Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 03-06-2011, 09:23 AM  
Senior Member
 
Hillman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 318 | Kudos: +31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
My point is only that the "classic" theist/atheist arguments seem to devolve quickly into uncouth behavior on both sides. I try to avoid this type of argument. I'm not always successful.

I'm saying that a child is not born with knowledge of Jesus or Allah or Buddha or Zeus or Aphrodite or Joseph Smith or any god concept or religious figurehead. I'm saying that even when presented with these concepts, a person need not accept them as valid. I'm saying that a person need not make a choice to be an atheist, but that he must make a choice to be a theist. We both exist on opposing slippery slopes concerning this statement. You cannot prove your "not" statement of congenital belief nor can I prove it otherwise. Understandably, as an atheist, you are compelled to rely on historical philosophical arguments/debates to make your points, while I rely on scripture. Likewise, we differ on the authority of truth. My truth lies in the interpretation of self, nature, and scripture (all of which entail revelation) seen through the lens of belief (in God). Your truth lies in self, interpreted through the lens of experience. My truth is no more valid than yours, but my truth, partly appreciated through scripture clearly gives examples of babies being born with knowledge/appreciation of God (John the Baptist, David, Samson). There in lies the slippery slope.

True enough. I will admit that my vocabulary is heavily skewed toward monotheistic terms. Understood and appreciated!

As something must possess a belief to be considered a theist, something that cannot possess beliefs could be described as an atheist. As a society, we don't generally utilize this terminology, but I found it a useful tool for understanding and describing the concept of implicit atheism. A rock is an implicit atheist. A baby is an implicit atheist. A dog is an implicit atheist. We're still gaining distance here but that is OK. It would appear that you are cross applying agnosticism to theism to atheism. By definition theism is relational and "something" other than "someone" is not capable or subject to such a relationship and someone who "cannot" possess such a relationship is agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist chooses (as you've expressed) to reject god/deity or whatever. In my opinion bringing in agnosticism muddies the discussion water but defining atheism as implicit or explicit reduces clarity even further. It is my understanding that atheism is based in rejection. To apply explicit or implicit to that rejection would imply that there was a knowledge of god/deity at one time and was rejected by the explicit atheist. The implicit atheist (you defined, possibly, as a baby) has no knowledge/experience of with god/deity.The muddy waters exist in the definitions of implicit atheist and an agnostic in that someone cannot not know something they already know. They either don't know it or they know it and reject it......right?? An agnostic cannot know...an atheist rejects...an an implicit atheist is.....confused???? Where am I missing it here?


My rejection was of the validity of the evidence presented to me, and I came to reject that evidence upon discovering and understanding the concept of logic. There was no one day that I woke up and said "You know, this bible stuff is junk". I remember hearing the tale of Noah's Ark at a very young age, and some time later wondering how the wide variety of animals from all around the world would have traveled to the ark. I remember discovering how there is no land-bridge connecting Australia or the Americas, and wondering how land animals would have reached their borders.

I encountered similar processes with various aspects of every concept presented to me. I can't say I was never a theist, but I can't say that I ever possessed a firm, informed belief in any particular god or gods either I find this to be the prevailing case with the atheist I know. The whole concept of truth; where it comes from, how it manifests itself, what appreciations prevail, familial and geopolitical implications in the formulations of someone's decision on truth intrigues me. By admission you once partially believed (more than you rejected) and now you fully reject. Your rejection is framed in what appears to be scholarly intent. Why is your intent so different from mine? . Oh sure, after hearing about Noah and God making it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, flooding the entire earth, I believed what I was told to believe. I also believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and even the Easter Bunny for awhile, and with about as much devotion as I did God or Jesus. How does a bunny lay an egg? What does a fairy need with teeth? How does santa reach every kid in the world in just one night? Why does an omnipotent god need Noah to build an Ark?

Both of those were meant as rhetorical questions.

My unhappiness with another's beliefs is hardly "stopping someone else's pursuit of happiness", at least not in the sense I was implying. Are we going to lock someone up in a psych ward because they maintain an unusual belief? Probably not. Are we going to go over to his house, call him a blasphemer, and try to save his soul through our own brand of beliefs? I sincerely hope not!

Then let me ask you: Why do you want everyone who meets you knows "without a doubt" that you are a Christian? Good question but a difficult one to answer without using my personal theology. I fully appreciate that theology carries no weight with your philosophical viewpoints but that IS the basis of my answer. I am called, through scripture, to be Christ's representative in all I do ad say (and write). I'm not very good at it but it is my ultimate goal. So, for someone to doubt my being a Christian would be tantamount to failure in my calling.Are the religious preferences of others similarly important to you? Reluctantly, on the surface...I'd say no...if I'm understanding your question. Why? Because "religion", in and of itself, is meaningless if not rightfully grounded in a relationship with God. Religions are concepts of man...not of God. Religions perpetuate the schism between God and man.

I have quite a bit of tension on the issue of church/state if you'd care to discuss that area.I'll be glad to try if you don't mind my personal tensions in the matter.

The subtlety of language definitely suffers from a textual delivery. Don't pull any punches on my behalf - I enjoy a good argument/discussion.
No punches here...just interested.
__________________

__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 02:43 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillman View Post
We both exist on opposing slippery slopes concerning this statement. You cannot prove your "not" statement of congenital belief nor can I prove it otherwise.
You are correct in that I cannot logically claim absolute proof. I can provide billions of anecdotal cases to support the idea that a person never exposed to the bible can never be a Christian. This evidence supports my position from any frame of reference aside from within Christianity itself. But no, I cannot consider this to be absolute "proof".
Quote:

Understandably, as an atheist, you are compelled to rely on historical philosophical arguments/debates to make your points, while I rely on scripture.

Likewise, we differ on the authority of truth. My truth lies in the interpretation of self, nature, and scripture (all of which entail revelation) seen through the lens of belief (in God). Your truth lies in self, interpreted through the lens of experience.
Can we rely on the idea that 1+1=2? If so, we can both rely also on certain absolute truths, independent of self, independent of experience, independent of nature, independent of scripture.
Quote:

My truth is no more valid than yours, but my truth, partly appreciated through scripture clearly gives examples of babies being born with knowledge/appreciation of God (John the Baptist, David, Samson). There in lies the slippery slope.
And so we immediately come to the validity of scripture in gauging truth.
Quote:

We're still gaining distance here but that is OK. It would appear that you are cross applying agnosticism to theism to atheism.
Etymologically, "agnosticism" refers to "lack of (knowledge of god/s)" and is an antonym of the general sense of "gnosticism" - "knowledge of god/s". Atheism is "lack of (belief in god/s)" while Theism is "belief in god/s".

The parenthetical notation here is similar to mathematical use of parentheses. The "A-" prefix means "without" or "lacking", and applies to the entire root. Occasionally, this distinction is lost.
Quote:
By definition theism is relational and "something" other than "someone" is not capable or subject to such a relationship and someone who "cannot" possess such a relationship is agnostic, not an atheist.
The terms are not mutually exclusive. One can be both atheist and agnostic, and in my experience, most atheists are atheists because they are agnostic.

Quote:
An atheist chooses (as you've expressed) to reject god/deity or whatever.
I can say with some certainty that at the moment you read this, you have no belief in the existence of the glugglewumpus. (I know - I just made it up). Before you began reading this paragraph, did you have a belief that the glugglewumpus existed?

An atheist need not make a choice. A theist must make a choice.

Quote:
In my opinion bringing in agnosticism muddies the discussion water but defining atheism as implicit or explicit reduces clarity even further. It is my understanding that atheism is based in rejection. To apply explicit or implicit to that rejection would imply that there was a knowledge of god/deity at one time and was rejected by the explicit atheist. The implicit atheist (you defined, possibly, as a baby) has no knowledge/experience of with god/deity.The muddy waters exist in the definitions of implicit atheist and an agnostic in that someone cannot not know something they already know. They either don't know it or they know it and reject it......right?? An agnostic cannot know...an atheist rejects...an an implicit atheist is.....confused???? Where am I missing it here?
I think I hit on that a couple paragraphs above - I've been using the etymological definitions of theism, atheism, agnosticism, and gnosticism, which differs a bit from the popular use where agnosticism is typically defined as somewhere on a spectrum between theism and atheism. I've had exceptional difficulty framing my arguments within the popular connotations of these terms, and I've found that in using other terms like "non-theist", I'm stereotyped back into those inaccurate connotations.

My position is that knowledge and belief are not strictly linked. For example, "Faith" seems to be important to some believers. Faith requires a lack of knowledge; I can say that the faithful are, by definition, agnostic.
Quote:

I find this to be the prevailing case with the atheist I know. The whole concept of truth; where it comes from, how it manifests itself, what appreciations prevail, familial and geopolitical implications in the formulations of someone's decision on truth intrigues me. By admission you once partially believed (more than you rejected) and now you fully reject. Your rejection is framed in what appears to be scholarly intent. Why is your intent so different from mine? .
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I can more fully describe the nature of my "rejection". We've all held beliefs we know now to be false, and we continuously "reject" beliefs we have formerly held. We've all given answers on tests that we were believed were correct, then later discovered that were not. When you look at the image below, you will see a number of black dots. The caption asks you to count them, then declares that they don't even exist.


If the image doesn't work:
Optical illusions - Sharenator.com

I would ask you: Does the request to count the dots mean that they exist? Does the statement that they don't exist mean that they do not? Does the presence of these dots in your eyes and mind mean that they actually exist?

When you understand why you can't count the dots, you'll understand why I am an atheist
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 04:41 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Poor Dubya, the writings of Jefferson and others reveal they were Deists and believed in a god. I do too but I no longer look to ANY religion to guide me in God's wishes.
What if Rastafrarianism became the dominant US religion in 2050? George (after rolling in his grave) would certainly insist it was no longer a nation under "his" God.


As a kid I spent long hours pouring over a huge world wall map intended to illustrate Cold War spheres of influence. Over the years those borders have changed often & drastically. New names replaced old names....

Quote:
Formerly called the Republic of Upper Volta, it was renamed on August 4, 1984, by President Thomas Sankara to mean "the land of upright people"
HTML Code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso
Countries change, sometimes even disappear. The same with borders. Governments change too and reflect different goals and beliefs. These are the acts of man, a relatively new Alpha primate who shows great talent for destroying the planet itself.
If something is lent to me I take good care of it and return it as good if not better than I received it. I suspect God's gifts deserve the same respect.

Nations love to claim God is on their side but the evidence shows a good deal of national behavior few of us would attribute to a deity.
What this country had and I hope retains is a tolerance for others to believe as they see fit.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 07:41 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
Poor Dubya, the writings of Jefferson and others reveal they were Deists and believed in a god. I do too but I no longer look to ANY religion to guide me in God's wishes.
To state my understanding of Deism in an exceedingly simplistic way, god created the world then stepped out of the way. From a practical standpoint, I don't see any major differences between Deism and atheism.

The major issues I take with religious philosophies aren't with creation stories, but with the morality they pass down. The moral code of a deist and an atheist probably wouldn't differ too much - neither of us believe that an almighty god is going to smite our enemies or bless us. Both of us would probably believe that a pair of hands working are infinitely more effective than a thousand hands clasped in prayer.

A moral code that compels us to maintain the beliefs and practices of an ancient people? No thanks. A moral code that has become so out of place with modern life that it requires interpretation? No thanks. Interpretations used to support both sides of a debate on issues as important as whether or not certain people should be considered human? No way.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:52 PM  
Senior Member
 
Hillman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 318 | Kudos: +31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
To state my understanding of Deism in an exceedingly simplistic way, god created the world then stepped out of the way. From a practical standpoint, I don't see any major differences between Deism and atheism. It is my understanding that after God created He didn't "maintain" creation but He is "sustaining" it. This concept aligns itself with His divine plan.

The major issues I take with religious philosophies aren't with creation stories, but with the morality they pass down. ...or the lack of.The moral code of a deist and an atheist probably wouldn't differ too much - neither of us believe that an almighty god is going to smite our enemies or bless us. Both of us would probably believe that a pair of hands working are infinitely more effective than a thousand hands clasped in prayer. Thought provoking but in application is untenable. I would think a group that believes there is no God is far attached, morally or ideologically, from a group who believes in God.

A moral code that compels us to maintain the beliefs and practices of an ancient people? No thanks. A moral code that has become so out of place with modern life that it requires interpretation? No thanks. This is an understandable "mis-interpretation" of scripture by a non-believer. To put forward such assumption lays bear a misunderstanding of progressive revelation. There is no fault found in this any more than than a believer assuming that all atheist are devil worshipers. Both are ill formed opinions that require further inquiry.Interpretations used to support both sides of a debate on issues as important as whether or not certain people should be considered human? No way. OK...hand me that piano!
Simplistic = YES! Your non-belief deserves more.
__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 10:21 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillman View Post
Thought provoking but in application is untenable. I would think a group that believes there is no God is far attached, morally or ideologically, from a group who believes in God.
Can you clarify this last thought? I'm not quite understanding what you mean here. It seems you are suggesting that atheists learn morality from theists.
Quote:

This is an understandable "mis-interpretation" of scripture by a non-believer. To put forward such assumption lays bear a misunderstanding of progressive revelation. There is no fault found in this any more than than a believer assuming that all atheist are devil worshipers. Both are ill formed opinions that require further inquiry.
I think this is a situation where we're saying similar things in different ways. It seems you're suggesting that these ideas will build upon eachother, that certain ideas derived from scripture were true at some point, and informed a more modern concept. The past idea can be considered true, even though the same idea today would be considered false. You seem to be saying that this is acceptable within a theological framework, that the original scriptural concept should be "kept" as it can inform future decisions.

Is this an accurate depiction of "progressive revelation"?

If this is fairly accurate, I would think that within your philosophy, one could refer to these past ideas by saying "I was as right as I could be at that time" rather than saying "I was wrong". I would also say that this is the first time I've been presented with with a pro-theism idea that scripture is anything but absolute and timeless. This idea usually supports the atheist side of a debate, as biblical theists generally take the opposing view.
Quote:


OK...hand me that piano!
My comment was a moral argument against biblical theism, based on the practices of its adherents. Self-proclaimed Christians have used (and continue to use) scriptural arguments to both support and denounce human rights issues such as slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, homosexuality, abortion, etc. That both sides of these arguments can be supported with scripture, both sides seem to have legitimate claims (within their own theistic framework) to divine inspiration, and yet have arrived at directly opposing viewpoints. These differences have lead to great and minor schisms with the Christian faith over the generations, creating the current variety of Christian sects and denominations. There would seem to be something wrong with the original idea when the Salvation Army, Mother Theresa, Rev. Jim Rigby, the Westboro Baptist Church, Army of God, and the Ku Klux Klan can all demonstrate direct lineage from that idea.
Quote:

Simplistic = YES! Your non-belief deserves more.
It's just an idea, and ideas deserve no inherent respect, not even because they might be considered ardently held religious beliefs. We have no problem dismissing the claims of one person declaring that the moon is made of green cheese; is there anything different about the claim when it is made by millions? billions?

I respect the person, and I respect the person's RIGHT to believe how they choose (up to the point that their beliefs interfere with the rights of others). But not an idea itself.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 11:15 AM  
Senior Member
 
Hillman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 318 | Kudos: +31
rivalarrival, I appreciate your responses. Unfortunately, the comments, once "quoted", drops off critical parts of the previous comments. I'm having a hard time with who said what, when, and why.

I'll try it this way..hopefully this'll work....

Originally Posted by Hillman View Post
Thought provoking but in application is untenable. I would think a group that believes there is no God is far attached, morally or ideologically, from a group who believes in God.

Can you clarify this last thought? I'm not quite understanding what you mean here. It seems you are suggesting that atheists learn morality from theists.


No, my bad. That was not my intention at all. I was actually implying just the opposite.

Quote:

This is an understandable "mis-interpretation" of scripture by a non-believer. To put forward such assumption lays bear a misunderstanding of progressive revelation. There is no fault found in this any more than than a believer assuming that all atheist are devil worshipers. Both are ill formed opinions that require further inquiry.


I think this is a situation where we're saying similar things in different ways. It seems you're suggesting that these ideas will build upon eachother, that certain ideas derived from scripture were true at some point, and informed a more modern concept. The past idea can be considered true, even though the same idea today would be considered false. You seem to be saying that this is acceptable within a theological framework, that the original scriptural concept should be "kept" as it can inform future decisions.

Is this an accurate depiction of "progressive revelation"?

If this is fairly accurate, I would think that within your philosophy, one could refer to these past ideas by saying "I was as right as I could be at that time" rather than saying "I was wrong". I would also say that this is the first time I've been presented with with a pro-theism idea that scripture is anything but absolute and timeless. This idea usually supports the atheist side of a debate, as biblical theists generally take the opposing view.


It is my understanding that progressive revelation can be better understood by reflecting on progressive understanding. An example would be in how the church now has a "better" understanding of the Holy Spirit than that defined by the early church father, Tertullian. Your observations are correct. At no time has the church found any falsehood within scripture.

Quote:
OK...hand me that piano!
My comment was a moral argument against biblical theism, based on the practices of its adherents. Self-proclaimed Christians have used (and continue to use) scriptural arguments to both support and denounce human rights issues such as slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, homosexuality, abortion, etc. That both sides of these arguments can be supported with scripture, both sides seem to have legitimate claims (within their own theistic framework) to divine inspiration, and yet have arrived at directly opposing viewpoints. These differences have lead to great and minor schisms with the Christian faith over the generations, creating the current variety of Christian sects and denominations. There would seem to be something wrong with the original idea when the Salvation Army, Mother Theresa, Rev. Jim Rigby, the Westboro Baptist Church, Army of God, and the Ku Klux Klan can all demonstrate direct lineage from that idea.


Your thoughts and comments are common in relation to how society perceives religion (rightly so). I'm not so aligned with your applying "biblical theism" to or with "religion". The schism you reference is the result of man, throughout the ages, applying his fleshly desire (eisegesis) to what he wants scripture to say.

Quote:
Simplistic = YES! Your non-belief deserves more.
It's just an idea, and ideas deserve no inherent respect, not even because they might be considered ardently held religious beliefs. We have no problem dismissing the claims of one person declaring that the moon is made of green cheese; is there anything different about the claim when it is made by millions? billions?

I respect the person, and I respect the person's RIGHT to believe how they choose (up to the point that their beliefs interfere with the rights of others). But not an idea itself.


I'm not thinking you're want a response to this but I feel ideas do deserve respect. That respect can manifest itself in agreement or rejection, but respect none the less. Your ideas inform me in my agreement or my rejection. It would be foolish of me to reject your "ideas" without intellectual consideration.
__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 03:56 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillman View Post
rivalarrival, I appreciate your responses. Unfortunately, the comments, once "quoted", drops off critical parts of the previous comments. I'm having a hard time with who said what, when, and why.

I'll try it this way..hopefully this'll work....
I've been having similar problems with your method of quotation-by-color. Convention in this sort of forum is to use the quote method, which includes a link back to the original statement for reference purposes. (and that "original" statement will have links back to the statements it quotes) The problem with including several levels of quotes is that each comment becomes a "wall of text" that is difficult to parse.

To create a linked quote, use the "reply with quote" link in the bottom right corner.

What I'm doing is wrapping my quotes between reversed quote tags:
Code:
[/quote]
my comments here
[quote]
The first tag breaks out of the existing quote, inserts my comments as unquoted. The second tag begins a new quote. This is understood to be a continuation of the first quote, which contains in its title a link back to the statement where that quote was originally stated. Yes, quotes more than one level above are "lost" in the current comment, but they are retained by links.

You can quote multiple earlier comments by using the multi-quote link on each of them, then hitting "reply to" at the top or bottom of the page. Each of the quotes will then be entered into the reply text and you can adjust them as needed.
Quote:

No, my bad. That was not my intention at all. I was actually implying just the opposite.
I'm still confused. Paraphrasing, you said that atheists are morally and ideologically 'attached' 'from' theists. Your intention was to say the opposite of atheists learning morality from theists? I think you meant to say "detached", but I still have no idea what exactly you're referring to. Certainly, a theist isn't claiming that theists learn their morality and ideology from atheists!

Quote:
It is my understanding that progressive revelation can be better understood by reflecting on progressive understanding. An example would be in how the church now has a "better" understanding of the Holy Spirit than that defined by the early church father, Tertullian. Your observations are correct. At no time has the church found any falsehood within scripture.
The same concept you refer to as "understanding" (understanding of the holy spirit), I refer to as "interpretation" (interpretation of the scripture).
Quote:

Your thoughts and comments are common in relation to how society perceives religion (rightly so). I'm not so aligned with your applying "biblical theism" to or with "religion". The schism you reference is the result of man, throughout the ages, applying his fleshly desire (eisegesis) to what he wants scripture to say.
Do you acknowledge that even if the scripture is completely perfect, the application of that scripture on contemporary understanding is subject to the "fleshly desires" of man? Can you rationally claim that the schisms, the fleshly desires of man, have no effect on what you describe above as "understanding"?

Another way to put it - Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is a self-proclaimed Christian. Mr. Phelps (And a large number of other self-proclaimed Christians) believes that homosexuality is immoral, and presents scriptural arguments to support that claim. Jim Rigby of St. Andrew?s Presbyterian Church in Austin TX is a self-proclaimed Christian. Jim Rigby (and a large number of other self-proclaimed Christians) believes that homosexuality is not immoral and presents scriptural arguments to support that claim. The claims of these two men are mutually exclusive - they can't both be true.

Whether or not Christianity and homosexuality are actually compatible according to scripture is ultimately irrelevant. The practical decision isn't made by the scripture, but by the choices of man. This holds true for all moral issues: women's suffrage, racial equality, slavery, murder, rape, body piercings, genocide, tattoos, pre-marital sex, abstinence-only education... At best, the scriptural arguments that support these positions are later held to be correct and valid, while the contrary positions are dismissed as "fleshly desires", and the supporting scriptural interpretations dismissed as false.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2011, 09:20 AM  
Senior Member
 
Hillman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 318 | Kudos: +31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
I think you meant to say "detached", but I still have no idea what exactly you're referring to. Certainly, a theist isn't claiming that theists learn their morality and ideology from atheists! Yep, still my bad......"detached" was the appropriate word.

And what I said was, "Thought provoking but in application is untenable. I would think a group that believes there is no God is far DETACHED, morally or ideologically, from a group who believes in God."..."attached switched to "detached".



The same concept you refer to as "understanding" (understanding of the holy spirit), I refer to as "interpretation" (interpretation of the scripture). OK...potatos/potatoes.

Do you acknowledge that even if the scripture is completely perfect, the application of that scripture on contemporary understanding is subject to the "fleshly desires" of man? Can you rationally claim that the schisms, the fleshly desires of man, have no effect on what you describe above as "understanding"? It is my belief/understanding that scripture is not "perfect". If you are referring to its "inerrancy"..then yes. Even this term should be defined within the boundaries that it is used. The inerrant Word of God applies only to the original manuscripts/texts. Every copy following the original is subject to flaws....dating, geographic, typos, etc. This is because the men involved were fallen and subject that burden, mistakenly or otherwise. The possibility of changes from the original inspired Word exist, and in some cases proven. In that "proof" lies the reality that the " copy mistakes" in no way diminished the ability of the bible to complete the Work of the Holy Spirit. So, the question as applied by believers is, "Is the bible flawed and unable to complete the Work of the Holy Spirit? No!"

In reference to you question concerning the flesh interpreting scripture differently throughout the ages? Yes, for various reasons...The Roman Catholic Church, The split of the Eastern and Western churches (The Great Schism), The Reformation, Lutherns, Methodist, Baptist, etc.


Another way to put it - Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is a self-proclaimed Christian. Mr. Phelps (And a large number of other self-proclaimed Christians) believes that homosexuality is immoral, and presents scriptural arguments to support that claim. Jim Rigby of St. Andrew?s Presbyterian Church in Austin TX is a self-proclaimed Christian. Jim Rigby (and a large number of other self-proclaimed Christians) believes that homosexuality is not immoral and presents scriptural arguments to support that claim. The claims of these two men are mutually exclusive - they can't both be true. It'll make your head spin won't it! I hang my hat on your words...."self proclaimed"!

Whether or not Christianity and homosexuality are actually compatible according to scripture is ultimately irrelevant. The practical decision isn't made by the scripture, but by the choices of man. This holds true for all moral issues: women's suffrage, racial equality, slavery, murder, rape, body piercings, genocide, tattoos, pre-marital sex, abstinence-only education... At best, the scriptural arguments that support these positions are later held to be correct and valid, while the contrary positions are dismissed as "fleshly desires", and the supporting scriptural interpretations dismissed as false. You've stated a lot here in this one paragraph. While I understand and appreciate your point my experiences and study lead me to believe differently. I feel homosexuality is a sin and is not "compatible" with Christianity. I feel the same way about all other sin (homosexuality or whatever)...regardless of the sin....there is no compatibility between sin and Christianity. Sometimes my flesh wishes the overly righteous would pick on the the thieves and liars as much as they do the....homosexuals! You and I are closer together on our thoughts of "self proclaiming Christians" redefining sin to meet their personal needs/agendas throughout the ages though. There's a long discussion here about your combining the two different covenants, their historicity, intentions, and the application of the Gospel in light of these details but hopefully my thoughts were clear.
Thanks for your patience!
__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2011, 11:09 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Red text is often viewed as the same as all caps.
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.