Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 76 of 1324 (698881)
05-10-2013 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
05-06-2013 11:03 PM


Either there is an intelligent first cause or there isn’t. I simply made the statement that I believe that there is and I gave a brief explanation of one of the reasons for that.
It was an argument from incredulity, and you tried to lessen the impact of the fallacy on your argument by trying to claim that "atheists do it too" (i.e. tu quoque fallacy). It was two fallacies for the price of one.
The Gospels are evidence.
The Gospels are the claim. What we mean by evidence is objective evidence that demonstrates the Gospels are true.
The balanced universe is evidence, one complex living cell is evidence, the fact that we can think about these things is evidence etc.
Evidence of what?
In order to have evidence you need something that is falsifiable and testable. From what I have seen, what you have are unfalsifiable dogmatic beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 05-06-2013 11:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 1:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 1324 (698907)
05-10-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by GDR
05-10-2013 11:19 AM


Re: The Gospel Message
Faith writes:
Oh no my mind IS made up, of course. All I mean is that there is no point in arguing further when it's clear there's no hope of persuading each other.
You are probably right but I do know that I have refined what it is I believe over the years.
When you believe that the Bible is God's word you don't "refine" what you believe, you simply learn deeper and deeper implications of what you believe.
I have one question. How is it that you or anybody decided that the Bible should be read as the inerrant Word of God.
If the Bible in its entirety is inerrant then that has to be the starting point for what we believe about the nature of God and how that should impact our lives.
However, we are Christians. It seems to me that as Christians our starting point should be the Christ. I understand that the only real reference we have for learning about Jesus is in the Bible. However the Bible is not one book but a collection of books. As Christians what reason is there to give for example the author of Deuteronomy the same credibility as the book of John.
In a certain sense I simply "knew" it was God's word, all of it, early on, when I was born again, having partly to do with understanding something of the nature of God who inspired it, and once you believe that the Bible is the word of God you are continually finding out just how all thise books by all those different writers confirm and build upon one another, which continually confirms your belief that it is all the word of God. Also, I haven't checked this out myself but it is commonly said that Jesus quotes from every book in the Old Testament. If HE treated it all as inspired scripture shouldn't we?
The basis of Christianity is that God confirmed to mankind by the resurrection of Jesus that we can trust what it was that Jesus had to tell us. He didn't do that for any other prophet or Biblical author.
As Jesus told the disciples on the Road to Emmaus in Luke 24, the Old Testament is all about HIM, and I've heard some great Reformed hermeneutics teaching tht elucidates this fact in ways we might normally overlook.
John says this at the end of his Gospel.
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Here we have a man, (although it could be someone else writing from what John had to say), who had intimate contact with Jesus who embodied the Word of God. As I say, what is it that makes you believe that the words of the author of the book of Deuteronomy should carry the same weight as the words of John.
What I said above. The Holy Spirit. The fact that generations before me, led by Holy Spirit, affirmed the same.
Also, over the years I've read a ton of books and heard a ton of sermons on radio, tapes etc., by the best Bible inerrancy teachers, who bring out different facets of Biblical truth, all of them agreeing on the basics but sometimes disagreeing on minor secondary points. If you confine yourself to only one or a few teachers like your favorite guy Wright you can't possibly know anything about these things.
It is my contention that we should start with Jesus and understand the rest of the Bible in that light.
That would be reasonable if you had the right view of Jesus, but when you throw out any of the Old Testament revelation you can't have the right view of Jesus, He becomes just your own idea of Him rather than who He really was.
So, I would be very curious to know on what basis, other than that others have believed it in the past, do you believe that we should understand the Bible as being inerrant. What is the reason that you came to that conclusion?
But what others have believed in the past is a HUGE reason to believe it. Plus everything I said above: Jesus quoted it all; it only gets deeper with experience and study and hearing many teachers; and it all works together in ways one might even describe as miraculous considering that it was written over about 1500 years by forty or so different men of God in many different eras and cultural settings. Etc.
GDR, you are relying on your fallen mind to judge things that can only be judged through the Holy Spirit.
=====================================================================================
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 11:19 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 7:52 PM Faith has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 78 of 1324 (698913)
05-10-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
05-10-2013 11:29 AM


Taq writes:
It was an argument from incredulity, and you tried to lessen the impact of the fallacy on your argument by trying to claim that "atheists do it too" (i.e. tu quoque fallacy). It was two fallacies for the price of one.
Yes, I agree that I find it too incredulous to believe that this world where we experience life with intelligence and morality that we should have evolved from a non-intelligent first cause. Yes, I agree that I find it too incredulous to believe that a living cell could have evolved from a chance combination of mindless particles without an intelligent first cause.
That part of my belief is an argument from incredulity.
Atheists keep bringing up Occam’s Razor with the claim that the simplest answer is going to be the right one and that adding a god(s) to the equation violates that principle. In other words the idea of a god(s) is too incredulous to be believed.
That is an argument from incredulity.
That is not a tu quoque fallacy and if you think it is I’d be interested in knowing why you think it is.
Taq writes:
The Gospels are the claim. What we mean by evidence is objective evidence that demonstrates the Gospels are true.
Yes the Gospels are the claim. It is the same as any other historical document. For instance we can read Josephus and know that he had a particular take on things, and come to a conclusion about what we believe about what he wrote. All historical documents are evidence of some aspect of human history, but none of it is objective in the scientific sense.
Taq writes:
In order to have evidence you need something that is falsifiable and testable.
Well that’s certainly one kind of evidence and from a scientific point of view you are correct. It is the type of evidence on which you can come to an objective conclusion. There is the kind of evidence however, such as emotional evidence, or as I just pointed out, historical documents that will only allow us subjective conclusions.
Taq writes:
From what I have seen, what you have are unfalsifiable dogmatic beliefs.
I agree that my beliefs are unfalsifiable but I don’t see that my beliefs are any more dogmatic than yours. Yes, I have strongly held beliefs but I also acknowledge that I may be wrong.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 05-10-2013 11:29 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 2:23 PM GDR has replied
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 05-10-2013 3:54 PM GDR has replied
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 9:21 PM GDR has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 1324 (698915)
05-10-2013 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
05-10-2013 1:56 PM


Yes, I agree that I find it too incredulous to believe that a living cell could have evolved from a chance combination of mindless particles without an intelligent first cause.
"Chance"...
I don't like that word. Ya know, if you've got a sodium ion and a chlorine ion floating around in water, you could use the word "chance" to talk about them binding together to make salt. But its a spontaneous reaction that's going to happen all by itself if the water evaporates. Saying it happened by chance, as if that somehow changes the probability of its inevitability, is a really bad way to describe it.
A lot of the reactions that happen inside your body, kinda like that ones that might have precluded the first cells, happen spontaneously on their own and not "from a chance".
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 1:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 05-10-2013 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 9:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 1324 (698916)
05-10-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
05-10-2013 2:23 PM


intended consequences
We need to remember that a living cell may not even be an intended consequence and looking at the available evidence, humans almost certainly were not an intended consequence.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 81 of 1324 (698924)
05-10-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
05-10-2013 1:56 PM


Atheists keep bringing up Occam’s Razor with the claim that the simplest answer is going to be the right one and that adding a god(s) to the equation violates that principle. In other words the idea of a god(s) is too incredulous to be believed.
That's not it at all. There is simply no reason to include gods in our explanations to begin with since there is no evidence for them. That is the whole point.
I agree that my beliefs are unfalsifiable but I don’t see that my beliefs are any more dogmatic than yours.
And once again we are faced with the tu quoque fallacy.
What do you think my beliefs are, and why do you think they are dogmatic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 1:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 2:42 AM Taq has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 82 of 1324 (698932)
05-10-2013 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
05-10-2013 1:22 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
Faith writes:
In a certain sense I simply "knew" it was God's word, all of it, early on, when I was born again, having to do with understanding something of the nature of God who inspired it, and once you believe that the Bible is the word of God you are continually finding out just how all thise books by all those different writers confirm and build upon one another, which continually confirms your belief that it is all the word of God. Also, I haven't checked this out myself but it is common ly said that Jesus quotes from every book in the Old Testament. If HE treated it all as inspired scripture shouldn't we?
I’ll start from your last sentence and work backwards. I have no idea whether or not Jesus took quotes from every book in the OT but He certainly referred to their Scriptures all the time. As I said earlier He took His Son of Man reference from Daniel in order to explain His Kingdom message. Riding the donkey into Jerusalem was referring His followers to Zechariah making a messianic statement as well as proclaiming His message of peace. If you have a Bible that is well foot-noted it is plain that He is constantly referring to the OT. That however does not mean that He treated it as inerrant which is very different than saying it is inspired. I agree that it is inspired but I certainly don’t agree that is inerrant and neither did Jesus.
Jesus was constantly correcting what was in the OT. Here are some examples just from Matthew 5.
quote:
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
He is referring back to Deuteronomy 24 1-3
quote:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
He is referring back to Exodus 21 24
quote:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
He is referring to Deuteronomy 23 ;6 or Ezra 9:12
There were all the sacrificial laws in the OT and Jesus declared that He wanted mercy not sacrifice.
So yes, Jesus viewed the Hebrew Scriptures as being important but He also viewed them as something that needed to be corrected where they were in error.
Yes, I agree that the books of the Bible build on one another. It is a narrative that grows as the Hebrew people continue to be influenced by God continuing to speak to their hearts and minds. Here is a quote from CS Lewis about that.
quote:
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology — the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
I believe that Beethoven was inspired when he wrote his 5th symphony. God gave him an extraordinary talent and as a result Beethoven wrote wonderful music. That does not mean he did it perfectly The Bible authors were given the gift of being able to write down their ideas and in many cases were also inspired by specific revelation of God. Once again however, that does not mean they did it perfectly. All Scripture is both personally and cultured conditioned.
What we should celebrate as Christians is the belief that God has given us His Word directly through Jesus. Sure, today we still are dependent on imperfect humans to transcribe His words to us, but we have a variety of authors so that we can cross-check one against the other to come up with a coherent message.
So I agree that the OT is essential in understanding who Jesus was within the Jewish context. However, I also believe that our understanding of who God is and what He desires of us in the OT can only be understood through His Word as embodied by Jesus in the NT.
Faith writes:
As Jesus told the disciples on the Road to Emmaus in Luke 24, the Old Testament is all about HIM, and I've heard some great Reformed hermeneutics teaching tht elucidates this fact in ways we might normally overlook.
I agree that the OT is a foreshadowing of Jesus.
Faith writes:
What I said above. The Holy Spirit. The fact that generations before me, led by Holy Spirit, affirmed the same.
Also, over the years I've read a ton of books and heard a ton of sermons on radio, tapes etc., by the best Bible inerrancy teachers, who bring out different facets of Biblical truth, all of them agreeing on the basics but sometimes disagreeing on specifics. If you confine yourself to only one or a few teachers like your favorite guy Wright you can't possibly know anything about these things.
I don’t confine myself to Wright. I have shelves of books that I have read from a variety of authors including fundamentalists. Here is a good book which I have and have read that presents 4 different views on understanding the Scriptures.
Show Them No Mercy
In it you will find an author who you would agree with and one who I agree with and a couple in between.
By the way. Have you ever read any of Wright’s books?
Faith writes:
That would be reasonable if you had the right view of Jesus, but when you throw out any of the Old Testament revelation you can't have the right view of Jesus, He becomes just your own idea of Him rather than who He really was.
Why would you say that? I have written several posts to you explaining how I understand Jesus through reference to the OT. The problem is that you disregard anything that doesn’t fit your pre-conceived ideas. Your inerrant view of the OT trumps the words of Jesus.
Faith writes:
But what others have believed in the past is a HUGE reason to believe it. Plus eve rything I said above: Jesus quoted it all; it only gets deeper with experience and study and hearing many teachers; and it all works together in ways one might even describe as miraculous considering that it was written over about 1500 years by forty or so different men of God in many different eras and cultural settings. Etc.
Others have believed all sorts of things in the past like believing that the world was flat and used the Bible to confirm their views. People in the past have believed all sorts of things about the Bible and there would be those who would agree with me.
Faith writes:
GDR, you are relying on your fallen mind to judge things that can only be judged through the Holy Spirit.
Firstly it does seem to me that God has given us a gift of reason and presumably He wants us to use it. Secondly I just wonder why it is that it is you and other like minded fundamentalists are able to discern the truth of what the Holy Spirit has to tell us but other Christians can’t. What basis do you have to believe that you are better able to discern what the Holy Spirit has to tell us than I am?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-10-2013 1:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-11-2013 6:16 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 83 of 1324 (698938)
05-10-2013 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
05-10-2013 1:56 PM


Deleted as I posted in the wrong thread.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 1:56 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 84 of 1324 (698939)
05-10-2013 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
05-10-2013 2:23 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
"Chance"...
I don't like that word. Ya know, if you've got a sodium ion and a chlorine ion floating around in water, you could use the word "chance" to talk about them binding together to make salt. But its a spontaneous reaction that's going to happen all by itself if the water evaporates. Saying it happened by chance, as if that somehow changes the probability of its inevitability, is a really bad way to describe it.
A lot of the reactions that happen inside your body, kinda like that ones that might have precluded the first cells, happen spontaneously on their own and not "from a chance".
Of course lots of things happen by chance. The odds against the specific sperm and egg combination that resulted in my existence are impossibly long but here I am.
So yes, no matter how long the odds are, there are things that happen by chance. I am not offering up proof that our existence didn't depend of particles, (wherever they came from), by chance combining to become atoms, which by chance combined into molecules, which by chance combined into more complex molecules, which by chance combined into incredibly complex single cells, which evolved into simple and then ever increasingly complex life forms eventually resulting in intelligent life that is able to comprehend all of that.
I don't say it is impossible for all that to happen by entirely natural processes. I just contend that the odds are so stacked against it that it is far more plausible to believe that there it is all the result of an external intelligence as a first cause.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2013 8:10 AM GDR has replied
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2013 11:01 AM GDR has replied
 Message 89 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 5:49 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 85 of 1324 (698946)
05-11-2013 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
05-10-2013 3:54 PM


Taq writes:
That's not it at all. There is simply no reason to include gods in our explanations to begin with since there is no evidence for them. That is the whole point.
There is no objective evidence. The writers of the Gospels and for that matter the epistles make specific claims. That is evidence and we subjectively believe or reject their claims.
The fact that we exist or even that this universe exists is objective evidence that something happened for us to exist, and we can subjectively choose what to believe about the how and why of what that something is.
Taq writes:
And once again we are faced with the tu quoque fallacy.
That's what you said before and I don't agree that it is. I asked for you to explain how it qualifies as such and you just repeat your assertion.
Taq writes:
What do you think my beliefs are, and why do you think they are dogmatic?
Well obviously you know your beliefs better than I do but, as I understand your views you seem to reject the notion of God, while allowing for the unlikely possibility that He actually exists. I on the other hand reject the idea that our existence could be the result of non-intelligent origins although I do allow for the unlikely possibility of that actually being the case.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 05-10-2013 3:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 05-13-2013 1:17 PM GDR has replied
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 05-13-2013 1:47 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 1324 (698949)
05-11-2013 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by GDR
05-10-2013 7:52 PM


Re: The Gospel Message
I'm just going to answer your post as answers occur to me, which may be out of order:
============
I don't get your emphasis on "son of man" in Daniel. That phrase is only used twice in that book whereas it is used 39 times in Ezekiel.
==============
And the prophecy in Zechariah of Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, does that include in your mind "the messianic statement" of His being the long awaited Messiah who would be God Himself incarnate who would take away the sins of His people? You seem to separate the messianic message from the message of peace but they're identical in my mind.
=============
The distinction between "inspired" and "inerrant" as you make it rests on a superficial idea of what "inspired" means, as you compared it to the "inspiration" of a Beethoven. To a Bible believer in relation to the Bible it means "God breathed," so if it's inspired it must also be inerrant.
==================
What Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount is not understood by Bible believers to be "correcting" the OT, but revealing its true meaning, its deeper meaning, and you might notice, its far more strict meaning: Now we aren't merely guilty of outward acts, such as adultery or murder, we're guilty of those acts by merely having thoughts of lust or hatred that may not even lead to those acts. God always looks on the heart but in the OT because the people were fleshly He didn't hold them as strictly accountable, but after the Messiah came, now He does because now the Holy Spirit has been give to those who believe.
Jesus also spoke of Hell more than anyone else in scripture, something those who think of Jesus as prescribing love over the OT's supposed severity might ponder as a revelation of a love quite beyond the ordinary, and yours always sounds like something you think could be done easily.
Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce despite divorce's being hateful to God, because of the'hardness of the Israelites' hearts (who would divorce their wives for trivial reasons, because they didn't like their cooking or because they found someone else they liked better), but Jesus now requires the stricter true understanding of God's attitude toward divorce.
Also, they were allowed the usual natural attitude of hating one's enemy, but now Jesus demands something that is very hard for us in our flesh, to actually love those who persecute us and seek to do us harm. You ever tried that? You think it's easy? IF the police came and herded you and your family outside where they beat you all and kept you from sleep for days demanding that you give up your beliefs if you want to be set free, could you hold out and love them while they abused your family? Chinese Christians under Mao were put in that position.
Loving the thief who steals something you value, and giving him other things you value? Pastor Tson of Rumania was put in that position as Ceaucescu's goon squad came and confiscated his valuable rare library. He forced himself to offer them coffee and treat them as his guests. This may be more like turning the other cheek than the giving him your cloak also example but it's all about defining what Jesus means by love. Has that been part of your picture of love?
Watching a Nazi abuse your sister who was sick and weak and couldn't keep up with the work load laid on her in the concentration camp, and died within days? Could you love him? Corrie Ten Boom was put in that position and it was quite a struggle for her, when the Nazi came up to her after a speech she'd given after the war and offered his hand to her, telling her he'd become a Christian. She had to pray for the forgiveness to shake his hand.
What if someone asked of you your very last money you were going to use to feed yourself, knowing you wouldn't have any more money coming in for some time? Could you give it with love? The well known missionary to China, Hudson Taylor, was put in that position, and he had a struggle before he was able to do it. This of course would probably not be as much of a problem in today's America if you have family and friends as it would have been for a single young man in 19th century England so put yourself in Taylor's position.
I suspect your usual idea of Jesus' commands to love your enemy etc hasn't had these kinds of situation in mind, but if you have, kudos to you.
========================
I disagree with C. S. Lewis in the quote you give. Sometimes he's very good at elucidating Christian principles, but oftentimes he's as bad as any "liberal" Christian.
======================
Yes, sorry, I've probably glossed over your affirmations that Jesus was prophesied in the OT because even when you say true things they are falsified by the general context of your beliefs. But anyway, does your recognition of Jesus in the OT include such things as His being foreshadowed in the commanded sacrifice of Isaac, in the specifics of the Passover event, in the Exodus itself, in the plan of the tabernacle, in the vestments and rituals of the priests, especially the High Priest, in the sprinkling of the people with the blood on the hyssop branch, in the conquest of Canaan, in Joshua himself, in King David, in Solomon, in all the Prophets etc etc etc?
======================
Yes, some would agree with you about the Bible. I'm with the millions who regarded it as God-breathed, millions of whom died for that belief too.
====================
Firstly it does seem to me that God has given us a gift of reason and presumably He wants us to use it.
You don't seem to have a concept of the Fall, which includes the fallenness and therefore the untrustworthiness of human reason. Reason must be placed under the authority of God's word and serve God's word if it is to be at all trustworthy.
You put salvation low on your list of priorities, even denigrating it as selfishness of all things, but the Messiah was specifically to "save His people from their sins," you don't have much if anything to say about sin, just as you don't about fallenness, sin as the violation of God's Law which is spelled out over and over in the OT and the consquences of which are demonstrated in the punishments you denigrate and dismiss as genocide by an evil God of all the blasphemout things rather than the picture of His just punishment for sin it is meant to be. So you also don't give much place if any to the idea of the cross, of Jesus' death to pay for our sins in our place, salvation by His blood, which is the center of Bible Christianity. This is the gospel, the good news to a Bible believer. You seem to have found a completely different sort of gospel, a worldly gospel, something entirely related to this world instead of to His Kingdom which He said is "not of this world."
Secondly I just wonder why it is that it is you and other like minded fundamentalists are able to discern the truth of what the Holy Spirit has to tell us but other Christians can’t. What basis do you have to believe that you are better able to discern what the Holy Spirit has to tell us than I am?
Apparently there is nothing I could say to convince you of this. You'd have to experience it yourself, and holding on to your false ideas the way you do is only going to make it impossible for that to happen.
=========================================================================
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : Finding ways to say it more clearly

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 7:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:00 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 87 of 1324 (698952)
05-11-2013 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by GDR
05-10-2013 9:32 PM


Of course lots of things happen by chance. The odds against the specific sperm and egg combination that resulted in my existence are impossibly long but here I am.
So yes, no matter how long the odds are, there are things that happen by cha nce.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. Sure, the odds of those two particular gametes coming together might be low, but once they are together the rest of the process happens on its own. You shouldn't say that the meiosis happens "by chance", because that's just the spontaneous chemical reactions that play out given those conditions.
I am not offering up proof that our existence didn't depend of particles, (wherever they came from), by chance combining to become atoms, which by chance combined into molecules, which by chance combined into more complex molecules, which by chance combined into incredibly complex single cells, which evolved into simple and then ever increasingly complex life forms eventually resulting in intelligent life that is able to comprehend all of that.
But atoms and molecules and don't form "by chance", it happens on its own spontaneously. Like I said, if you evaporate salt water, you shouldn't say that the salt molecules formed by chance. There was no other choice.
I don't say it is impossible for all that to happen by entirely natural processes. I just contend that the odds are so stacked against it that it is far more plausible to believe that there it is all the result of an external intelligence as a first cause.
But you're looking at the odds wrong. You know it doesn't make sense to invoke God for the formation of a salt crystal, more complex chemical reaction are no more by "chance".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 9:32 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 88 of 1324 (698958)
05-11-2013 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by GDR
05-10-2013 9:32 PM


Chance Entities
GDR writes:
I just contend that the odds are so stacked against it that it is far more plausible to believe that there it is all the result of an external intelligence as a first cause.
So it is your belief that the likelihood of a fully formed highly complex and unimaginably intelligent entity just randomly existing is greater than simple components evolving over time to form moderately intelligent beings such as ourselves.
Is that the crux of your position here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 9:32 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 89 of 1324 (698964)
05-11-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by GDR
05-10-2013 9:32 PM


I just contend that the odds are so stacked against it that it is far more plausible to believe that there it is all the result of an external intelligence as a first cause.
Through out all of human history every religious claim of supernatural agency that could be tested has been found to be false. We all know this.
So what can be shown by the objective facts over the last 2,000 years is that the chances of any religious claim of supernatural agency being correct are zero. Demonstrably, no chance at all.
So any natural process that may, by chance, lead to intelligent beings inventing Hagen-Dazs Chocolate Ice Cream, no matter how vanishingly small that probability may seem, is considerably more likely than any supernatural alternative claimed by religion.
And I personally thank god chance for Hagen Dazs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 05-10-2013 9:32 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 05-11-2013 9:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 90 of 1324 (698968)
05-11-2013 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-11-2013 6:16 AM


Re: The Gospel Message
Faith writes:
I don't get your emphasis on "son of man" in Daniel. That phrase is only used twice in that book whereas it is used 39 times in Ezekiel.
All of the references in Ezekiel are using the term son of man in the literal sens, in that they are referring to the individual as human. In Daniel 7 it refers to one like a Son of Man who the Ancient of Days appoints as King and given dominion over all the Earth. Jesus refers to himself as The Son of Man not a son of man. It is an obvious reference to Daniel 7. Jesus’ message is a Kingdom message and Daniel 7 is the passage He uses to make that point.
Faith writes:
And the prophecy in Zechariah of Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, does that include in your mind "the messianic statement" of His being the long awaited Messiah who would be God Himself incarnate who would take away the sins of His people? If that's what you mean by His "message of peace," fine, but it doesn't sound like that the way you use it.
A messiah was never expected to be anything other than a human. Jesus being the Messiah has nothing to do with Him being part of the Trinity. The normal expectation of a messiah was that he would lead them in battle and defeat their enemies and establish the Jewish kingdom. Jesus essentially said that that is what He was doing but it wasn’t going to look like that.
The entry into Jerusalem was simply a messianic statement with nothing whatsoever to do with taking away sins. Yes Jesus is the incarnate Word of God but that is understood separately from Him being the Messiah.
Faith writes:
The distinction between "inspired" and "inerrant" as you make it rests on a superficial idea of what "inspired" means, as you compared it to the "inspiration" of a Beethoven. To a Bible believer in relation to the Bible it means "God breathed," so if it's inspired it must also be inerrant.
I understand how you understand the use of the word inspired in this context but there is IMHO no good reason to use the word that way. I actually prefer the term God breathed as I believe God does, metaphorically of course, breathe His Word to us through the Bible but it does not have to be inerrant for Him to do that. In my view actually by reading as you do the Word becomes horribly distorted.
Faith writes:
What Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount is not understood by Bible believers to be "correcting" the OT, but revealing its true meaning, its deeper meaning, and you might notice, its far more strict meaning: Now we aren't merely guilty of outward acts, such as adultery or murder, we're guilty of those acts by merely having thoughts of lust or hatred that may not even lead to those acts.
I don’t buy that but let’s look at this passage from Matthew 19:
quote:
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
There is no question of anyone suggesting that God said anything. Both the Pharisees and Jesus say that it was Moses, not God, who said those things and Jesus tells them that Moses got it wrong.
Faith writes:
Jesus also spoke of Hell more than anyone else in scripture, something those who think of Jesus as prescribing love over the OT's supposed severity might ponder as a revelation of a love quite beyond the ordinary, and yours always sounds like something you think could be done easily.
When Jesus talks about hell He doesn’t talk about people going there because they got their theology wrong. Jesus gives examples as in the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 but He also says that it is a matter of belief. It is belief in Jesus who embodies the incarnate Word of God, so He is talking about those who reject God’s Word that love of neighbour, love of God, love of enemy, love of creation is what it is about. It isn’t about rejecting a belief that Jesus is part of the Trinity but about rejecting the Word of loving others as ourselves.
Faith writes:
Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce despite divorce's being hateful to God, because of the'hardness of the Israelites' hearts (who would divorce their wives for trivial reasons, because they didn't like their cooking or because they found someone else they liked better), but Jesus now requires the stricter tr ue understanding of God's attitude toward divorce.
Even you seem to agree that the command came from Moses and not God, and like I showed you above Moses got it wrong.
Faith writes:
Also, they were allowed the usual natural attitude of hating one's enemy, but now Jesus demands something that is very hard for us in our flesh, to actually love those who persecute us and seek to do us harm. You ever tried that? You think it's easy? IF the police came and herded you and your family outside where they beat you all and kept you from sleep for days demanding that you give up your beliefs if you want to be set free, could you hold out and love them while they abused your family? Chinese Christians under Mao were put in that position.
Jesus didn’t say it would be easy. Was it easy for Jesus to say forgive them they know not what they do. I don’t know if I could hold up or not. Hopefully, I’ll never find out. Like most westerners I have led a very comfortable sheltered life.
Faith writes:
Loving the thief who steals something you value, and giving him other things you value? Pastor Tson of Rumania was put in that position as Ceaucescu's goon squad came and confiscated his valuable rare library. He forced himself to offer them coffee as his guests. Is that part of your picture of love?
Watching a Nazi abuse your sister who was sick and weak and coul dn't keep up with the work load laid on her in the concentration camp? Could you love him? Corrie Ten Boom was put in that position and it was quite a struggle for her.
What if someone asked of you your very last money you were going to use to feed yourself? Could you give it with love? The well known missionary to China, Hudson Taylor, was put in that position, and he had a struggle before he was able to do it.
I suspect your usual idea of Jesus' commands to love doesn't really include those kinds of situations, but if it does, kudos to you.
Actually it does, but no kudos because I’ve never had to actually do it. However many people have. On a large scale you might look up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-11-2013 6:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 05-11-2013 9:36 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024