|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholics & Inerrancy | |||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
OK I see what you're getting at. There would still be eyewitnesses around when the first letters were written even if the stories weren't being told by those who were witnesses which is most likely the case.
The guys that got involved in this dedicated their lives to it which I can't see happening if they weren't convinced of the truth of the resurrection. In addition the faith grew rapidly and sustained that growth which I can't see happening if the resurrection is just a fable. However, I think we're off topic and the stories are there. We can choose to believe or not. I personally find I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: Which just seems to bring everything back to if the Bible can be wrong in complete swatches of text, where is the justification for viewing it as nothing more than the work of tribal myth. Where is the authority? It is my contention that scriptural authority is not well understood by just about everybody outside the church and by many inside the church as well. I realize that I am just presenting my view and that I may well be completely wrong as I am sure that there will be no shortage of both Christians and non-Christians only be too happy to point out. In Mathew Jesus says the following:
quote: So God the Father has given Jesus the Son authority the question becomes where do we find authority now. Jesus says this in John 20.
quote: Jesus also said in John 14:
quote: There is nothing to suggest that The Bible on its own has any authority. All authority is God’s authority and the Bible only has authority as delegated by God. As Paul writes in Timothy 2:
quote: The Bible then is the road map that we follow so that we may exercise God’s authority in our God given vocation as humans to bring truth, love, forgiveness, reconciliation, mercy, justice etc to God’s created world. I realize that in using Biblical quotes to make my point I’m using something of a circular argument, however, if my point is correct that the Bible is our road map then it makes sense. Also, although it looks like I’m quote mining I contend that what I have said can also be read that way in the context of the entire Biblical narrative. So in the end I see it this way. God the Father invested his authority in the Jesus the Son who invested that same authority in us, the creatures created in His image. The Bible then is a road map, telling the story of God breaking into the world through His people. Here is one example of how I see it working. You have just picked up your new born infant for the first time and you are filled with the joy and wonder along with the love and sense of responsibility. Yes there are many that doesn’t work for, but they know at some level that they are failing to be what they are called to be. I believe that calling comes from God and we know deep down that we have authority over that child and that we are called to the model of authority that we see in Jesus in the scriptures. Jesus’ model of authority doesn’t look what we normally think of authority to look like. In God’s kingdom authority means that we are to love, serve and sacrifice. In this case we are called to unconditionally love our children, we are called to unconditionally serve our children and we are called to sacrifice for them. That is how I see God’s authority working and that model of authority comes from the scriptural narratives. Here is the take on it by someone infinitely more qualified on the subject than I am. NT Wright, who is certainly one of the top theologians/historians in the world today has this to say about Biblical authority. The following quote is from a talk given by NT Wright titled How Can the Bible be Authoritative The link will give you the whole lecture.
quote: Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: When a believer uses the Bible to make a point based on the Bible they’re using the Bible in an authoritative way. When I asked where is the authority, I am asking that given we know that parts of the Bible are incorrect then by what objective metric can be used to determine what is any parts are correct. If the writers were wrong about so much of what they wrote, why should anyone believe they were correct about any of their incredible statements? It seems to me that you think that the Bible is to be used as a book of laws. I don't see it that way. As I said it is a road map, and just as on any road map there is the correct route, there are also many side roads. The Bible is primarily a meta-narrative that involves many shorter narratives along the way. It isn't really a book at all but a collection of books with numerous authors. The writers in my view were inspired by God to record their history but I don't agree with the concept that God dictated it to them. The books are both culturally and writer conditioned. For example whenever they won a battle they write that God was with them, and whenever they lost a battle God was against them. I suggest that battles were lost and won for very human reasons and that God wasn't happy about them being involved in battles at all. I base this on the teachings of Jesus in the NT, and yet when we carefully go over what Jesus says in the NT we can see that it is based entirely on the Hebrew Scriptures. The early Israelites did just what we so often do today which is to mould God into the image that fits with our aspirations, but Jesus pulled out of the Hebrew Scriptures that which was of God. We are still called to do that with the Bible as we have it today. The so-called prosperity gospel is a good example of that. We also have cases where Christianity and nationalism become much to intertwined which can be extremely dangerous. All of us, me included, try to shape God into our image to one degree or another. However, as the prophet Micah says, what God wants of us is that we love kindness, do justice and walk humbly with our God, or as Jesus says love God and neighbour. If you want to the Bible to be a book telling you what to do that is all you need to know. The Bible though is more than that. It is the story of God involving Himself in the affairs of man as He interacts with us through our hearts and minds so that we freely accept having His love, kindness and justice written in our hearts and minds. I’ve posted this quote by CS Lewis before but I think that it is worth repeating in this context.
quote: (From Lewis’ book Miracles Chap 15.) In the end though, as we are all fallible human beings there is no objective metric. All we come with our biases and subjective views. In reality I can’t see how there could be an objective metric that would allow for free will in general, let alone allowing for the unconditional love. If we know conclusively that we are to be rewarded for humbly loving kindness and justice then we aren’t free to love freely. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Stile writes: I don't think 'the message' is a waste of time at all if there's no historical event. In fact, I think it's far more important of a message if there was no historical event. Good post and I agree. When I said that Christianity was a waste of time if the resurrection wasn't an historical event I didn't mean that the message of Christianity was wrong. I agree that I could have worded it better. I'll try and do better. Christianity came into being solely because of the resurrection. As Paul himself said in 1st Corinthians 15
quote: If the resurrection isn't true then Christianity is false and at best Jesus was a prophet with some funny ideas. There were numerous other Messianic movements during that 250 year or so period from the Maccabees through to the Bar Kokhba movement in 135 AD. All of the other movements failed and pretty much always meant that the leaders were executed. If Jesus was not resurrected then He was just another failed messiah, and so why should we then pay any more attention to him than any of the other failed messiahs? It is the resurrection that is the foundation of Christianity and without it Christianity is simply a Jewish sect with some false concepts. That does not mean of course that God doesn't exist or that He doesn't want us to live a life that humbly loves kindness and does justice. I am just saying that if the resurrection didn't happen then we have to come to our conclusions about what we believe about God, and how we live our lives, from some other source whether it be some other religion or through naturalistic means.
Stile writes: For me, it is more important to be good because we want to be that way, because we have faith in the honour of "good" being better than "evil". If we base our morality on some factual aspect of the world (resurrection, authority, loyalty, fear...) then we are restricting how far it can reach. Faith is as boundless as our imagination. Facts are restricted to what they are. "Good" must be unrestricted in order to triumph over evil, and the only way to do that is to base it on faith in itself that good really is good (boundless)... not faith in some fact being true to give us a reason to be good (restricted). I agree with all of that. I would add though that the fact that just because someone believes that the resurrection was an historical event, does not mean that they actually love goodness for its own sake. That is one reason that I have a major problem with those that sell Christianity on the basis that by giving intellectual consent to the Christian faith you get to live forever. If they just read their Bibles with an open mind and heart they could easily see that this is not the message that Jesus brought. Jesus' message is that we give our hearts over to God - a God that loves kindness, humility and justice. Jesus said this in Matthew 9:
quote: It is God's wish that everyone would turn to the way that He desires and by becoming incarnate in Jesus and through the death and resurrection He reached out to sinners, and for that matter all of mankind, in one great redemptive act. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
I agree completely. I would add though that it is my belief that the love of goodness can only come from God whether we recognize him or not, but of course that is a matter of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: I don’t recall using ‘law’. ‘Road map’ sounds suspiciously close to ‘following a prescribed path’. Perhaps you wish to expand on the differences you see between the two terms?
I mentioned "law" as you were talking about the Bible as an authoritative book. I assume that when you talk about authority you are talking about the thou shalt nots as opposed to the stories like that of Ruth and Boaz. I'm sure that when I use the term "road map" for the Bible that it isn't a perfect metaphor. It seems to me, as I've said before, that the Bible is primarily a meta-narrative that tells the story of God interacting with his image bearing creatures, from creation to new creation. Like a road map the story has many twists and turns, optional routes, as well as routes that get you lost and other various diversions. The one common theme throughout that keeps you on the direct route is unselfish love and to stretch it a little further we have God as seen in Jesus as the GPS. I think that's the best I can do with that and I've no doubt left myself open to attack and ridicule from all sides.
Trae writes: Is it your position that when the writers of the Bible go beyond the above they’re simply offering opinions? If so, how does opinion become a ‘map’?
I don't know how to answer such a general question as that. The Bible is as we all know a collection of books with many different authors collected together to create the one great meta-narrative. In general though, I don't see it as opinion but as people inspired to record all the narratives that together form the great narrative that is the Bible. I realize that the Bible isn't all narrative but I think that even the poetry, drama etc blend in and become part of the whole story. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: Which I think is obvious by the inability of so-called followers to reliably convey the so-called messages. But that puts us back to why follow the book if the message is corrupted? It also raises the problem of either Christ had uncorrupted information or why trust Christ’s messages? I think though that the problem is that you are insisting on reading the Bible from the same perspective that a Christian who is a biblical literalist does. It isn't that the message is corrupted but it is written in an ancient style. Included in that are grand metaphors like the creation story, inspired mythologies like Noah and Jonah, the laws as written in Leviticus, Numbers etc as the writers struggle to work out how to serve their God, the inspired revelations in Daniel, Isaiah, Micah and others in the OT. As we come to the more modern times of 2000 years ago the truth of what is written becomes historically, but not necessarily perfectly accurate. Through all this though we are dealing with a variety of authors whose writing, like everyone else's writing, is personally and culturally conditioned. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: ‘Love your neighbor’ isn’t really a lengthy laundry list of morals. The writers of the new testament give additional moral teachings. If the Bible is not inerrant why should anyone believe that the Bible writers are passing along a message from God, rather than their own beliefs?
Love your neighbour, love your enemy, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, humbly love kindness and do justice are all from the Bible and in one way or another they all say the same thing. I agree that it's simple and basic, but how well are any of us, or for that matter how is the world doing? It may be simple in theory, but in practice - not so much. Sure there are inconsistencies even in the NT, but it is like 5 people describing a car accident. Their stories may differ slightly but they are all in agreement that there was an accident. The Gospel writers may remember things in a slightly different order etc but they all agree that Jesus was crucified, buried and then appeared again with a new kind of physicality. Once again the Bible in total is the story of the people that God chose to bring his message to the world. It tells of when they got it right, and when they got it wrong. I'd point out that the God who desires that we love our neighbour, and even love our enemies, is very different than the gods we find amongst the pagan neighbours of the early Jews. I'd say that the world is still a very long way from perfect but it is a better world now, than the world we see depicted by any of the historians, including those who wrote the OT. God is making progress with us even if it's a long, difficult and irregular process. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: A problem with this line of thought is clearly that God’s current followers fare poorly in communicating a consensus of messages by any reasonable objective standard. So either the communication is incredibly rare, or the current communication is incredibly flawed. If God’s message is this poorly discerned then it seems to me silly for anyone to say that they actually know God’s message. If the Bible is demonstratively errant and if modern followers cannot demonstrate they are actually in communication with God, then it seems frankly evil to claim what God wants. But you keep insisting that the Bible be read in the same way that a Christian who insists that the Bible be read like a science text does. It isn't that kind of collection of books. It's a narrative of God working in the world. God wants us to freely choose unselfish love. If God were to supernaturally make everything crystal clear we would no longer be able to choose unselfish love. You also seem to be able to identify evil. How do you know what evil is? How do you know it even exists? If evil exists the so must goodness. I think both of us know the difference between good and evil. I'm suggesting that the Bible tells the story of God, by working through His created beings, to bring goodness to the world and eradicate evil. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: So ignore inconsistencies as a problem by saying they’re not the important parts, but that agreement is proof of the miraculous? Why not believe all the stories of which there is but one account? Since they cannot be inconsistent with their own telling? As I pointed out earlier, we are dealing with different authors several years after the event. Frankly if they all described the events with the same exact detail I would give them less credibility - not more. In my view they are clearly writing events in the way that they remember them or else in the way it was told to them. They are all clear though on the centrality and certainty of the resurrection to the entire narrative. I've written on other threads that I believe that mankind is evolving in a spiritual sense in that we are gradually, over time but inconsistently, becoming more like the creatures that God intends us to be. The Bible chronicles the story of God interacting with His creation to move that evolution along. The Bible tells that story up to the end of the NT era.
Trae writes: Can you clarify this? How can we know which parts are right and which are wrong? I realize that I'm becoming repetitious but I again suggest that you are insisting the Bible be read in the same way a Biblical literalist does. It isn't that kind of book. At its most basic the Bible tells us two things. First it tells us what God wants of us which is to love humbly and unselfishly. Secondly the Bible tells us that it is God's plan to redeem this world when time comes to an end, (not tomorrow by the way ),so that what we do now to care for God's creation including the planet and all life on it matters eternally. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Trae writes: What I am saying is that it seems objectively correct that that there is no message or that there is no objective way to ferret out which messages or of God. This being the case there is no discernable way to determine between a flawed Bible inspired by God and a flawed Bible which is not inspired by God.
Sure. I wouldn't dispute that. Amongst Christians there is disagreement on that matter. There is no proof of any of it. I know that the Bible is true, not like I know that 2 plus 2 make 4, but like I know that my wife loves me. The Bible makes sense to me. It makes sense of my world and my life. In addition in my Christian walk I have experiences that appear to me to be outside of what I would expect. Frankly the uncertainty in and of itself makes sense as I pointed out earlier. If there was certainty then unselfish love becomes essentially impossible. We are to love unselfishly for its own sake not for reward.
Trae writes: But yet that is exactly what we’re told he does do. Miracles to some and not others. Grace to some and not others. Messengers to some and not others. Born in Christian countries to some and not for others. Again, I think that you are making the mistake that some fundalmentalists do. Those that are blessed with miracles, messengers and a Christian environment are blessed with the vocation of spreading God's truth, forgiveness, mercy and restorative love to the world. I realize that when you look at the church you would very often suggest that I would have to be kidding. Two points on that. Firstly what makes the news is the church screwing up while the many good things that are done go unnoticed. Secondly Jesus said in Matthew 9:
quote: In other words we should expect the church to be made up of people like myself - imperfect sinners. We aren't perfect and maybe even, heaven forbid, more flawed than most. New creation, whenever it happens, is for those that ultimately choose unselfish love over selfish love regardless of their theology. Grace is offered to all who choose it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
crashfrog writes: And nobody should take the Bible, nor any other book, on faith either. Nobody should take anything on faith - faith is a form of self-delusion. It's just a jump to whatever conclusion you feel is the most satisfying. But we take all sorts of things on faith. It can be as simple as having faith that the chair I am sitting on is going to continue to support me. I spent a career in aviation and every time I took off I had faith that the technology and the maintenance of that aircraft would allow me to get from A to B. I have faith that I have been created with purpose and by a loving creator. I have faith that I am called to reflect that love into creation. It is easy to put it down as to what is most satisfying, but frankly there have been times in my life when to repudiate my Christian faith would have been easier and possibly even more satisfying.
crashfrog writes: If the church cannot perfect sinners, then what use is it? Like I have said many times - being a Christian isn't necessarily going to make me a better kinder person than my atheistic next door neighbour, but it should make me a better kinder person than I had been previously. The church, including myself, is charged with reflecting God's love, mercy, forgiveness, justice etc into the world. That isn't to suggest that it does it well but sometimes it does. Sometimes it does just the opposite. We all have our failings regardless of our beliefs. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
SB writes: Argument ad populum? Really? So... we should trust the bible because "a lot of people believe it"? Seriously? I didn't say that was a reason to believe it. I only said that it makes it relevant.
SB writes: If she didn't, she wouldn't be concerned with me and leave. Maybe she stays for some reason other than love. You choose to believe she stays because she loves you.
SB writes:
Actually I knew that. I wrote world when I should have written universe. I agree with both of your statements.
That's because it isn't. The world is 4.6 billion years old, which CAN be proven. The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, which can ALSO be proven. SB writes: Evolution is a FACT. Common ancestry is a FACT. The phylogenetic tree is a testament to that fact.Natural selection is the theory, which CAN be demonstrated to be a viable mechanism (genetic algoritms and stuff). Evolution theory is as proven as a scientific theory can be. I have no disagreement with any of that either except to say that in the end believing in evolution, even though all the evidence we have points in that direction, is still not the same as believing that 2 + 2 = 4. I would call myself a theistic evolutionist but that would be giving me far too much credit. I accept evolutionary theory based on the arguments and opinions of people that actually have studied biology and actually know what they are talking about.
SB writes: *ahum* TESTABLE conclusions. None of our beliefs about god(s) or lack of god(s) are testable but we all come to some conclusion.
SB writes: It amazes me that you can say this and even seem to be proud of it. You really don't see anything wrong with such reasoning? You just "assume" it was true and went from there? Come on now...Talk about a priori conclusions... In the example that you are referring to, I did look at the case that was being made for the resurrection and believed it to be true. In the scientific sense it couldn't be proven, but as I just said, it can't be disproven either. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. I believe it's me that is right and you believe it's you, and we carry on from there.
SB writes: I reject the claim of resurerection because there is not a shred of evidence for it. There isn't even a shred of evidence that jezus, the human, ever even existed. And when we look around in nature, we never see dead things come back alive days after dieing. The rational position here is obviously to reject the claim. The Bible is an ancient text. Somebody, or for that matter, several somebodies wrote it. They say that the resurrection happened. That is evidence. They may be mistaken, they may be lying or they may be writing about what really happened. So we do have evidence which we can choose to accept or reject as you have done. I agree that in nature once something is dead it stays dead other than if life is resuscitated. The Christian belief is that the resurrection was a once only occurrence that was outside the bounds of what we consider to be natural.
SB writes: Maybe you can "choose" what undefendable things you believe, but I can't do that. I can only believe what convinces me.There is nothing convincing to me about any religion. But I do find the case for my faith convincing. I don't think for one minute that I will convince you but that's ok by me. I guess I'm not convinced that the only thing that can be considered as evidence is that which is testable.
1. Please don't strawman me. 2. non-existance is assumed until existance is demonstrated. That is the rational way to reason. That's not a strawman. The material world does exist and we know a great deal about how it exists, but there remains the big philosophical question, which is why does it exist at all. Why is there something instead of nothing?
SB writes: I do not claim that no gods exist. However, nobody seems to be able to prove that gods do exist. Hence, I operate under the assumption that they don't. You may not claim that no god(s) exist but it seems to me that you are claiming that if they do that we can't know anything about them. I believe that we can. If you want to consider my position irrational that is fine by me. I agree that I am unable to come up with any irrefutable proof or argument that will change your mind. That proof or argument doesn't exist but neither does it exist for what you believe. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
crashfrog writes: That's not faith. When you believe that something that has not let you down before is probably not going to let you down in the future, that's trust. I agree with you completely and I agree that trust is a better word for what we are talking about. As far as my beliefs are concerned, my trust is in my Christian God as revealed to us in Jesus Christ. I trust that what he wants of me is that I humbly love kindness and justice. I trust that these are His own qualities and I trust that in the end there is an ultimate restorative justice for all of creation.
crashfrog writes: But you have faith in your divine purpose in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. That's why it's faith. And that's why it's an unreasonable belief, while belief in your wife's affections and the technology of flight are both very reasonable. The difference is that there's evidence for those two, but not for God. This is where we run into difficulty. You aren't going to accept what I see as evidence as being any kind of evidence at all. I see a beautiful universe as being evidence, I see the rationality of our natural world as evidence, I see the Bible as evidence, I see the fact that mankind is capable of unselfish love as evidence, and I even see the fact that I exist at all as evidence. For me the Christian narrative makes more sense than any other answer to that evidence. But you are right, it is an issue of trust and I probably do use the word faith many times when I should use the word trust. Thanks for that.
crashfrog writes: Then why doesn't it ever do that? Why doesn't the church seem to be any more effective than the general rate that people improve all on their own? It does appear to me that in comparison to the general population the church does do commit to more charitable work. Most of the overseas NGO's are run by Christians including many by the fundamentalists whose theology I have a great deal of trouble with. I do know my life changed and has continued to do so since I became a Christian and that is the only case that I am able to attest to. (I've ended two sentences in a row with a preposition. I'm going to have the grammar police down on me as well. ) Cheers Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
crashfrog writes: As far as trust goes, you agree, I presume, that trust can be misplaced? That someone can trust in something that, in fact, is not worthy of their trust? That an individual makes an error, for the most part, when they place their trust in something they have ample evidence is not trustworthy? Of course trust can be misplaced and I can't prove that my trust in God isn't. As far as trust in the Christian God is concerned it seems to me that it is pretty basic. Back to my favourite verse which is Micah 6:8.
quote:Sure as a Christian there is a lot more that I believe, but essentially that statement covers all of what God is asking of us. I contend that there is evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the verse I just quoted is something worthwhile on which to base our lives, whether we be Christian, Muslim, Atheist or anything else. crashfrog writes: But the fact that you have this suspicion indicates that, at some level at least, you understand that there's something fishy going on here. After all what kind of evidence depends on who is hearing it? That's not a feature of legitimate evidence. After all, there's nothing that's so special about you that allows the standard rules of reason to be suspended when evidence is presented to you, but not when its presented to me. And if, I suspect, you wouldn't find your own encounters with the divine to be particularly compelling when informed of them happening to someone else, what's so special about you that when it happens to you, you're convinced? I agree that I'm not special nor particularly bright. I don't believe that I have been specifically chosen, and I agree that it has to do with being exposed to Christians both in my personal life and in the literature I've read that espouse what is in my view thoughtful Christianity. I think if I was of the belief that to be a Christian I had to accept the OT as some of our fundamentalist friends read it I would have to reject it. I think too that what is implicit in your post is the idea that my theological views make me right with God, and the fact that as you don't hold those views you are doomed for eternity. I don't see it that way at all. This is from Matthew 7.
quote: If as a Christian I do really trust in God to be the centre of my life to the point that I do more perfectly live a life based on His truth, love, mercy, forgiveness, justice etc then yes, when time ends, (glad it wasn't yesterday because I was really busy), I will be with Him. That does not mean though that my atheistic neighbour, my Muslim neighbour or my Samaritan neighbour won't be there as well. (There being God's recreated heaven and earth, which means we have to take good care of this earth in the mean time.)
crashfrog writes: What's so special about you? We shouldn't unjustly privilege the truth of personal stories just because they happened to us and not somebody else. THis from Matthew 9.
quote: I'm not a Christian because I'm special but because I'm a sinner. I also don't believe that it confers special privilege on me. It only means that I have the job of reflecting God's love and justice to the world with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, scripture and all mankind. (I have learned more about God on this forum from Atheists than I have from Christians.)
crashfrog writes: If you would explain the Muslim's brush with Allah as a delusion, or as socialization, or even as a misinterpreted brush with "real" (Catholic) divinity, then why not explain your own personal account that way, as well? I don't try to explain other people's experience of God under any name except to say that if it isn't consistent with the message of God's desire that we love unselfishly, then I would have to question it.
crashfrog writes: Contrary to most reflexive grammarians, as well as to the hated and incredibly erroneous Strunk and White, a preposition is a perfectly natural thing to end a sentence with. You can't be too careful on this forum. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025