I wanted to discuss Protestant Dogma, church tradition, and various beliefs within Christianity in general.
First off, what is "Protestant Dogma?"
Is it the writings of Bishop Spong? He, after all, is a protestant minister.
I want this topic to focus on what it means to be ignorant within the contexts of belief, whether there is dishonesty involved in Fundamentalist Protestantism, and whether or not logic should trump blind faith when it comes to believing 7 incredible things before Breakfast!
What in the world does "to be ignorant within the contexts of belief" mean? It seems like just a nonsense statement.
Reason should always trump blind faith. In fact, blind faith should just be thrown away.
What is the definition of willful ignorance within the context of belief?
I have no idea what you mean by "within the context of belief" but willful ignorance can best be shown by looking at some of the statements you have posted in the past.
For example, if you look at the statement of core values form Westminster Seminary, the second item is:
Scripture, as the "very Word of God written," is absolutely authoritative and without error.
This statement presumes an attitude of "Willful Ignorance."
Who defines which people or church belief statements should be grouped in the category of ignorance?
The statements themselves.
Why do you believe that your belief paradigm offers a more honest portrayal of Christian Belief?
I have never made that assertion. What I have said is that people should test what I say against reality and reason. They should them make up their own minds.
I was talking with a Theology student today and was telling him of some of my debates at EvC. When I brought your beliefs up, he pointed me towards Pelagianism.
Without knowing too much of it, I read the Wiki article and it seemed to fit much of your beliefs to a tee.
In what way? If you know so little about Pelagian how can you know whether or not it fits me to a tee?
Did you really even read the Wiki article that you linked to or as usual did you just skim over it?
Did you read the line that says:
quote:Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine of Hippo, who taught that a person's salvation ultimately comes through the grace of God but that a person must also perform freely chosen good works.
Have you ever heard me say that salvation is a done deal, freely given, but that we are expected to try to do what is right?
I'm sorry but your post is just another example of willful ignorance of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
You were talking with a freaking theology student and brought my beliefs up. The student immediately suggest Pelagian who was considered a heretic.
"Alleluia," Phat's inner demon sang, "I alway new he was a heretic."
Well sorry Phat. Actually my beliefs are closer to those of Augustine than to Pelagius even though they were both wrong on many points.
Let me try to outline some of the major areas of agreement and disagreement between my position and and either of those.
I believe there is no "Original Sin".
First, there is nothing in the tales beginning in Genesis 2 that suggests that until perhaps the story of Cain and Abel. Second, there never was an Adam and Eve. Third, the believe in some GOE Original Sin makes God evil and would today get God sued for creating an "Attractive Nuisance."
I believe part of the story of the GOE is that we are charged to try to do what is right. We will be judged based on how well we do.
Pelagius and others like him (many of the monastic orders actually seem to follow Pelagius even though they condemn Pelagianism with their lips) were "perfectionists", believing that it was mans job to "perfect" his life.
I believe I have said here at EvC many times that we are expected to try to do what is right, to honestly examine our behavior and admit when we have done wrong, try to make amends for those wrong actions and try not to do them again.
Nothing in there about Perfection.
I will be happy to continue discussing areas of agreement and disagreement with Pelagianism but first I suggest you actually find out what it is you are talking about.
One last comment.
As I said above, your post is classic Christian Cult of Ignorance. It is the retreat to labels and shows willful ignorance of my beliefs. I can say that because you have in the past repeated the key points I list above back to me, so I know that you knew them. Yet you were ready to willfully ignore what you knew to grab onto a label that you believed you could apply to me instead of actually thinking the issue through.
I can say that because you posted "I read the Wiki article and it seemed to fit much of your beliefs to a tee" when that simply is not the case. In addition you did not list which of my beliefs you thought "fit it to a tee" or why you believed there was some one to one correspondence.
I honestly doubt you even read the article but rather just skimmed over it quotemining a couple pieces parts out of the very first line.
I may well be wrong, but this discussion will help determine that.
Just as an aside.
Way back in the mid fifties in high school part of Sacred Studies was reading the works of Pelagius. One thing to remember is that most of what we have from him comes down to us through those who opposed his writings or reconstructions from Augustine's "On Nature and Grace" which was written as a response to Pelagius.
If we believe that everyone is saved initially by Gods Grace, the Satanist would not have to jump through theological hoops...they would have to acknowledge God as sovereign over their free will, however.
Did you or did you not say that God knows all that they will think?