|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Politcally Correct Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I've tried to explain to you before: if the Bible was "inspired", what the authors had in mind is irrelevant, because the interpretation(s) can be equally inpired. I think we can set this aside, since there can be no reasoned argument here. If I interpret a passage of scripture in what seems to me a plausible way, you can just say, "Well, that's not what it means. According to my divine inspiration, it means soemthing quite different from what you think it means."
And if it was not inspired, what they had in mind is relevant only in a cultural/historic sense, not a religious/moral sense. Now in this case, what they had in mind is what the Bible means. So if you add some ideas to the Bible that they did not have in mind, in order to modernize it, what is the point of employing the Bible as a guide at all? You might as well discard it and just use your own ideas. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But the thing with calling an intepretation fraudulent suggests that you have proof that they are fraudulent, which you don't. Do you honestly think if the church fathers took the bible as literally as Faith or Ian does that there would be such a thing as Christianty? I'm not talking about literal vs. figurative, I'm talking about concepts. If there's a concept in the New Testament that the New Agers don't like, they change it to some modern concept (the blood propitiation idea is an example). There are plausible and implausible interpretations. The New Agers' modern ideas grafted onto the Bible are extremely implausible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: If I interpret a passage of scripture in what seems to me a plausible way, you can just say, "Well, that's not what it means. According to my divine inspiration, it means soemthing quite different from what you think it means." The dogmatists are constantly saying that to me.
... what is the point of employing the Bible as a guide at all? Where did I say anything about using it as a "guide"?
You might as well discard it and just use your own ideas. I don't throw out a book just because it doesn't mesh 100% with my ideas.I also don't change my own ideas based on any book. Edited by Ringo, : Adjusted verb tension. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phat
Are you suggesting that rather than the black/white awareness of good/evil which we are innately aware of...rather...there is just an acknowledgement (a rather gray one) of humanity as just being "human"??? We are aware only of what we are taught and agree with as pertains to laws and ideas of justice. That we are inately aware of borders to our behaviour become laws only through concensus. Thus murder is murder in the civilian world while in a military campaign such behaviour is an acceptable action, again a societal consensus that we agree to in majority.
Sounds like a great ploy by a defense attorney to get a murderer off the hook! Not at all. That you cannot as an individual control whatever impulses you act upon does not affect how the societal sgreement may or may not pertain to you. Thus we imprison those that commit crimes that disrupt the social order regardless of whether you had a choice in the matter or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Where did I say anything about using it as a "guide"? Yes you are, and at any rate Jar is, and I assume you agree with him. The central idea in his religion comes right out the New Testament, so the New Testament is a guide for his religion. However, he changes the meaning around to make it New Age. Why bother with that? Why not just state the idea without these misleading references to the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because the basic message of the Bible comes (surprise) from the Bible. LOL
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Because the basic message of the Bible comes (surprise) from the Bible The problem is that what the authors meant is the message of the Bible, and what the authors meant does not fit your ideas, which are modern ideas, not ancient ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: Where did I say anything about using it as a "guide"? Yes you are.... I asked, "Where?" Thou shalt not make unfounded claims about what I said.
... at any rate Jar is, and I assume you agree with him. Thou shalt not assume. I like being compared to jar, but that doen't make me responsible for everything he says.
Why not just state the idea without these misleading references to the Bible? If you're "misled", that's your problem, not mine. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Bible is a Living Document. It is not good to stone folk that work on the Sabbath.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
But this fails to answer the question of why God would instill lust within people in the first place. Why would he not make the sexual act something more progressive and not ,at times, overwhelming of good judgement? God didn't instill lust. Lust is simply the wonky operation of what was originally a very well designed mechanism. God didn't put the spanner in the works. Adam did.
Yet the laws ,if put in place by a God to test humans, should fail to prevent humans from following the impulses that the laws are supposed to limit, then failing to follow them is a response of the nature that the God allowed us to have. He cannot hold responsible humans who had no part in the creation of those impulses that he himself instilled. Like I said he did not instill these things. Neither did he put the laws there to test us. Tell me this: how would you know you were a lawbreaker if there was no laws to break? How would you know that you were doing wrong in stepping on the grass if there was no sign didn't tell you to keep of the grass? You could ask "Well then, why did he make the laws in the first place - if he had not then we wouldn't be able to break them?" The thing is, sin is present in us. A stain, a blot on our character. We have that blot as born before we even get to actually sinning. This blot needs to be dealt with in some way. Giving the law was Gods way of dealing with it. In giving the law sin is allowed to express itself. The law acts as a lure in order to get sin to become fully active. Sin (to personify it) sees the law and comes out of hiding in order to break it. That is the weakness of sin - it cannot hide when laws are about. If no law then sin just sits there like a blot. But if lured out, if allowed to fully express itself then there is an opportunity to deal with it. To lop off its head. The law is trap. A God designed trap. It aims to trap sin within us.
But why the punishment for following free will {which is another topic related to this} when we cannot do other than follow the choices as a consequence of who we are? We do not have free will in the sense normally understood. Adam had free will before he fell. We have not. We are addicts of sin. Born addicted and injecting at the first opportunity. To say we have free will is to say an addict has free will to not inject heroin. No! We are, as the bible says "slaves to sin". Try to insert that into your questioning an see does it alter your difficulty. It is important to see it that way.
Any law that is in place can be broken of course but if we are created then why are we given the capability of breaking the laws? Again I must point to the way it is. Adam was given the capability to break or not. We are not Adam, we are not born with the capability to break or not to break. As we are born, we, of ourselves, are incapable of keeping any law. We are, of ourselves, completely depraved. Left to our own devices we would do nothing but break the law as fast as we could. The only reason we don't fall into total depravity (if indeed we do not) is down to Gods action upon us. Romans 1 talks of Gods wrath poured out on the wickedness and ungodliness of man - who suppress the truth about God. Paul describes the depravity that occurs as a result of that suppression of truth. A man who suppresses the truth that God reveals to him (say through conscience) is given over to sin. Gods truth holds a man from a slide into complete depravity. As man (and we all do this) suppressed truths so a man slides further and further into the abyss. Hilter was a case of a total slide - but all men are on that same slope.
If we had a choice to be able to choose a life where we did no harm to anyone ,while cognizant of all the harmful ramifications of the action we might make, would anyone ever do so? I think not. It is because we have insufficient knowledge and/or are not mature enough { a responsibilty that would fall to God I might add } or overcome with emotional interactions that we do break laws and do harm others. This is just not the way it is. What ifs are fruitless avenues. It is how it is.
Either way I assert that the responsibilty for the capability would lay with a creator God since the whole ball of wax is, supposedly his doing in the first place. God did give the capability of free choice to Adam. There is no other rational option for having a person freely love God. It is Gods right as sovereign to decide to do so. It is not the same situation for us - we do not start off with a clean slate to chose either way. But it turns out that if we are finally saved we too will love God freewillingly (at that point - his plan involves changing our will so as to be able to love him freely - all without interfering in deterministic fashion with our will to reject him. There is a Great Debate thread between me and Larni which covers this a little more but simply put: if we do not reject we will be brought to a place where we find we want him)
To be human is to realize that you likely cannot avoid harm or break law throughout your life since laws are man made and socially enforced. Man made laws arise out of a conviction in man that law is good. He didn't lick that idea off a stone. The laws reflect very often Gods own laws. How many laws actually expound on Love your neighbour as yourself. Most I'll warrant. Mans laws are a derivitive of Gods laws.
It could also be , as I suspect, that God simply does not exist and that we take the actions we do based on the evolved social structures and interactions with others. I know it is not so although I cannot prove it. Expanding "the workings of God" into "does God exist in the first place" broadens things to a pointless level - there is no profit in casting the net that wide. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Nope: still on two letters. The 'i' is in the correct position though. Well done!
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Thou shalt not assume. I don't have any choice. Every time I ask you a direct question about your beliefs, you refuse to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The Bible is a Living Document What does that mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I didn't say that sinners are threatened with Hell. I said if you do not do as Jesus asks you to do then you go to Hell. This is a threat, follow me or go to Hell. It isn't difficult to understand. That's the conditional love of Christ, the jealous God. How can it be an threat (in the classic sense of the word) if there is no condition that can be met by you. Sounds more like a promise to me. You cannot have a conditional love if you cannot meet the conditions can you? There is something missing from your conclusion. Yes, you will go to Hell unless you( I mean 'you' in the sense of a person being a non-Christian)do as Jesus commands you to do. But you cannot do as he commands so to hell you will go. Now I don't do what Jesus commands me to do either (I may follow his commands less than you per chance do in fact) but I am going to heaven. What is the difference between you and me? The only difference is that I am a Christian (which doesn't describe the mechanisms involved in making thing the way they are - its 'just' an umbrella title for all of that) and you are not a Christian. The resolution to the apparent dilemma lies within that single item (and all that that entails) Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
robinrohan writes: Every time I ask you a direct question about your beliefs, you refuse to answer. Not at all. You never ask specific questions, and when you ask vague questions you refuse to accept my answers. If you're so all-fired fascinated by what I believe, start a thread on "What Ringo Believes". If you make assumptions, you will often be wrong. It would be wise to not post your wrong assumptions for the whole world to see. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024