|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Question for Christians
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 01:20 |
 Bob 00:10We are back in an argument about issues that are by definition impossible to prove (unfalsifiable). This is where a belief in God differs from your 'questions about biochemistry'. |
||||||
|
bobspringett 24-Oct-21, 02:52 |
Deleted by bobspringett on 24-Oct-21, 03:22.
|
||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 04:10 |
Bob This is true, of course. It is even true for mathematics, which is based on some fundamental axioms from which everythng else can be derived. Religion is different from this because it is fundamentally based on belief in something that cannot be tested. Since this 'religious axiom' includes a God who is capable of anything, the entire concept cannot be addressed by the scientific methodology. This is in my view the fundamental distinction between religious faith and science; the two are immiscible, which does not imply any distinction in value for the humankind. |
||||||
|
Zorroloco No the example was set because of what we choose! Not what God chooses. You can not force someone to be or do good without destroying them in the process. They have to choose it themselves. |
||||||
|
Coram raises an intelligent question! <Do folks at the church you volunteer at know you don’t know who or what God is or what you believe? Why do you volunteer at a church and give lectures on the Holy Bible when you don’t know who or what God is or what you believe? Why do you describe yourself as a “rusted-on Christian” when you don’t know who or what God is or what you believe? I know what I believe, Bob.> This isn’t an exhaustive response, but enough to provide an outline. Biblical overview My first thought was to mention the last few chapters of Job, where God rubs Job’s nose in his presumption in challenging God. This is in chapters 38 – 42 inclusive, for those who want to read it. But even as God gives Job these rebukes, he also addresses Job’s friends, who also thought they had it all worked out:- “The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.”” (Job 42:7,8) So there is a sense in which questioning God from the heart is ‘right’, but his friends’ complacency in thinking that they had God all figured out is ‘folly’. Isaiah also warns against this presumption in Isa. 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. It could be argued “Ah! But that was Old Testament! Now Christ has come, we now know!” Do we really? Paul tells the Ephesians (Eph. 1:9) “For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ.” Does that mean we now know it all? I don’t think so. Paul also makes it clear that this is a process, not an instantaneous event. He tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. 13:9-12) “For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.” But don’t get carried away by ‘knowledge’. Paul has already told these same Corinthians, in 1 Cor. 8:1-3 “We know that “all of us possess knowledge.” “Knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him.” He also prays for the Colossians (Col. 1:9,10) “Asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.” Knowledge is not the end. It is only useful in so far as it enables “a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work.” This is emphasised by the chiastic construction, in which the key thought is bracketted by repeating the subordinate thought before and after. Development by later thinkers... This is not a ‘wacko Bob interpretation’ of the Bible, as I have been accused of posting before. It has long been the understanding of the mainstream church. The Athanasian Creed says in part “The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited.” Other translations into English (e.g., the Book of Common Prayer) say “the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.” This variation is because the original Latin word is ‘immensus’. In today’s English ‘immense’ means ‘huge’, but the root meaning is from the word ‘mens’ = ‘mind’. “Immensus’ literally means ‘not mindable’, or ‘the mind can’t do it’. I think the Prayer Book’s ‘incomprehensible’ is the best translation. Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings are the core of Catholic theology to this day, started his study times and lectures with the prayer “Creator Ineffabilis”, which means “Creator who cannot be described.” So when Athena asked “So my question is “‘Who or what is your God?’ Or more precisely ‘What is it deep down that you believe or hope for?’” I answered “‘I don’t know.’ Or more precisely, ‘I’m still finding out.’” I think I’m in good company with that answer. Meanwhile, others like to proclaim “I know what I believe, Bob.” Such people need to ask themselves how they are so far ahead of St. Paul and so many other great minds and souls in terms of spiritual maturity. As one famous theologian said (I think it was Thomas Aquinas, but I can’t track it down), “If you think you understand God, then it’s not God you understand.” |
||||||
|
Bob “Do folks at the church you volunteer at know you don’t know who or what God is or what you ” Because if they did, they’d surely condemn you and force you from the church. Like Jesus would have, in Andrewland. He seems to think good Christians would make you a pariah. |
||||||
|
Zorro 19:55 Funny you should say that, Zorro, because it has happened. I had been sidelined in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. Unlike most churches in Australia and even other Anglican Dioceses, Sydney held to a 'traditional' doctrine about gender roles. Male Leadership was a core doctrine, to an almost cult-like degree. Females could not be priested, and those priested in other Anglican dioceses were not recognised. I argued against this. My case was NOT based on 'modern expectations' or 'times are changing', because I knew those arguments wouldn't penetrate. I relied on a reasonably wholistic network of exegesis and interlocked with the conventional doctrines of soteriology and ecclesiology. But it didn't fit their position, based on tradition and excused by a string of proof-texts that ignored historical context. Nobody actually spoke against my case; they just ignored it and repeated their own dogma. In 2017 Australia was put to a plebiscite about whether or not marriage between gays should be recognised in law. I argued that whether the Church wanted to recognise these marriages or not was irrelevant; we were talking about civil law here, not Canon Law. It was at this time I was 65 years old, and I had volunteered to work for free as an assistant in a parish that needed a second minister but couldn't afford a second stipend. The Diocese donated a million dollars to the 'No' campaign, but could find only ten thousand dollars for a shelter for victims of domestic violence. That priority said it all! The Area Bishop met with me and told me that there was no place for me in Sydney Anglicans. If I wanted to be useful, I should go to some other church. I bear no ill-will against him for this; I had been the Youth Leader in a church where he was a trainee minister during his studies, and we got on well. He was simply telling me not to waste my time. So I moved on. "And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town." (Matt. 10:14) |
||||||
|
Bob |
||||||
|
“The lingering question for you is, 'Why didn't He stop his own torture and murder'?” The answer is obviously that he was just a man. He was killed like the thieves he was crucified with because he couldn’t do anything about it. Nor could his mythical father. No magical powers. Those who killed him were soldiers like you Thump, following orders. |
||||||
|
jonheck 06-Nov-21, 09:42 |
Wasn’t there there an obedient God fearing old testament dude that tried to pass off a lambs heart for the heart of his son after God had demanded he, (the son), be sacrificed? God quickly forgave the dude for the high end disobedience. The message? What you love the most, more than you love yourself, must be your child, or, only God can love enough to give his son. |
||||||
|
Jon From Wiki Prometheus is best known for defying the gods by stealing fire from them and giving it to humanity in the form of technology, knowledge, and more generally, civilization. In some versions of the myth he is also credited with the creation of humanity from clay. Prometheus is known for his intelligence and for being a champion of humankind,[3] and is also generally seen as the author of the human arts and sciences.[citation needed] He is sometimes presented as the father of Deucalion, the hero of the flood story.[4][5][6] |
||||||
|
jonheck 06-Nov-21, 10:09 |
Zorroloco |
||||||
|
Jon |
||||||
|
Questions Is Gandhi going to Hell because he was a Hindu and not a Christian? |
||||||
|
Jon |
||||||
|
jonheck 06-Nov-21, 11:17 |
Zerroloco |
||||||
|
Jon Did you give up Methodism? Christianity entirely? Did you also stop believing in God or just religion? |
||||||
|
Jon 9:42 and Zorro 10:50 I think the story you have in mind is Gen. 22:1-19. It's slightly different from how you remember it. Zorro The 'no non-Christian in heaven' rule is an invention of the mediaeval church, based on reading Acts 4:11,12 out of context. The church then used excommunication as a threat worse than death. It was all about earthy power, and too many evangelicals have adopted it because it suits their tribalism. Acts 4:11,12 "This is the stone which was rejected by you builders (i.e., Jesus), but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The context is multiple. First, Peter was talking to Jews, to whom 'name' was a circumlocution of respect that referenced power, authority and majesty. (e.g., 'in the name of the king!' or 'in the name of the law!') Second, he was deliberately invoking passages from the Old Testament such as Ex. 23:13 "Make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let such be heard out of your mouth." and the Commandment in Ex. 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." Peter wasn't limiting vocabulary here, but identifying Jesus with the God of the Old Testament that these Jews already worshiped. Paul does the same in passages such as Philippians 2:9 - 11 "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is a direct application of Isaiah 45:22,23 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’" Paul also holds out Abraham as the model of faith, even though Abraham knew nothing about Jesus. So it is not a matter of 'no non-Christians in heaven'. It is more accurate to say that fullness of life can only be found in a correct relationship with God. Remember that in Graeco-Roman society that Paul was addressing, 'religio' and 'superstitio' had clear meanings. 'Religio' comes from the verb 'religare', meaning 'to bind'. So 'religio' was to do what you were bound to do, as if in a 'contract' with the god. It implies that the human can deal with the gods as if, on some level, almost an equal. 'Superstitio' literally means 'that which stands over'; it is seen as something that enslaves. Paul preached that God demands the whole person at all times in all things, not just performance of specific duties; hence Christianity was typically labelled a 'superstition' by first-century Romans. So who is 'in' and who is 'out'? To even ask that question already makes assumptions that might not be warranted. Karl Barth, the most significant Protestant theologian of the 20th century, rejected that dichotomy. He said that Jesus encapsulated all humanity. Therefore only Jesus was condemned and also only Jesus is 'saved'; all other humans 'live and move and have their being' in Jesus. Make of that what you will! |
||||||
|
Bob |
||||||
|
bobspringett 06-Nov-21, 22:54 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 07-Nov-21, 04:35.
|
||||||
|
Thanks Bob I’d suggest Andrew focus on his purported immortal soul and stop reading other forums too. |
||||||
|
Zorro 5:42 |
||||||
|
Zorro 14:42 No, don't cede that. I don't claim that it is majority belief among all who claim to be Christians. Only among orthodox, mainstream, mature Christians who understand theology. |
||||||
|
US Polls This Reuters poll dates back to 2013. I bet an dated poll would likely show more of a swing towards sanity. Gallup in 2019 stated that 40% of Americans reject evolution. So among the religious that would have to be much higher. It would be interesting to gauge Trump's impact on religion. Hm, Gallup does break it apart by faith. Only 34% of Catholics reject evolution. Nearly 60% of Protestants. Pretty close to the older Reuters poll, and again coinciding with the trend of science skepticism. |
||||||
|
Wait |
||||||
|
Shiva |
||||||
|
Shiva The future isn’t bright. |
||||||
|
Missouri |
||||||
| |||||||
