution is fact, god is theory, but god could have created evolution, we simply dont know. There is no proof of god and we do not know if he exists or not or what he is capable of, nobody has the right to claim god doesnt exist but religious people dont have the right to dismiss science either. Science could well be us figuring out gods creations.
|
Nah man, I commented on his blog too. I'm sure he will get around to responding.
|
On October 10 2013 13:46 Capped wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 06:19 peacenl wrote:On October 09 2013 18:36 Capped wrote:
I wrote out a big reply for this thread but its just a lost cause, i urge the rest of you to leave him be and carry on your seperate ways. There is little to no support for his views and opinions here anyway and i dont know how popular his blog is but that should pretty much confirm anything you have to say before posting. He does no harm and he's entitled to those opinions, but there is zero point arguing The urge that most of the people feel here to contest someone's beliefs. It's his belief, everyone is entitled to their own belief and the possibility to connect with those that believe a similar thing or want to listen to them. Yet, quite franctly I'm not sure if everyone respects his opinion, you don't have to agree with eachother, just respect eachother. And bluntly stating someone is a lost cause is just not very respectful. I strongly advise most of you to read the OP again, it says clearly don't argue for the sake of arguing. And let's be honest are you arguing people really interested in learning about religion or more so in proving someone wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, a very selfish, close minded and evil approach if you ask me. An argument can only take place if you really listen to the other, not the one directional blind-sided approach or pre-assumptions before going into an argument. PS. I'm not religious myself. I did not state he was a lost cause at all, i said [...] Evolution is fact
|
lol
User was warned for this post
|
Igne, the Apostle John is the author of the following books:
John
1, 2, 3 John
Revelation
I'm not understanding why that's hard for you to believe, or why you think they are two different johns. Unless you're confusing him with John the Baptist? Even if it was a different author, it doesn't nullify the truth that is written in the Gospel.
|
John did not write Revelation. It was written in an entirely different style with different theological flourishes. It was a different John, or someone who wanted to use the name John to grant the writing extra authority (whom we would just call John anyway because we don't know his real name).
Even though traditionally it was believed that John the Apostle wrote all three works, the historical evidence does not back this up. This is one example of something for which the history influences the theology. I asked you if you thought the history mattered and you said you did. One important question you should ask yourself is whether it ultimately matters whether John wrote all the things you said he wrote or whether multiple authors did.
I have another question for you IronManSC. What passages in the New Testament lead you to believe that God has prohibited homosexual acts?
|
On October 18 2013 15:46 IgnE wrote:
John did not write Revelation. It was written in an entirely different style with different theological flourishes. It was a different John, or someone who wanted to use the name John to grant the writing extra authority (whom we would just call John anyway because we don't know his real name).
Even though traditionally it was believed that John the Apostle wrote all three works, the historical evidence does not back this up. This is one example of something for which the history influences the theology. I asked you if you thought the history mattered and you said you did. One important question you should ask yourself is whether it ultimately matters whether John wrote all the things you said he wrote or whether multiple authors did.
I have another question for you IronManSC. What passages in the New Testament lead you to believe that God has prohibited homosexual acts?
Four times the author in Revelation identifies himself as John (1:1, 1:4, 1, 22:8). From as early as the second century, it's been traditionally seen as the Apostle John even though Dionysius thinks it was a different John according to other ancient pieces of writing. When you compare the Gospel of John to Revelation, there are some phrases or words of choice that you wouldn't think John would use. Yes, it's a different style of writing. It goes from "Lamb of God" to "wrath of God" type writing; apocalyptic.
I would think the majority of Revelation was written by Apostle John (if not all of it), to say the least. I don't know too much about the deep end of authorship with some of the books in the Bible. I'm not saying it doesn't matter to a degree, but the most important thing that the author was aiming for was to preserve the teachings of Christ and the life he lived. Because John was the only apostle to witness the crucifixion, it would make more sense that he would focus much more on the deity and power of Jesus.
As for your question, Romans 1:25-27. Also keep in mind that God's design and intention for sex is to be between one man and one woman within the bounds of marriage. If that is the way he ordained it, then obviously homosexuality is prohibited in the eyes of God. God and his words do not change. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Just because it was in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's no longer the way God wanted it.
|
|
|
On October 18 2013 16:19 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 15:46 IgnE wrote:
John did not write Revelation. It was written in an entirely different style with different theological flourishes. It was a different John, or someone who wanted to use the name John to grant the writing extra authority (whom we would just call John anyway because we don't know his real name).
Even though traditionally it was believed that John the Apostle wrote all three works, the historical evidence does not back this up. This is one example of something for which the history influences the theology. I asked you if you thought the history mattered and you said you did. One important question you should ask yourself is whether it ultimately matters whether John wrote all the things you said he wrote or whether multiple authors did.
I have another question for you IronManSC. What passages in the New Testament lead you to believe that God has prohibited homosexual acts? Four times the author in Revelation identifies himself as John (1:1, 1:4, 1 , 22:8). From as early as the second century, it's been traditionally seen as the Apostle John even though Dionysius thinks it was a different John according to other ancient pieces of writing. When you compare the Gospel of John to Revelation, there are some phrases or words of choice that you wouldn't think John would use. Yes, it's a different style of writing. It goes from "Lamb of God" to "wrath of God" type writing; apocalyptic. I would think the majority of Revelation was written by Apostle John (if not all of it), to say the least. I don't know too much about the deep end of authorship with some of the books in the Bible. I'm not saying it doesn't matter to a degree, but the most important thing that the author was aiming for was to preserve the teachings of Christ and the life he lived. Because John was the only apostle to witness the crucifixion, it would make more sense that he would focus much more on the deity and power of Jesus.
You realize that a lot of people who have spent a lot of time analyzing the book disagree with you. You realize also that John is a fairly common name right? Where in the book of Revelation does the author say, "I am John the Apostle, one of the 12, I ate with Jesus at the last supper?"
As for your question, Romans 1:25-27. Also keep in mind that God's design and intention for sex is to be between one man and one woman within the bounds of marriage. If that is the way he ordained it, then obviously homosexuality is prohibited in the eyes of God. God and his words do not change. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Just because it was in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's no longer the way God wanted it.
Two things:
1)Romans 1:25-27
New King James Version (NKJV)
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
I think the most ordinary reading there is that men and women who forsake their duty as an entire community to procreate and sustain the community are living in error.
edit: Would you agree that it's at least ambiguous that this particular passage prohibits homosexuality for all people at all times?
2) Do you follow kosher? It's in the Old Testament and yet I don't think you do it.
|
I'll break that section down, then i'm going to bed and won't be back till saturday night (busy the next two days).
Taken from the link:
For example, Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me". Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed. Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. For example, God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.
Let's break this down.
Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me".
Elisha, a man of God, was being mocked and insulted by these children. He didn't just have them eaten by bears. Insulting or mocking God and his message is dangerous, and these kids who were influenced by Satan were put to death. Keep in mind that Satan will use anything and anyone to derail or prolong God's message from being proclaimed. That's his goal. Jesus on the other hand said to let the little children come to him. This was taking place when mothers wanted their children healed and blessed, and the disciples wouldn't let them, so Jesus pointed out that children are how we adults ought to act, that we should run to Jesus in the same way they do, that he is our "daddy." There's more to it than that, but that's what comes off the top of my head from remembrance.
Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26).
Joshua was a proud military strategist who won many battles, and each time he went into battle, God had to deal with him beforehand to let him know that it is not by Joshua's power or skill that he wins battles, but by God's. In this case, God is making a statement that by doing it his way (keeping his arms up), that the favor would be in the hands of the Israelites. Another example is when God told Joshua "today I will deliver A.I. into your hands" to show that God delivers the victory, not Joshua's veteran status at war.
Ephesians 4:26 is talking about "don't be angry with someone before the sun goes down." In other words, don't hate, fight or hold a grudge with someone you know without dealing with it in the same day, because allowing it to extend past a single day "gives a foothold to the devil." Plainly put, forgive and reconcile with people you've wronged (or been wronged towards) in the same day it happened.
In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed.
I don't know too much about polygamy so I won't comment on that, sorry, but I can look more into that section soon. As for divorce, it's a lot to write, and because i'm tired (1:30am here) i'll direct you to a helpful link which talks about divorce being permissable in the New Testament under extreme cases: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/CBNTeachingSheets/FAQ_divorce_remarriage.aspx
Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both.
It was just that: a law. It was jewish culture to live by the law (doing good works and earning God's favor in order to be "right" with him), but the reality is that everyone falls short of the glory of God, so trying to be saved by the law was not possible. Jesus relieved us of the burden of trying to be saved by the law of Moses and that being saved was by being right with God, and Jesus made that possible through himself. That's why his yoke is easy and his burden is light. We rely on Christ Jesus now to sustain our justification in God, not by trying to earn it through a set of rules.
God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath.
Note that the commandment that says you shouldn't work on the Sabbath is referring to your work on the Sabbath. However acting in love and service towards God was always permitted. To not work on the Sabbath, literally, would mean a pastor can't even preach on Sunday. It is his job of course. The Pharisaic law permitted healing on the Sabbath if it meant saving a life and/or preventing death. Yet, in their hypocrisy, they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath when he was healing, whereas Jesus turned around and drilled them to their own contradictory beliefs.
In this case of the quote, marching around Jericho on the Sabbath was an act of service to God. It wasn't their job to march or blow trumpets or scream. It was to glorify God. There is no such law that prohibits a service-attitude toward God on the Sabbath day.
No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.
The israelites didn't worship the image or make it their god, which is what God prohibits. The bronze serpent was put up as a reminder of their disobedience, and God directed that if they were bitten by a snake, they could look to the image of a snake wrapped around a stick and be healed. This is symbolic today, because we look to Jesus on the cross for healing and forgiveness.
All I see from that wikipedia page about "contradictions" between the OT and NT is someone who is only reading the words and not understanding the context.
|
On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:I'll break that section down, then i'm going to bed and won't be back till saturday night (busy the next two days). Taken from the link:For example, Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me". Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed. Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. For example, God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.Show nested quote +Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. It was just that: a law. It was jewish culture to live by the law (doing good works and earning God's favor in order to be "right" with him), but the reality is that everyone falls short of the glory of God, so trying to be saved by the law was not possible. Jesus relieved us of the burden of trying to be saved by the law of Moses and that being saved was by being right with God, and Jesus made that possible through himself. That's why his yoke is easy and his burden is light. We rely on Christ Jesus now to sustain our justification in God, not by trying to earn it through a set of rules.
How can you say that after just saying in your last post that God is the same, forever and always? If Leviticus says that eagles, vultures, and osprey are loathsome birds, not to be eaten, that shellfish are unclean, not to be eaten, and that homosexuality is an abominable deed, not to be done, why do you ignore the first two but still think the third one applies?
On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:
All I see from that wikipedia page about "contradictions" between the OT and NT is someone who is only reading the words and not understanding the context.
Oh, the irony. And you still think John the apostle wrote the Book of Revelation and that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him.
|
On October 18 2013 18:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:I'll break that section down, then i'm going to bed and won't be back till saturday night (busy the next two days). Taken from the link:For example, Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me". Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed. Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. For example, God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. It was just that: a law. It was jewish culture to live by the law (doing good works and earning God's favor in order to be "right" with him), but the reality is that everyone falls short of the glory of God, so trying to be saved by the law was not possible. Jesus relieved us of the burden of trying to be saved by the law of Moses and that being saved was by being right with God, and Jesus made that possible through himself. That's why his yoke is easy and his burden is light. We rely on Christ Jesus now to sustain our justification in God, not by trying to earn it through a set of rules. How can you say that after just saying in your last post that God is the same, forever and always? If Leviticus says that eagles, vultures, and osprey are loathsome birds, not to be eaten, that shellfish are unclean, not to be eaten, and that homosexuality is an abominable deed, not to be done, why do you ignore the first two but still think the third one applies? Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:
All I see from that wikipedia page about "contradictions" between the OT and NT is someone who is only reading the words and not understanding the context. Oh, the irony. And you still think John the apostle wrote the Book of Revelation and that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him.
God freeing us from the law doesn't mean the law doesn't apply or doesn't matter anymore. We still ought to follow it because they are good for us. God freed us from trying to make ourselves right with God BY the law. To be made right with God in those days you had to sacrifice animals; shedding their blood to cover for your sins as a temporary substitution for yourself. God told us not to eat certain foods because back then they were highly prone to diseases and were therefore unclean. God was making that known to them (they wouldn't have known that back then). He wasn't saying "you can't eat meat! Be a vegetarian!"
One of the rules to sacrificing an animal back then was that the animal could not have any defect of any kind. Jesus, who had no defects because he was sinless, became our permanent substitution therefore qualified to carry the sins of the world. Symbolic, is it not? No one took his life either - he willingly laid down his life for our sins once and for all. So, we are made right with God today through Jesus. The Ten Commandments themselves do not change, but rather the motivation and driving factor behind it. You're not trying to get saved by keeping God's law anymore, you're simply doing them because through Jesus, you know you ought to even though you can't earn it. It goes back to the question i've asked before: Why do we do what we do? We love Christ because Christ first loved us. We do good things because of what Christ did for us.
Also I don't know what the differences between the OT and NT have to do with authorship of Revelation, and now suddenly you're bringing Paul into the picture. Though interesting, I personally do not care who wrote certain books because it doesn't impact the truth itself or my faith. I'm more interested in the actual story. What's ironic, to me, is that you take the Bible out of context in the same way that Marcion does in the wikipedia link (a totally unreliable source for getting info), but somehow you toss it on me because I don't know who the author explicitly is for a particular book? lol ok. You're the kind of person who reads Matthew 7:1 and takes it absolutely literally without knowing what it truly means.
I'm tired of responding to your stubbornness on literally everything I post. This may be the last time I respond to you because you have no real interest in knowing God, and you are only out to try and trip me up on my beliefs and opinions.
|
On October 19 2013 00:42 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 18:10 IgnE wrote:On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:I'll break that section down, then i'm going to bed and won't be back till saturday night (busy the next two days). Taken from the link:For example, Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me". Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed. Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. For example, God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent.Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has freed believers from both. It was just that: a law. It was jewish culture to live by the law (doing good works and earning God's favor in order to be "right" with him), but the reality is that everyone falls short of the glory of God, so trying to be saved by the law was not possible. Jesus relieved us of the burden of trying to be saved by the law of Moses and that being saved was by being right with God, and Jesus made that possible through himself. That's why his yoke is easy and his burden is light. We rely on Christ Jesus now to sustain our justification in God, not by trying to earn it through a set of rules. How can you say that after just saying in your last post that God is the same, forever and always? If Leviticus says that eagles, vultures, and osprey are loathsome birds, not to be eaten, that shellfish are unclean, not to be eaten, and that homosexuality is an abominable deed, not to be done, why do you ignore the first two but still think the third one applies? On October 18 2013 17:29 IronManSC wrote:
All I see from that wikipedia page about "contradictions" between the OT and NT is someone who is only reading the words and not understanding the context. Oh, the irony. And you still think John the apostle wrote the Book of Revelation and that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him. God freeing us from the law doesn't mean the law doesn't apply or doesn't matter anymore. We still ought to follow it because they are good for us. God freed us from trying to make ourselves right with God BY the law. To be made right with God in those days you had to sacrifice animals; shedding their blood to cover for your sins as a temporary substitution for yourself. God told us not to eat certain foods because back then they were highly prone to diseases and were therefore unclean. God was making that known to them (they wouldn't have known that back then). He wasn't saying "you can't eat meat! Be a vegetarian!" One of the rules to sacrificing an animal back then was that the animal could not have any defect of any kind. Jesus, who had no defects because he was sinless, became our permanent substitution therefore qualified to carry the sins of the world. Symbolic, is it not? No one took his life either - he willingly laid down his life for our sins once and for all. So, we are made right with God today through Jesus. The Ten Commandments themselves do not change, but rather the motivation and driving factor behind it. You're not trying to get saved by keeping God's law anymore, you're simply doing them because through Jesus, you know you ought to even though you can't earn it. It goes back to the question i've asked before: Why do we do what we do? We love Christ because Christ first loved us. We do good things because of what Christ did for us. Also I don't know what the differences between the OT and NT have to do with authorship of Revelation, and now suddenly you're bringing Paul into the picture. Though interesting, I personally do not care who wrote certain books because it doesn't impact the truth itself or my faith. I'm more interested in the actual story. What's ironic, to me, is that you take the Bible out of context in the same way that Marcion does in the wikipedia link (a totally unreliable source for getting info), but somehow you toss it on me because I don't know who the author explicitly is for a particular book? lol ok. You're the kind of person who reads Matthew 7:1 and takes it absolutely literally without knowing what it truly means. I'm tired of responding to your stubbornness on literally everything I post. This may be the last time I respond to you because you have no real interest in knowing God, and you are only out to try and trip me up on my beliefs and opinions.
I'm mostly out to see what you have to say about it. But you should avoid people trying to trip you up. I might just be doing the devil's work.
So you try to keep kosher law because it's good, but you can break it if it's inconvenient or something, because you are saved by faith and not works?
Can you remember a time that you disagreed with your pastor over interpretation of the Bible? What makes wikipedia unreliable about getting info? It seems like the most reliable to me.
|
On September 10 2013 13:43 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 12:11 IgnE wrote:
Which laws were they twisting? Didn't Jesus supercede the old laws? That doesn't necessarily imply that the old laws were being corrupted. As a single example, the Scribes and Pharasees would take laws such as "Honor the Sabbath day to keep it holy" and turn it into a legalistic thing such as the Jews would not be allowed to walk outside a certain radius of their house. They also deemed it "work" to do the mission of the church, which it obviously is not. This is why they had a problem with Jesus healing on the Sabbath, which in my mind is obviously corrupting and adding to the Law given by God.
This isn't actually true either. The pharisees were quite liberal in their interpretation of the law, believing that human beings took precedence over it an had no teaching against healing on the sabbath. That prohibition was held by the sadducees and later editors of the Bible changed the stories to make the pharisees look bad so that Christianity could be seen as a break from Judaism. Jesus may have very well been a pharisee himself. Many of his sayings are substantially similar to sayings in pharisaic writings from the same time, including the part about loving god and loving your neighbor to be the two most important laws and the ones on which the scripture and the prophets hang.
|
On October 20 2013 17:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 13:43 Janaan wrote:On September 10 2013 12:11 IgnE wrote:
Which laws were they twisting? Didn't Jesus supercede the old laws? That doesn't necessarily imply that the old laws were being corrupted. As a single example, the Scribes and Pharasees would take laws such as "Honor the Sabbath day to keep it holy" and turn it into a legalistic thing such as the Jews would not be allowed to walk outside a certain radius of their house. They also deemed it "work" to do the mission of the church, which it obviously is not. This is why they had a problem with Jesus healing on the Sabbath, which in my mind is obviously corrupting and adding to the Law given by God. This isn't actually true either. The pharisees were quite liberal in their interpretation of the law, believing that human beings took precedence over it an had no teaching against healing on the sabbath. That prohibition was held by the sadducees and later editors of the Bible changed the stories to make the pharisees look bad so that Christianity could be seen as a break from Judaism. Jesus may have very well been a pharisee himself. Many of his sayings are substantially similar to sayings in pharisaic writings from the same time, including the part about loving god and loving your neighbor to be the two most important laws and the ones on which the scripture and the prophets hang.
There was no teaching *against healing on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees, in their hypocrisy, accused Jesus of breaking the sabbath because he was healing. Healing was not considered "work," but they made it seem that way. They changed their own law to try and trip Jesus up. They hated Jesus, so they were doing anything to try and catch him and find him guilty. It wouldn't make sense if Jesus was a Pharisee because he came to fulfill the law of the prophets, not to live the law of Moses like the Pharisees. I don't know where you are getting your interpretations of the Bible but you are really twisting it's words, perhaps just to try and show how much you disprove of it's history and content and to try and tell us that it's all phony or something. We understand that you are not a Christian, you don't believe in the Bible, and you want nothing to do with Jesus, so why do you take your interpretation of the Word more accurately and correctly than a believer's?
It's pretty funny that you take something in the Bible very literally, I explain what it actually means, and then you imply that I'm the one taking it out of context. Then, you rely on some unknown knowledge or source (some Bible editor?) and say that your interpretation is actually the correct one. Why is yours correct? How many times has it been validated and proven? Again, as mentioned numerous times, this is how Satan works. He is doing everything he can to derail the true faith and to keep people from believing the truth. He is coming up with all kinds of false doctrines and viewpoints of Jesus, and to try and make Jesus look like a nobody, "just a prophet," or a bad guy. He's the master deceiver, and he appears as an angel of light. He appears as a sheep, but has the voice of a wolf. As long as he can get someone to believe that Jesus is not the Messiah, the living Son of God, then he's accomplished his goal. Relying only on the Bible without the counsel of the Holy Spirit is a dangerous road to go down.
|
i might have been unclear before buy i meant that its likely the sadducees and not the pharisees were the ones harrassing jesus. they were suspicious of jesus for political reasons because jesus was claiming to be messiah, a politically charged claim that was disruptive to the sadducees who were the aristocratic lapdogs of the roman occupiers. the editors of the bible back in the first and second centuries changed the bible to have an anti-pharisee bias by saying the pharisees were harrassing jesus and wanted to arrest them. this doesnt jive with the historical evidence. we have writings from the pharisees that were very similar to many of the things jesus is alleged to have said. moreover, these are believed by scholars to be some of the oldest source material about jesus suggesting that their similarity is closest to what jesus actually said. thats why i say jesus was probably a pharisee. he preached pharisaic teaching. teaching that is present in pharisaic writings from the same period.
edit: you realize these groups were real historical groups right, and that they left evidence of their existence besides the bible? the bible was written by people who had secular and religious antipathies towards certain other groups and their editing reflectsthose antipathies. you cant take it at face value. history matters
|
|
|
In view of your impending proposal IronManSC, I was wondering what your opinion of women in society is vis a vis the Bible.
Let's start with some great quotes from Paul:
- 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
New International Version (NIV)
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15
New International Version (NIV)
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/167/571/Abandon-Thread.gif)
