Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 106 of 141 (244381)
09-17-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
09-17-2005 11:01 AM


Re: The Religious state of mind
but the experience Oh THAT's what that means happens a lot. A lot of it is just plain indigestible at first too, makes no sense.
It is called 'any port in a storm'.
Truth is, when a fundy doesn't understand something in the Bible, or a part of the Bible appears to be untrue or impossible, the fundy will essentially grasp at any straw and when one straw comes along that appears plausible they will latch on to that and say "oh THAT's what it means".
By taking this approach, we could take Lord of the Rings literally.
Brian.
This message has been edited by Brian, 09-17-2005 12:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 09-17-2005 11:01 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 141 (244407)
09-17-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Annafan
09-17-2005 11:34 AM


Re: The Religious state of mind
I was more precisely thinking about something you THOUGHT you understood (you saw no reason for confusion), but later you saw it in a different light and its meaning changed (maybe significantly)?
Possibly but I don't recall a specific instance. Maybe one will come to me eventually. But my usual experience is of not understanding something and just leaving it for the time being, and later it may be clarified by a sermon or something else. That happens a lot. Or I might look it up in some commentaries to see how they explain it. Most of the Bible was opaque at first.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-17-2005 02:01 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-17-2005 02:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Annafan, posted 09-17-2005 11:34 AM Annafan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 141 (244582)
09-18-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
09-15-2005 2:14 PM


Re: Interpretation
So, do you agree that believers, who are interpreting the Bible, can be wrong, because all of them are fallible?
quote:
Not wrong about anything crucial in the Bible, which is what is implied by having the Holy Spirit.
So, about "anything crucial", believers actually are NOT fallible?
But didn't you say earlier that believers ARE fallible?:
quote:
Believers, however, have the Holy Spirit, but are still fallible, only that by believing and trusting in Christ they have the essence of the truth of the Bible that unbelievers don't have, and by the Holy Spirit they recognize the Holy Spirit in the Bible.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-18-2005 10:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 09-15-2005 2:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 09-18-2005 11:31 AM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 141 (244601)
09-18-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
09-18-2005 10:00 AM


Re: Interpretation
Well, it's a hard question. Fallibility sure, but then believers ARE saved because they believe, so they're "infallible" --if that's the right word --about at least their belief in Jesus' sacrifice for sin. Having enough understanding to believe in the sacrifice of Christ is basic. It grows from there.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-18-2005 11:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 09-18-2005 10:00 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 09-18-2005 1:52 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 141 (244644)
09-18-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
09-18-2005 11:31 AM


Re: Interpretation
quote:
Well, it's a hard question. Fallibility sure, but then believers ARE saved because they believe, so they're "infallible" --if that's the right word --about at least their belief in Jesus' sacrifice for sin. Having enough understanding to believe in the sacrifice of Christ is basic. It grows from there.
I'm talking, though, about the fallibility of people when interpreting the Bible, not what the definition of a Christian is.
If someone accepts, as you say above, about the "sacrifice of Christ", soes that make them infallible when interpreting the Bible?
...or can people still make mistakes, even though they believe in Jesus' sacrifice for sin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 09-18-2005 11:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-18-2005 7:42 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 141 (244693)
09-18-2005 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
09-18-2005 1:52 PM


Re: Interpretation
ccI'm talking, though, about the fallibility of people when interpreting the Bible, not what the definition of a Christian is.
But the definition of what a Christian is comes from what is revealed in the Bible. I guess I'm not distinguishing between its being preached versus being read in the Bible. The term "fallible" is hard to work with. Believers are RIGHT about what the Bible says about salvation, and ALL believers GROW in their right understanding of what the Bible says, learning more all the time that they can use in living the Christian life.
If someone accepts, as you say above, about the "sacrifice of Christ", soes that make them infallible when interpreting the Bible?
...or can people still make mistakes, even though they believe in Jesus' sacrifice for sin?
As I tried to say in an earlier post on this, believers are fallible in their interpretation EXCEPT about the crucial points having to do with salvation. (But believers are also willing to learn from teachers, so their fallibility is always being corrected). There is every kind of believer from the very learned and mature in the faith to the brand new and immature and everything in between.
I know what you're getting at but there are too many different things involved to answer clearly. A good Bible preacher/teacher has the Holy Spirit and may have years of study and practice, but still he usually relies on commentaries for help in teaching the Bible to his flock. He sometimes may disagree with them too.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-18-2005 07:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 09-18-2005 1:52 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Brian, posted 09-19-2005 2:48 AM Faith has replied
 Message 113 by nator, posted 09-19-2005 7:59 AM Faith has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 112 of 141 (244791)
09-19-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
09-18-2005 7:42 PM


Exclusive language or discrimination?
A good Bible preacher/teacher has the Holy Spirit and may have years of study and practice, but still he usually relies on commentaries for help in teaching the Bible to his flock. He sometimes may disagree with them too.
Are women excluded from this exclusive group of perfect preachers?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-18-2005 7:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 09-19-2005 12:22 PM Brian has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 113 of 141 (244815)
09-19-2005 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
09-18-2005 7:42 PM


Re: Interpretation
What you are saying seems quite reasonable.
So, are you saying it is possible for sincere believers to have a legitimate disagreement over interpretation of many different parts of the Bible, but that they are all still believers, and they could all possibly be incorrect in some way?
Can believers be sincere in their belief but still disagree about the interpretation of the crucial parts in the Bible having to do with salvation? Can they still be wrong in these cases?
And if everyone seems equally sincere in their belief, yet they still disagree, how do you know who has the correct interpretation of the crucial parts in the Bible having to do with salvation?
(And Brian, I actually don't know if Faith actually mans "all men" when she uses "he", but if I have her age pegged correctly, "he" is what she was taught to use as the "genderless" way to refer to everyone, male and female)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-18-2005 7:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-19-2005 12:32 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 141 (244905)
09-19-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Brian
09-19-2005 2:48 AM


Re: Exclusive language or discrimination?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Brian, posted 09-19-2005 2:48 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Brian, posted 09-19-2005 12:46 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 141 (244908)
09-19-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by nator
09-19-2005 7:59 AM


Re: Interpretation
What you are saying seems quite reasonable.
So, are you saying it is possible for sincere believers to have a legitimate disagreement over interpretation of many different parts of the Bible, but that they are all still believers, and they could all possibly be incorrect in some way?
Exactly. There are hundreds of denominations that disagree on many points, but all consider each other Christians nevertheless. To be considered apostate or a cult a group has to deny one of the ESSENTIAL doctrines, such as the deity of Christ.
Can believers be sincere in their belief but still disagree about the interpretation of the crucial parts in the Bible having to do with salvation? Can they still be wrong in these cases?
No, this would put them them outside the camp as I say above.
And if everyone seems equally sincere in their belief, yet they still disagree, how do you know who has the correct interpretation of the crucial parts in the Bible having to do with salvation?
That's between you and God. That's all that can be said.
(And Brian, I actually don't know if Faith actually mans "all men" when she uses "he", but if I have her age pegged correctly, "he" is what she was taught to use as the "genderless" way to refer to everyone, male and female)
I do use the genderless "he" most of the time because the other versions always sound awkward. I never had a problem with it growing up so I continue with it. But in the case of preachers, the pastors of a congregation, I believe the Bible teaches clearly that that is a role reserved for men only. I know feminists consider this sexism, but it's about role, not about ability. Women are to use the same ability in other contexts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 09-19-2005 7:59 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 09-19-2005 7:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 131 by Brian, posted 09-21-2005 7:55 AM Faith has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 116 of 141 (244917)
09-19-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
09-19-2005 12:22 PM


Re: Exclusive language or discrimination?
Why?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 09-19-2005 12:22 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 117 of 141 (245013)
09-19-2005 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-19-2005 12:32 PM


Re: Interpretation
quote:
But in the case of preachers, the pastors of a congregation, I believe the Bible teaches clearly that that is a role reserved for men only.
It also teaches quite clearly that women are to be subservient to their husbands as their husbands are subservient to God.
Do you believe that women should be subservient to men in all things?
quote:
I know feminists consider this sexism, but it's about role, not about ability. Women are to use the same ability in other contexts.
But it IS sexism, just like discriminating against people of a different race than you is racism. You just accept it as OK.
The issue here is power and status. The most powerful religious position in a congregation is the person who interprets and teaches the Word of God to the people; the pastor. If men are always the most powerful, women will always be considered second class.
This teaches girls women that to be good Christian women, they must content themselves to being second class people; that God views women as not important or trustworthy enough to entrust with the Word of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-19-2005 12:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 09-19-2005 9:51 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 141 (245034)
09-19-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
09-19-2005 7:11 PM


Re: Interpretation
But in the case of preachers, the pastors of a congregation, I believe the Bible teaches clearly that that is a role reserved for men only.
It also teaches quite clearly that women are to be subservient to their husbands as their husbands are subservient to God.
The word isn't "subservient," Schraf. It says "submit to" your husband; it doesn't mean you are his slave, it means you are to serve him in love, willingly -- and he's to do the same toward you.
Ephesians 5:17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. ...21 submitting to one another in the fear of *God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; ... 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, ... 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. ... 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
quote:
Do you believe that women should be subservient to men in all things?
No, only to her husband, not to all men, and yes in all things to her husband, though the word, again, is not "subservient." Somehow that implies she is forced to do menial things at his command, but that's not the idea at all.
I know feminists consider this sexism, but it's about role, not about ability. Women are to use the same ability in other contexts.
But it IS sexism, just like discriminating against people of a different race than you is racism. You just accept it as OK.
I completely disagree. The natural differences between male and female physical strength and functions are obvious, and different roles for the two make sense. There are no natural differences between races.
quote:
The issue here is power and status. The most powerful religious position in a congregation is the person who interprets and teaches the Word of God to the people; the pastor. If men are always the most powerful, women will always be considered second class.
That's not the idea. The idea is authority, not inequality. The pastor is also exhorted in the Bible to regard himself as a servant, not a boss.
quote:
This teaches girls women that to be good Christian women, they must content themselves to being second class people; that God views women as not important or trustworthy enough to entrust with the Word of God.
I don't see it that way at all. It's not about class or status, it's about role or function. The sexes are equal in human status, different in role and spheres of authority and responsibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 09-19-2005 7:11 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 09-20-2005 7:54 AM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 141 (245109)
09-20-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
09-19-2005 9:51 PM


Re: Interpretation
quote:
The word isn't "subservient," Schraf. It says "submit to" your husband; it doesn't mean you are his slave, it means you are to serve him in love, willingly -- and he's to do the same toward you.
...and yet the Bible has been interpreted for millenia to mean that women should be subservient to their men.
quote:
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church;
This quite clearly lays out the hierarchy:
1) God
2) Husband
3) Wife
A wife is supposed to be as submissive to her husband as a man is submissive to God.
A wife is supposed to treat her husband like he is God.
Like he is God.
Are you saying that men are not completely subservient to God? So why shouldn't a woman be completely subservient to her husband, and live her life thinking only about his wishes, worhipping him and seeking to to obey him in all things? Isn't that what we are supposed to do for God?
Like he is God.
Women ARE chattel in the Bible, faith, you can't deny that. So, why do you disregard the Bible where the owning of women (and slaves) is concerned, but follow it with regard to denying women pastors?
quote:
No, only to her husband, not to all men, and yes in all things to her husband, though the word, again, is not "subservient." Somehow that implies she is forced to do menial things at his command, but that's not the idea at all.
Where does it say that this is not the idea in the Bible?
I can see nothing in the Bible that states or implies that doing menial things at her husbands command is excluded.
quote:
But it IS sexism, just like discriminating against people of a different race than you is racism. You just accept it as OK.
quote:
I completely disagree. The natural differences between male and female physical strength and functions are obvious, and different roles for the two make sense.
So, the reason women are to submit to their husbands is because they are physically weaker?
What if I showed you a husband and wife where the man is physically weaker than the wife; does this mean that he should "obviously" be submissive to her?
And besides, you aren't talking about "different" roles.
You are talking about a power hierarchy in which the husband is always more powerful than the wife.
You believe that muscle strength, size, and sexual organs make a person more able to perform a task (preaching) that has nothing to do with muscle strength, size, and sexual organs, because the Bible says so. That's religiously-based sexism.
quote:
There are no natural differences between races.
Sure there are. Groups of people evolved in vastly different climates, and so have certain physical traits which are "natural differences". Those which have lived in very sunny places for millenia have developed lots of protective melanin in their skin, while people who have lived in less sunny and colder places for millenia lost much of this melanin so they could get enough Vitamin D from the sun.
Also, people from hot climates have flat noses with wide-flared nostrils which allows for greater cooling of the air coming in, while those from cooler climates have narrower noses with smaller openings to allow for greater warming of the air coming in.
Also, people from warmer climates tend to be lanky and lean with, to better dissipate heat from their skin, while those who evolved in cold climates are shorter and stockier to better conserve body heat.
These are natural differences, no?
quote:
The sexes are equal in human status, different in role and spheres of authority and responsibility.
Who is the most important person in a Christian religious community.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-20-2005 07:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 09-19-2005 9:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 09-20-2005 10:36 AM nator has replied
 Message 123 by Phat, posted 09-20-2005 11:40 AM nator has replied
 Message 124 by sidelined, posted 09-20-2005 1:12 PM nator has not replied
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-20-2005 7:33 PM nator has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 141 (245139)
09-20-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by nator
09-20-2005 7:54 AM


Yes that's the way it should be
Schraf writes:
A wife is supposed to treat her husband like he is God.
A woman should always defer to a man.
By even thinking about trying to instruct a Man in any subject, particulary the Sciences or Theology, a woman has totally forgotten her place in God's Plan. It's Blasphemy.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 09-20-2005 7:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 09-20-2005 10:38 AM jar 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