Blind Faith?
by BradfordAt his blog Thinking Chrstian Tom Gilson authored a blog entry titled Two Views of Faith. It focuses on the true meaning of faith. Certain distortions of the word have emerged from those wanting to debunk Christianity. Some are deliberate but others mistaken ideas traceable to personal incredulity. There are also mistaken notions which come from inside the Christian community itself and are attributable to ignorance or a false sense of virtue. Since the notion of "blind faith" has become a knee jerk response to the genuine article and because discussions of faith frequently surface in ID forums Tom's piece is worth a look.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 am
Here's an interesting article vis-a-vis this general subject:
http://www.salon.com/env/atoms...
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 12:23 am
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:30 am
[...] a Telic Thoughts thread based on my "Two Views of Faith" blog entry, Allen MacNeill left a comment suggesting [...]
Pingback by Bart Ehrman Again - Thinking Christian — April 3, 2009 @ 7:30 am
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:38 am
Further on that pingback just above this comment. It's my response to the Salon.com article on Bart Ehrman that Allen suggested we read. Two phrases summarize that article.
From my blog entry:
And from New Testament scholar Robert Gundry, expressing his opinion of Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, in an extended review that I have linked from my article:
That's "Horsefeathers!" with documentation, I hasten to add.
Comment by TomG — April 3, 2009 @ 7:38 am
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Allen MacNeill and others, Ehrman exemplifies what is scary about intellectuals- a blindness to overarching data that puts into perspective his "conundrum." Ehrman found it problematic that there were no original manuscripts of scripture. I found that disconcerting too but for a different reason having to do with ignorance. It needs to be pointed out immediately that we have no original manuscripts of any ancient writings. All of ancient history is given to us in the form of copies of originals.
In the case of the writings of Julius Caesar the date between the original and the copy closest in time to it is about onethousand years. For the writings of the great ancient Greeks the timeline is worse- ranges of 1500 to 2000+ years between the original and the nearest copy. For Homer the range is at the far end. Yet no serious historian doubts that these ancient writings existed. There are reasons for this. Historians, like biologists, have methodologies (approaches if you prefer) designed to ferret out authentic copies from frauds. The approaches are quite sophisticated and entail such things as the nature of extant manuscripts (papyrus for example or animal skins give up a good deal of information about their authors), and comparative analysis in which information from many different sources are gathered and compared. Credibility is also an issue like it is in the legal system. The motives of authors are assessed and taken into account.
The linked article states that the copies we have are usually written many centuries later. But that is not accurate. We have fragmentary copies dating from the first century and many more from the second century. Historically speaking that in itself is remarkable. Moreover within two centuries we see emerging completed works in which multiple epistles are combined. The significance of that needs to be appreciated. We are dealing with multiple authors writing in disparate locations. Moreover within three centuries we see the NT in different languages and quite obviously different cultures as well. This is a hugely significant fact for assessing plausibility. Cross cultural conspiracies are very implausible in the ancient world where a thousand miles can separate authors. Translations of now dead languages are set in stone. One could not fudge a translated document in one of them. There has been no evolution in meaning for almost twothousand years.
Ehrman has unwittingly brought out a major source of credibility for New Testament writings. For believers the historicity of the NT writings come as no surprise. They are divinely inspired and one would thus expect a high degree of fidelity.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2009 @ 8:47 am
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
My wife came to Cornell to learn to read the original, ancient texts in their original languages. To do this, she had to learn to read a half dozen "dead" languages, which she did. When she started to read the original texts (i.e. from the first three centuries AD), she found the same thing that Erhman and all of the other scholars of this period found: that the closer one gets to the actual dates of Jesus's life, the less the documents agreed. This despite the fact that the authors were not widely separated in time and space. Quite the opposite; they were closer together in time and space than at any time since then.
Of course, I can't do what she has done, as I can't read the documents in their original languages. I have to do what most people do, which is to take the word of people who have done this, people like Erhman and my wife. Both of them had the same experience, BTW. They came into this subject fully convinced and committed to the hard-core evangelical viewpoint of the innerrancy of scripture (especially the gospels) and the deity of Jesus (my wife was raised a pentacostal Christian in the Assemblies of God). Both of them were motivated to learn the ancient languages so that they could read the original texts and confirm their beliefs and commitments. And both of them, after reading the original texts and pondering what they clearly said, became agnostics (indeed, my wife is now an atheist, whereas I am not).
To make it as plain as I can: both Ehrman and my wife were committed to their faiths until after close readings of the original ancient texts. They didn't disregard what they read in those texts because they were already atheists, eager to find a justification for their unbelief. Just the opposite: they lost their faith because they read the texts in the original languages and accepted what they said at face value, without "spin doctoring" by committed exegetical propagandists who wanted them to believe what they were told, rather than what they could see with their own eyes.
Interesting; that seems to be the same problem with evolution, doesn't it? That is, committed Christian propagandists (such as those at the Discovery Institute) want us biologists to believe what they tell us to believe, rather than what we see with our own eyes.
Sorry. I have more respect for the scientific method (and absolutely no respect whatsoever for propagandists, regardless of what side they are on).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Ehrman lost his faith over the problem of evil and suffering.
His mentor, Bruce Metzger, strengthened his faith by studying and engaging textual criticism.
Contrary to the view that Ehrman lost his faith because of his objective and empirical look at the ancient texts, here's what he said when selling his subsequent book:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
Same old same old.
Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
This does not sound like someone who had ever encountered God. Acting the part out of fear is a clue that Ehrman was probably never a Christian.
Matthew 7:21-23
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Emotions, not empiricism.
Same old same old.
Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Allen MacNeill:
I'm not a unfamiliar with this issue and am familar with a broad gamut of scholars. There are differences in wording as well as what we would refer to as grammer. But as far as substantive differences that would impact basic doctrinal issues- that's an entirely different matter. I'm awaiting specifics on substantive doctrinal problems.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
chunk, what's the matter? Won't you share your encounter with God? It might help me recognize what's going on if I would be so lucky.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Raevmo:
Against my better judgement I kept you around, Bye for now.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I think you'll know when it happens.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Nice to see the old "Bart Ehrman was a devout Christian but he left the church because of what he learned as a biblical scholar!" myth exposed so early into the conversation. It'd be a hard line for Ehrman to maintain anyway, considering there's no shortage of biblical scholars equal to or greater than Ehrman in accomplishment and status who have not only retained their faith, but have had that faith (so they say, at least) enhanced by what they've discovered in their studies and research.
Putting Ehrman aside – yes, the 'Blind Faith' charge is empty, particularly when trotted out against Christianity, and absolutely theism in a broader sense. Anyone bothering to inspect either will see as much, even if they disagree on the particulars of evidence and reason.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Empirical facts to the rescue against committed propaganda once again.
Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Quoting Ehrman from the Salon article linked to above:
“And I finally got to a point where I just didn't believe it anymore. I just didn't believe that there's a God who's looking over this world and is in some sense active within it, who's intervening to solve problems of suffering and is answering prayer. I just don't believe that.”
I am not a Biblical scholar or any kind of scholar obviously so I cannot comment on the oldest manuscripts and the exact wordings etc, but when I read a statement like that I wonder when he stopped praying and believing in prayer. There is more to faith than the words in the Biblical texts, there is the active part of it that he lost somewhere along the way. There is the part of faith where you apply it to your own life and see the results.
Honestly if I had never experienced strength being given when I felt desperately weak or being given clarity of thought and direction after a time of overwhelming confusion or joy following sorrow etc. etc. I would not be a believer today.
In my opinion if one ever stops praying their faith will not last long whether they are a scholar or an ordinary Joe or Jane.
Comment by interested bystander — April 3, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
chunkdz wrote:
A textbook example of the "No true Scotsman…" fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
In fact, here's the example used to illustrate the fallacy:
A: Faith is permanent. Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith.
B: But Mark used to go to church, and then lost faith in Jesus.
A: Yes, but Mark was never a true Christian in the first place.
The initial definition A uses for Christian is one who believes and follows Jesus Christ as a deity. When B provides a counterexample for A's assertion, A redefines "Christian" to mean "a follower of Jesus who doesn't lose his faith", tautologically satisfying his initial assertion.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Observing that Bart's story of his original conversion/investment of faith indicates that there may have been grounding problems in his faith isn't tantamount to saying 'No one who loses their faith was ever a REAL Christian.' If I find out that someone used to call themself Christian but dropped their faith because they originally believed that God was a purely anthropomorphic individual residing in the Pleiades star system and have since come to believe that the Pleiades is uninhabited, I'm not committing a fallacy by questioning whether they truly had a handle on Christianity.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
A thought provoking question…
Was Arius a Christian? link
And for those who don't trust Wikipedia, here is the Catholic Encylopedea version.
And here is a modern link defending Arianism which includes this interesting biblical passage…
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 3, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
A more thought provoking question: If I, as a rather traditionalist Catholic, call myself a quaker – am I a quaker? Am I a naturalist if I call myself a naturalist, even if I am a realist about universals, immaterial realities, and I believe in God (but I call all of these things 'natural')?
I've enjoyed being a naturalist Catholic. I think I'll be a quaker too. I do like oatmeal, after all.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Some determinations can be left to God but clearly words and doctrines have meanings and Christianity entails some core beliefs that should be shared by all Christians.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Bradford,
Sure, that sounds reasonable – I'd certainly believe as much. My problem is that, while Allen brings up the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, I wonder if there's a mirror of it. Something like the 'No False Scotsman' fallacy, where instead of progressively shrinking and qualifying a definition to keep out undesirables, it gets expanded more and more to pull in desirables. And of course if someone resists the trend, hey – just accuse them of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Hey Allen
This line of reasoning illustrates that you don’t understand biblical Christian faith and is very relevant to this topic
Your definition “A” is never the biblical definition of faith especially Christian faith. The bible makes it clear that many will believe for a season but only Christians will believe till the end.
I could quote you many many verses to this effect. But this will do for a start
James 1:3 For you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
Here is the obvious syllogism
major premise) Tested Christian Faith produces steadfastness
minor premise ) Testing Bart’s faith produced apostasy
Conclusion )Bart’s faith was not Christian faith
Perseverance of the saints is probably one of the most scripturally well attested Christian doctrines. Your complete ignorance of it is very telling.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 3, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
nullasalus:
As a long-time member of the Ithaca Monthly Meeting of Friends, I can tell you that if you call yourself a "Quaker" and then claiming that you are a member of the Society of Friends that would be equivalent to calling yourself an "Iroquois" and then claiming that you are a member of the Haudenosaunee, or calling yourself an "Eskimo" and then claiming that you are a member of the Inuit.
One becomes a Friend by "convincement" and by asking one's local monthly meeting for a committee on clearness to accept your membership in the meeting. Purely semantic arguments over what constitutes being a "true" Christian are exactly equivalent to arguments over whether one is a "true" Scotsman. Erhman, by virtue of once having been a member of a Christian congregation and having subsequently left it was indeed formerly a Christian who has since become an agnostic by "convincement".
Either that or Clive Staples "Jack" Lewis remained an atheist following his conversion to the Anglican faith (and Jeshua Ben-Joseph remained a Jew, of course).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Of course Jesus of Nazareth remained a Jew. What else would He be?
Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Allen,
So being a Quaker is decisively determined by the result of a committee's acceptance? You'll forgive me if I find this to be unconvincing, oh avowedly agnostic Quaker. What's to keep me from forming my own committee? Must I receive a formal blessing from the Quaker Pope?
"Is my name on a mailing list?" may be sufficient for determining Quakeritude by your standards. If you want to apply similar standards to whether to count someone as Christian, well, I'll just go ahead and find that quaint.
But, let's not let this disagreement boil too strongly, Allen. We Quakers have to be respectful to each other, yes?
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Unlike trying to subjectively determine who qualifies as a Scotsman, In the case of Christianity we have the actual membership requirements of the leader of the club himself and his appointed representatives.
You don't get any more objective than that.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 3, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Hi Allen. If you think that I'm saying that "No true Christian would lose his faith" then you are reading way too much into my remark.
Quite simply I was saying that fear of Hell is no reason to give your life to Christ.
The fact that Ehrman only mentions fear of Hell when talking about his conversion is as telling as what he doesn't mention: namely repentance of sin, and the love of Christ.
It is the love of Christ that draws us to him. Converting out of fear seems more like some some twisted version of the Stockholm Syndrome, not Christianity.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
When one asks a monthly meeting for a committee for clearness with respect to membership, that committee then meets with the person who asked for the committee and they discuss with that person why they want to become a member of the meeting and what it means to become such. As with all decisions made using Friends process, reaching clearness on membership means that the entire committee (including, of course, the person who asked for the committee) have reached consensus that the person is a member of the meeting, an event which is then recognized by the rest of the meeting as having already happened as a result of the clearness process.
So, nullasalus, you can't just "form your own committee", and acceptance of one's "convincement" is indeed recognized by the only "authority" that exists in the Society of Friends: the meeting itself, acting as a corporate entity.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Interesting; therefore, the question of whether one is a member of a Christian community isn't up to the members of that community, but rather to the "leader" of that community "and his appointed representatives". I suppose that's why Friends don't do it that way; we don't have "leaders" nor "appointed representatives" of leaders, and membership is entirely up to the community as a corporate body, which is, of course, composed entirely of individual members, who have voluntarily agreed to live according to "the measure of light which is pure and holy" in each.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Allen MacNeill,
Actually, Allen – I can. You may disagree with it, you may stamp your feet and claim not to recognize it, but sadly that won't amount to much. I think it's very well established that what defines True Quakers is, to put it kindly, considerably elastic. If you must regard me as a heretic or some nicer-sounding alternative, I won't hold it against you. Just one more split in our fellowship history to speak of.
And thus ends the first and inaugural meeting of the E-Society of Friends, North American Conditional Internet Committee, Brother Nullasalus presiding. Petitions for membership will be considered, and I will point out that refreshments are available after each meeting to members. Assuming said members have anything in their own refrigerators, mind you.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
And as to my status as an "agnostic Quaker", let me quote perhaps the most famous "agnostic" of all:
Si enim, fallor sum
Augustine of Hippo: De Civitate Dei, Liber XI
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
"You can eat your fill of all the food you bring yourself"
And apparently it's all happening in Iowa today…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 3, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Yes, we quakers place value in self-reliance and personal efforts. The Light of Christ Within and all.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
No true agnostic Quaker would ever say that.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Yes it's up to Jesus who gets to be a Christian that’s why it’s called Christianity and not a bunch of folks getting together.
I know objective standards can be a real drag.
Baptists unlike your Group have a leader (Christ) and he has appointed representatives (Christians) who make up the Body.
We are kind of like you guys except we have biblical standards for membership and endeavor to make ourselves conform to the image of Christ not the subjective standard of our own hearts.
That way we are less likely to end up having an agnostic /Buddhist leading our meetings.
By the Way I have nothing at all against Quakers at least not the Evangelical kind. Many of those folks are dear brethren who seem have a lot more in common with me than they do with you.
Both groups (Baptists and Quakers) have folks who claim kinship that we don’t claim.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 3, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
What part of "we don't have leaders" do you not understand?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 4, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
fifth monarchy man also wrote:
Interesting; you know that "the evangelical kind" were not the original Friends, but rather an attempt (actually, several attempts) by people from other sects (especially Methodism) to "convert" the Friends into what they considered to be the "right" kind of Christians. Historically, the Friends have split several times, each time between "evangelical" Friends (i.e. outsiders) whose leaders attempted to force all Friends to adhere to a written creed and make explicit "confessions of faith" and "traditional" Friends (i.e. the original kind, as founded by George Fox, Margaret Fell, Isaac Pennington, William Penn, and others) who do not have leaders, a fixed/written creed, nor a confession of faith (nor water baptism, nor eucarist/communion rituals, etc.) Following each split, the "evangelical" Friends have converged on more recognizable mainstream Christian groups (and sometimes merged with them), while the "traditional" (i.e. unprogrammed) Friends meetings have carried on with their original format and practices.
Since the 1970s, some of the "sundered" Friends groups have reunited, a process that has generally been accompanied by a recognition by "programmed" Friends that their "unprogrammed" brethren's beliefs about the lack of creeds, confessions of faith, and leaders/preachers should be accepted (or at least tolerated) and that what really matters is the various Friends' testimonies, especially our peace testimony.
To me, it all comes down to whether you believe that you can force other people to believe what you believe (and act on your belief in validity of the use of such force, up to and including killing people who will not accept your beliefs as the only valid kind – this is what the good Christians of Massachusetts colony did to Mary Dyer, a Friend whose only "crime" was being a Friend), or whether you understand that there is "that of God in every person" and let them come to their own understanding of this.
To me, it appears that your version of Christianity is all about "authority" and "leaders" and "appointed leaders" and "believing the right things" and telling people like me that we are misguided and wrong (and probably immoral and evil as well). It's all about force and being right and winning isn't it, FMM? That's what "monarchs" and "monarchists" are, right? Winners who win by the unrestrained (indeed, divinely sanctioned) use of force?
It's all about empires, and emperors, and fighting and destroying your enemies (the infidels) and forcing each and every person to believe exactly what you believe, because if there is even one non-believer out there somewhere the possibility remains that you might be wrong, and that possibility is absolutely intolerable, isn't it?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 4, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Hey Allen
Every one has a leader.
My spiritual forefathers were persecuted by many of those same folks and they bravely faced martyrdom the same way their leader did.
It had very little to do with being a "friend" it had more to do with claiming allegiance to a higher authority than the powers that be.
That’s what Christians do. They are still doing it today. That’s the way the Monarchy grows.
That's what it's always been about. That what my leader did. He was not afraid to tell it like it was even when it ruffled feathers.
It cost him his life.
Actually his Monarchy comes in a completely different way than you expect. It’s not about the use of earthly force. It comes by simply proclaiming the truth (2 Cor 10:4). If you took the time to learn what the Quakers of old really died for you would know that.
No for the Christian no force is involved but the force of truth. Perhaps that is what scares you so?
It has nothing to do with me it’s my Leader who is interested in world domination (1 Cor 15: 24-28)
In the end we win.
Resistance is futile
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 4, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
In case anyone is interested in a little history of the Quakers
You might want to check this out
quote:
In 1647, Fox began to preach publicly:in market-places, in fields, in appointed meetings of various kinds, or even sometimes in "steeple-houses" after the priests had finished. His preaching was powerful, and he began to attract a minority following. It is not clear at what point the Society of Friends was formed but there was certainly a group of people who often travelled together. At first, they called themselves "Children of the Light" or "Friends of the Truth", and later simply "Friends". Fox seems, however, to have had no desire to found a sect, but only to proclaim what he saw as the pure and genuine principles of Christianity in their original simplicity—though he afterward showed great prowess as a religious legislator, in the organization which he gave to the new society.
end quote
It seems that the original Quakers like their evangelical decedents aspired to be citizens of the Fifth Monarchy and to promote it's expansion. I may disagree with some of their doctrine but I’m glad to have them on my side.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 4, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
It's a pleasure to be on your side as well, FMM.
Comment by nullasalus — April 4, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Allen, would you be gracious enough to explain what your understanding of this is?
Thank you.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 4, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I feel the same about you nullasalus,
Imagine a fundi like me being on the same side as a Catholic proponent of Theistic evolution.
I’m pretty sure that’s the first sign of the apocalypse.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 4, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 12:48 am
fifth monarchy man:
Me, too, and it seems I may have been a little hasty in my prejudice about your position (happens all the time, unfortunately; I'm only human). If, indeed, your position is that there is something in each of us that is beyond time, beyond space, and is entirely pure and gentle and without rancor or the desire to control others, then that is indeed what each of us can find if we meet together silently and wait for our all-too-human preconceptions and prejudices to just shut up for a minute and let us perceive the light that shines out of each of us. I guess the main difference between me and you is that I don't think it's necessary to put names on any of it, or personify it in any way, or to require others to do so. Indeed, I have generally found that putting names on it and personifying it does injury to me, because it limits semantically what cannot be limited.
Here's the way it came to me once upon a time:
P.S. Feel free to substitute "the Tao" or "heaven" for "The Way of Liberation" and "the Truth" or "the Way, the Truth, and the Light" for "That Which Is", if it makes you feel better.
P.S. "That Which Is" is also approximately semantically equivalent to the phrase "I Am" and/or "I Am Who I Am", especially if you say it in Biblical Hebrew. There is also an anagrammatic name which is nearly equivalent to "That Which Is" in Biblical Hebrew, but since The Way of Liberation cannot be named, I shall refrain from attempting to do so.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 5, 2009 @ 12:48 am
April 5th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Interesting discussion here.
Allen, you wrote,
By the scare quotes you apparently believe authority, leaders, and believing the right things are somehow wrong or bad. I doubt, however, that you would want to believe that which is not true, or that you would consider a leader-less society very attractive at sizes larger than a fellowship of Friends. So I'm curious what it is you think is wrong with FMM's "version of Christianity."
I won't attempt to guess your answer, I'm more interested in hearing it from you than in putting words in your mouth, certainly. But I think it's not presumptuous to respond to something you have said already: the two words "all about," and then "force and winning." I hope it's not hard to see how distorted this picture of Christianity is (excuse me, this picture of FMM's "version of Christianity," which as far as I can tell is about the same as mine).
Christianity is primarily about a relationship with the God of the universe, revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the "head of the body, that is, the church," as we read in the NT; who is himself the one and unique "way, the truth, and the life," and who as eternal God and King calls people into fellowship with him through faith and repentance, and calls his followers to make known that call to others. To follow him in that way is not something we do to be "winners" and certainly not (man, you really distorted it here!) by the "unrestrained… use of force." Goodness, you must know better than that!
I could go on to explain the Christian position on these things, but FMM has done so already, and I have to get to church early to run sound there this morning. At any rate I am mostly interested in your take on leaders and authority etc., as I asked a couple paragraphs earliers.
Comment by TomG — April 5, 2009 @ 6:45 am
April 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hey Allen,
How is it going?
While I’ll whole heartedly agree that each of us has the Imago Dei inside of us, I along with my leader believe that it takes much more than communal contemplation to bring it out.
In fact he said it takes nothing less than a supernatural intervention to undue the effects of our rebellion (John 3).
I suppose that is one difference. The main difference IMHO is who we take orders from.
My leader left explicit instructions that we must personalize “the Way” so I’m only following His orders.
The cool thing about Christian faith is I can trust my leader never to do injury to me even when my finite little mind might think it hurts to do what he asks.
I hope that someday you might also get to experience such faith.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 5, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I'm strongly inclined to agree with you, Allen. As a nonbiologist, I simply see this quality as a "given" in each of us. As an evolutionary biologist, how do you suppose humans acquired this quality?
Comment by Lutepisc — April 5, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Hi Allen,
I am finding this conversation interesting and informative.
Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Please excuse me for butting in, but you responded to Allen with…
Can you see how someone like me could translate the above into…
"I hope that someday you will finally let someone else do your thinking for you"
?
I find it difficult to understand why I should unquestionably follow the orders of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef as laid out in a 2000 year old book.
I think, therefore I am.
If I let others do my thinking for me, I deny myself.
If accept something I don't understand, I deny myself.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Hey TP
I suppose an uncharitable critic might phrase it in that way but a fair observer would understand that both the Christian and the rebel are doing their own thinking.
The difference is that the Christian has determined that a person who was willing to die a horrible death on a cross for me would have my best interest at heart.
If he also happened to be creator of the universe and all its contents including Me I could assume Christ would know better what is good for me than my own finite Intellect.
It’s called trust and if it’s not misplaced it’s the most powerful force in the universe. It's the foundation of every meaningful relationship and It’s the only legitimate response to the kind of love that Christ showed me.
The rebel on the other hand like a hormone driven teenager insists on destructive behavior no matter what it ultimately costs him.
Of course you do. That’s because you have not experienced his Amazing Grace. If you did you would understand
And in your worldview “yourself” is the most important thing. I know.
It’s very sad but I completely understand.
It's the pitiful lonely life of all rebels.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 5, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
From the lips of the leader
Luke 9:23-24
And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 5, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Matthew 14:17-24
Mark 6:38-48
John 6:9-18
In context, Luke 9:16-25…
I may be mistaken but wasn't Luke one of Paul's recruits and, therefore, never actually met Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef much less witness the events he described in his gospel?
Even so, I have no problems with the concept of denying the flesh (and the "whole world") in order to save one's true self. Even if it means taking up, and dying on, a cross for the love of your fellow man.
Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was teaching by example.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Please excuse me for pushing the topic of this thread, but I honestly have a problem understand how anyone can maintain "blind faith" is believing Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was NOT human in light of this passage…
Mark 14:32-42
This very touching and human scene was captured in the movie
Jesus Christ Superstar.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
If Jesus was who he claimed to be he was more than capable of making sure his thoughts came down to us uncorrupted and also the motive to do so.
Therefore the first question a seeker must ask himself is “is Jesus who he says he is?”.
Once you answer that question the “is this or that particular saying authentic?” question can be handled in short order.
I would be more than happy to explore the first vital issue with you if I thought you were at all interested. As it is by your own admission I know you don’t care to find out the truth in this matter but are only interested in debate.
Sorry to disappoint you TP but the text is clear this saying is not about denying the flesh (what ever that means) , it’s about denying yourself something that I know you will never do.
To do so would be the ultimate surrender for you.
It would mean admitting that you weren’t the center of the universe. It would mean that there is something more important than what's most important to you.
It would be in other words a leap of faith.
There is a reason that such faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8)
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 5, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
TP
I'm not sure who you have been talking to but all Christians believe Christ was human.
The question is
"Was he merely human?" No Christian would say he was.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 5, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Now I am definitely straying off topic, but one of the more interesting things to think about is motivations and anguish of Judas. He obviously struggled with doing what he thought was right. I have even found suggestions Judas was consciously part of Jesus’ intentional plan.
Here are two clips that dramatize Judas’ role…
Heaven on their Minds (opening scene)
Judas' Death
Note that this movie is over 35 years old. If you do the math that puts it around the time I was a teenager.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Is this a setup? I hesitated posting the closing scene to Jesus Christ Superstar (it is dated), but it fits too well.
Now I know I am having an impact. The last time I used the term "leap of faith" you jumped all over me saying that is NOT what is needed.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You asked…
Are you "merely human?"
I don't think I am "merely human".
I believe the whole point is that we are much more than "merely human", we are the Children of God.
This was the message Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was teaching by example.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 3:34 am
I do not like the idea of teaching evolutionism or creationism in grades K-12. I think those topics should be left for the college level.
In grades K-12 we can teach students the scientific method. Let them find and interpret evidence and learn to think like scientists. This should be acceptable to scientists because it is the method they promote. It should also be acceptable to Christians because "Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1-3). This non-doctrinaire approach should encourage both sides to dialogue with each other instead of hurling accusations and talking past each other.
The Bible actually says quite a lot on the theme of testing and searching. Some samples:
Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food?—Job 12:11
The naive believes everything, but the prudent man considers his steps.—Prov 14:15
I [Solomon] directed my mind to know, to investigate, and to seek wisdom and an explanation. —Ecc 7:25
. . . think so as to have sound judgement.—Rom 12:3
Be putting yourselves to the test whether you are in the Faith. Be putting yourselves to the test for the purpose of approving yourselves, and finding that you meet the specifications, put your approval upon yourselves. —2 Cor 13:5, Wuest
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. —1Thes 5:21
Test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. —1John 4:1-3
There are also many Biblical examples of people using this approach, and doing so with God’s approval:
Abraham questioned God to better understand His righteousness and mercy. (Genesis 18:22-33) God answered the questions and participated in the discussion. God did not say “Look Abraham, I am God of the Universe. Trust me. I’ll do the right thing.”
Gideon made sure of God’s will with a cross-over test involving dew on fleece and even surreptitiously listened to his enemies. Why didn’t he just believe God the first time? —Judges 6:36-40, 7:9-18; 6:14
David repeatedly asked various people what the reward would be for slaying Goliath. He also rejected Saul’s armor because he did not have time to test it.—1Samuel 17:20-30, 39
Solomon experimented with the pleasures of wine, women, song, and empire building. (Ecclesiastes chapter 2) Solomon was given wisdom by God. Couldn’t he “just know” these things without running expensive experiments? (cf. Daniel 7:16)
Thomas was not present when Jesus first appeared to the disciples after his resurrection and was not convinced that the disciples had actually seen Jesus. Although Thomas was one of the twelve apostles, he still wanted first-hand evidence that he could test himself. Jesus invited him to do so, and then reminded the disciples “You are witnesses of these things.” (John 20:19-29, Luke 24:36-43)
The apostle Paul gave proofs of the resurrection of Christ for he said “If Christ has not been raised . . . . we are of all men most to be pitied.” —1Corinthians chapter 15
These people were trying to convince themselves of something, pro or con. They sought out evidence and put it to the test. If they could not examine the evidence, how could they make a decision, except based on the emotions of the moment, and perhaps influenced by the various blindspots and prejudices we all possess?
Jesus used a similar approach. However, he was trying to convince, not himself, but others. He offered the evidence and appealed to others to do the testing (he did not shame them for not believing): ‘If you do not believe me, believe my works’ (John 10:37-38, 14:11) He was saying in effect, Perhaps you cannot see my close relationship with my heavenly Father, but you can at least see what I do, and then believe because of that.
When talking to a group of Pharisees (whom he bluntly called a “brood of vipers”) he said “a tree is known by its fruit” and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Mat 12:33-37, NKJ). We cannot see what is in a person’s heart, but we can see the deeds they actually do, and we can hear the actual words that come out of the mouth. These allow us to know whether the heart is full of good things or evil things. These tangible things bespeak an underlying reality. We can perceive that invisible reality if we examine the visible evidence.
None of these passages use technical terms like "scientific method" or "falsifiable hypothesis". But I think the ultimate effect is much the same.
The debates about the factualness of evolutionism/Creationism are really irrelevant. The real issue is about power and indoctrination, not how students use scientific methodology, no matter what side you are on. That is why I do not like the idea of teaching evolutionism or creationism in grades K-12.
See also:
"One Christian's Perspective on Quantum Mechanics" (a student paper) at:
http://www.geocities.com/third...
"What is Scriptural Physics" at:
http://www.geocities.com/scrip...
Brian
Comment by Brian Fraser — April 6, 2009 @ 3:34 am
April 6th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Hey TP
Judas is a great illustration of what I’m talking about. He witnessed the miracles he heard the teaching he looked in the eyes of God. He had no doubt that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
But when it came down to it he just could not bring himself to trust his life and future completely to Christ.
He decided instead to do what his finite mind thought was right and the result was the loss of his soul. He held on to “his self” so tightly that he lost it and everything else as well. How very sad.
At that time you were defining leap of faith as believing what you did not know for sure to be true. That is most definitely not what I’m talking about here and no such thing is required for the Christian.
What I’m talking about is trusting what you know to be the truth with everything you have.
The contrast between the two concepts could not be greater.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 6, 2009 @ 7:19 am
April 6th, 2009 at 7:28 am
You have got to be kidding !!!!!!!!
Joh 8:42-45 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 6, 2009 @ 7:28 am
April 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Hello? Allen?
Are you there?
Comment by Lutepisc — April 6, 2009 @ 9:32 am
April 6th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Never questioning yourself?
Absolutely no room for doubt that you might be wrong?
And I thought I was arrogant!
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
To my suggestion that we are the Children of God you exclaimed…
Matthew 5:9
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Romans 8:14
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"
Romans 8:16
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"
1 John 3:9-11
"9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."
So with you "…trusting what you know to be the truth with everything you have…" are you going to declare that I am NOT one of God's children?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Actually to be a Christian you must do more than merely question yourself you must completely deny yourself. You must surender.
You must acknowledge that nothing good dwells in you and that all your good works are like menstrual cloths.
I question myself all the time. What I don’t question is my Savior and Lord. Unlike me He is trustworthy.
You on the other hand will question God himself but never yourself. How sad.
Actually I am often wrong. I doubt myself all the time. If I had to depend on my own correctness I would be hopelessly lost.
Christ on the other hand is never wrong. That’s why I can trust him
Choosing to reject the Son of God rather than deny one’s self is pretty much the epitome of Arrogance.
Arrogant : adjective
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
nuff said
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 6, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
not me, my leader.
Joh 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men……………He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 6, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Just in case you misunderstood him the first time,
let him who has ears to hear, hear the word of the Lord
John 1:12-13
But to all who did receive him,(God the Word made flesh) who believed (i.e. trusted) in his name, he gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,(not even the great TP) but of God.
here is a Paraphrase
Yet some people accepted him (God the Word made flesh) and put their faith in him. So he gave them the right to be the children of God. They were not God's children by nature or because of any human desires. God himself was the one who made them his children.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 6, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
As I have said, you are letting someone else do your thinking for you.
At least the comment is topical in a thread titled Blind Faith?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
From Brian Fraser's link:
Go get um Brian. I like your spirit.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I seem to recall something about all knees bowing, and all tongues confessing.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 7, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Christians believe their leader had a different idea about himself: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father except thru me." For Christians, the name of the Liberator is Jesus the Messiah.
Just FYI.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 7, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
"My sheep hear my voice and they follow me"
"No man can come to me except my Father draw him"
If you're not one of his sheep, why then, you're not one of his sheep.
I guess there's no reason for you to worry about it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 7, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I've never met a Christian who didn't believe Jesus was a human. Maybe you've been talking to some Gnostics?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 7, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
kornbelt888 wrote:
You noticed that too?
By the way, I didn't notice Pez's comment on Gnosticism until I scanned for my own comments in that thread. That makes three of us Noticey McNoticers.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 7, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 12:04 am
For all those who were interested in the religious discussions, please excuse my detour into other subjects.
I'm not overly disturbed at being accused of holding to Gnostic beliefs even though I suspect the intent might have been similar to accusing President Obama of being a socialistic fascist (there was a time that would have been recognized as an oxymoron).
For the record, the term “Gnostic” is too broadly defined to make it a definitive description of my beliefs. For example, the “Gnostic” label has also been attached to Arius but, as Pez has correctly indicated, it would be a stretch to call me an Arian.
But, like I said, I don’t mind because it allows me to get back to a key topic I enjoy discussing, the schisms in the Christian religion before the first Nicene Council (325 AD). Christian Gnostic beliefs were very much present in early Christianity, along with Logos Christology, Monarchianism, Unitarianism and, of course, Arianism. The term “Catholic” means universal. This “universal” religion was accomplished by purging and/or killing all competitive ideas. Note the relevant Gospels that weren’t included as canon (e.g. Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip).
Meanwhile, back to the debate…
Concerning the virgin birth, Pez wrote…
I am relieved to hear the circumstances of Rabbi Yeshua’s birth aren’t a fundamental issue for you. However, I don’t see how getting raped by a soldier against her will has any bearing on Mary’s virtue. As for who may or may not be making up stories, the fact is the Gospel writers had no direct knowledge of what happened and they didn’t happen to provide references identifying their sources.
While the virgin birth may not be important to you, it apparently was important to Athanasius who was active in the Nicene Councils…
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" link
Not only was the Nicene Council establishing Jesus’ deity status, they also established Mary as a perpetual virgin by fiat (shortly followed by Mary’s immaculate conception letting her be without sin).
To my reference to the scene at Gethsemane kornbelt888 wrote…
"Fully human AND fully God", right?
This was one of the main causes for the schisms. It didn't make sense in 325 AD and it doesn't make sense now.
How can someone who is "fully God" have doubts and think God might have abandoned him on the cross?
I think, therefore I am.
If I accept something I don't understand, I deny myself.
If that makes my a Gnostic heretic who deserves to be excommunicated and then assassinated (and all writings destroyed), so be it. However, I suggest that isn't consistent with what Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef taught.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 12:04 am
April 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Hi TP,
Wrong thread here to be addressing our discussion, but I'll go with it.
Just because Greek Gnostics, for instance, could not deny the truth of Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection and had to find a way (your docetism) to account for this truth in their beliefs doesn't make them Christian.
Paul told everyone from the beginning, if anyone, even Paul himself, were to preach a different Gospel from the first it would be a lie.
If by killing and purging you mean defeating soundly in the marketplace of ideas, yes, you are correct. If you mean things like twice excommunicating the heretic Marcion, yes, when people were preaching what the Christians didn't believe they were told in no uncertain terms that they were not part of the faith.
And, as you'll recall, I'm sure, Arius got two votes at Nicea – and the quesiton wasn't about Jesus' divinity, but whether He was co-eternal with God.
There were no relevant Gospels other than the four. Christians did not accept these late, non-authoritative forgeries and had the real documents from the beginning. The four Gospels were circulating and even are found bound and accepted as a unit, with Paul's Epistles, before your competitors were even written. Contra popularizers and self-promoters like the the Jesus Seminar – always popular this time of year, go figure – the "early gospel" Thomas, for instance, relies upon the mid-second century harmonization, Tatian's diatessaron, of the four Gospels.
If you read the church fathers you will find out why the canon is what it is and why groups like Gnostics were not considered Christian.
For one, Christians taught and believed what the Apostles taught and believed based upon what Jesus taught and believed.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John and who knew others who knew the other Apostles. When Ignatius had to argue against the twin arguments of Gnostic docetism on one hand and works–based salvation on the other he did so with the books left by the Apostles. If you have no faith in the written word why appeal to the written word of forgers who did not know Christ and did not know the Apostles but got their theology out of their heads?
Notice that before the "gospel of Thomas" Tatian wrote the harmonization of the four Gospels. These were collected and recognized long before any others. And Tatian was a student of the great Justin Martyr – a philosopher converted to Christianity in Samaria. He was born at about the same time that John died.
Irenaeus, also from the early second century also had a way to determine orthodoxy – and because the Church agreed with him we still have his method as well as his arguments the heretics. The key, go back to what the Apostles proclaimed as Christ's own word. Who else could tell us what He said? Draw authority from the teaching and doctrines of the Apostles, study them in light of the original Hebrew Scripture, and interpret according to the Apostle's preaching, according to their early creeds. As opposed to making up fanciful narratives and cosmic mythology.
One of those creeds was the very simple Rule Of Faith. Within this rule theological seeking was perfectly acceptable. The rule recognized God as Creator, Who sent His Son, born of a virgin, to die and rise again, to ascend into Heaven and to return for the final judgment.
113
Bryan M. Liftin, Getting To Know The Church Fathers
Killing? Of the men mentioned above, only Tertullian was not martyred.
That's why you rely on the Word and not your own humbled and no-Truth-knowing intellect. If you believe the Bible then you understand there are mysteries of a sort, which can be explained but never to everyone's satisfaction, in the way God has spoken of Himself. If you insist that it fit with your own limited ability to circumscribe reality then you end up like JWs and other Gnostics. If you don't trust the truth of those who knew and taught the words and life of Jesus why trust anyone else who accepts from this only what they choose and denies the rest? Or why trust yourself to pull the truth out of …. the ether?
If you believe in Jesus at all then deal with the full story. At which point Reason puts you back on the horns of the trilemma.
Comment by Pez — April 11, 2009 @ 11:07 am
April 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Let's not be overly dramatic or hysterical.
I can't speak for the others here, but I labeled your musings on Christianity as Gnosticism simply because they fall neatly into that old philosophy that was hashed and rehashed for centuries before anybody alive here was born.
Of course it got a shot in the arm in 1999 with a certain Wachowski Brothers/Keanu Reeves movie, which suddenly turned bunches of teenagers (or those with the religious maturity of teenagers) into deep thinkers. Like all other teenagers, they thought that they were the first ones to come up with this whole set of ideas.
Enter Dan Brown's eighth-grade-level novel and an Oprah Book Club item a few years later, and there's a burst of new self-taught experts on Christianity whose closest brush with actual Scripture is in the bedtime stories read to them by their parents a decade or so before.
Little did these people know that apocrypha is apocryphal for a good reason, and not because it's dangerous (though I'm sure the Catholic Church saw it as such). It's because it didn't meet the historical standards set by the Councils that decided canon. And repetition of Voltaire's lie about those standards is a wonderful litmus test to ferret out those who, like the aforementioned teenagers, will blindly believe anything critical of the Bible.
So no, nobody want to kill you or banish you or persecute you in whatever manner that was done to past Christians (or present ones). Exposing the shallowness and unoriginality of your thinking (your groupthink, as it were) is far from persecution. If anything, I want to help you. If I thought you and your ideas were worthy of persecution, I wouldn't waste time conversing with you – I'd simply try to find a way to harm you.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 11, 2009 @ 11:58 am
April 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Right. That's the view held by Roman Catholics, their Orthodox brethren, and most protestant sects. Some groups, views, such as the Mormons, JWs and unitarians (small u.), hold different views about what the "godhood" of Jesus is exactly, and therefore what "fully God" would mean. One thing is certain, they all believe he was a "true man", that is, his body was a real human body that could die. Only the "gnostics" posited that Jesus was some sort of phantom whose "body" really couldn't die at all since it wasn't really flesh and blood, but merely an illusion for our benefit.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 11, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hi Pez,
Thank you for the reasonable and reasoned answer, but allow me to jump right to a defining distinction between our two views. You wrote…
This is the "leap of faith" that is required, isn't it?
"If you believe the Bible…" contains objective Truth and supersedes everything else including the Tao Te Ching, Quran, Book of Mormon or any of the other books throughout history claiming to provide objective Truth.
And doesn't the leap of faith go further than that? It includes faith that the various INTERPRETATIONS are the objective Truth by virtue of being popular.
It is no mystery as to why the proposal elevating the myth "Jesus" to an even higher status would win out. Between Athanasius' Machiavellian-like maneuverings, Constantine’s harsh gaze and the consequences of being in descent, the resulting Group Think was inevitable.
It’s practically a miracle that two brave souls voted for the obvious that the Trinitarian theology didn’t make sense either logically or by biblical interpretation. From this link….
I noticed you didn't comment on the ever-virgin claim. Just like the Trinity claim, the biblical support for it is indirect (at best). I suggest you are picking and choosing which ideas require that you understand and which are too mysterious for understanding.
Are you absolutely sure your faith in Trinitarian theology isn't the result of deeply ingrained Group Think? Are you absolutely sure that Trinitarian theology is the absolute Truth for all people (including Muslims, Buddhists, and me)?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The doctrine of the trinity is really just short hand for three simple biblical truths
1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.
2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.
3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity—that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
I challenge anyone to read the bible for themselves without preconceptions and not come away believing it taught those things directly.
If for some reason you are in doubt that it teaches anyone of them let me know and I can bury you in scriptures to prove it does.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 11, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Hi AngryOldFatman
Along with a lot of other irrelevant musing you wrote…
In case you haven't noticed, I have been purposely pointing to Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's ideas along with other pre-Nicene Creed Christians' writings as interesting and worthwhile philosophical outlooks.
Of course my ideas aren't original. Some of them even can be traced back to before 400 BC or further. No one was wiser than Socrates because he knew he didn't know the Truth. And, no philosopher since has proven to be wiser that this first Western Philosopher.
I suggest it is your ideas that lack depth and originality. A long history full of pomp and circumstance of rituals that include mind numbing repetition, incense, symbolic sacrifices and holy books doesn't hide the fact that its foundations are based on political and military might forcing bended knee compliance to the mandated Group Think.
For the record, I haven't read The Da Vinci Code nor seen the movie.
And as for the actions of other countries, let's first look at the alleged Christian Nation that is under God, trusting in God. It has illegally held hundreds of followers of Allah without charge for years. On top of that, there is credible evidence that many were tortured.
Should this "Christian Nation" use its political and military might to enforce the Christian version of objective morality on other nations? BTW, this isn't an original idea either.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Pez
Excellent point.
I'm sure that Arius would not consider what TP believes to be Christianity.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 11, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Hi Kornbelt888,
You wrote…
But since it is obvious that I think Rabbi Yosua ben Yosef was an actual human being who preached an interesting philosophy, does that mean I am NOT a gnostic?
As I said, I suggest the term "Gnostic" has too broad of a definition to make it a credible label for my worldview.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
A little Easter humor
Every once in a while it’s nice to step back and laugh at the critics
:lol:
Enjoy
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 11, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Hi Fifth Monarch Man,
I'm glad to see you have decided to become more engaged in the theological discussion.
You wrote…
I wouldn't call this a simple Truth because "eternal" could mean "all time" which would limit God's existence to be constrained within the space-time universe (i.e. Natural) whereas others interpret God as transcending time and space (i.e. Supernatural).
I am assuming you capitalized "Persons" to mean something different than the standard definition of "persons". I wouldn't suggest Rabbi Yosua ben Yosef was eternal nor would I suggest the being he called "the Father" to be a person.
Furthermore, there are many Children of God and Sons of God differentiated in the Bible.
Did the Bible teach this? Or, was it just people’s opinions quoted in a collection of writings collated and edited by fallible humans?
Would "without preconceptions" include having no opinion on its inerrancy?
I have stated multiple times that I have read the Bible cover to cover. I read it with the presumption that it was written by humans who were trying to cope with both metaphysical and practical challenges. For Example from Genesis 9:1-13,28,29…
I asked a devote Jewish friend about verse 4 because I figured it has something to do with things being Kosher. Sure enough, he had a ready answer. And, more interestingly, he started off by saying he didn’t mind explaining it to me because it was part of a covenant God had with ALL people, not just Jews. He explained how in ancient times people would take chunks out of living creatures without killing them first. Of course we now know that this would lead to infections in the animals with adverse consequences to the society at whole.
So, "without preconceptions", am I to presume a supreme being appeared before a 600 year old man to lay down a practical guide to surviving with a promise that he would continue providing food and will refrain from engaging in worldwide genocide, again? And. Furthermore, should I presume we know this covenant is real and legitimate because, prior to the flood, water droplets didn’t act like prisms and form rainbows?
Or is it more likely, that imaginative and well-meaning humans did the best they could in explaining things they didn’t understand (sick animals, rainbows, etc) which evolved into a story and creed that served them well (including not killing each other)? And since nothing succeeds like success, God was thanked and worshipped.
BTW, another way to look at it is to think of “God is Love” and it was the love of fellow man that allowed these struggling humans to thrive. So in a way “God” did keep “his” covenant even though mankind didn’t get some of the details exactly right.
Since reading the Bible cover-to-cover involves starting with the Old Testament, by the time I got to the New Testament I was pretty well reading the details with large grains of salt. Seeing no reason to consider the New Testament any more or less inerrant than the old, I read it with the same attitude as I treated the Old Testament.
You could bury us in interpretations of scriptures that have been finally tuned since the days of the First Nicene Council.
Humans have demonstrated a profound ability to believe what they want to believe even if it requires suspending a need to understand.
This all come down to that “leap of faith” doesn’t it? N.T.Wright explained it in his Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? lecture.
Pez implies it when he acknowledges this is beyond human understanding.
Yet you insist that a simple reading of the Bible should convince anyone.
Sure, as long as the Bible is considered inerrant.
The same claim can, and has, been made concerning the Quran. Just accept it as the word of God handed down verbatim to Mohammad.
Why would you doubt that?
There are two general answers to that question. “I know in my heart, Christianity is the real Truth” and “There are more Christians that there are Muslims”.
Well, Muslims know in their heart, Islam is the real Truth. So if and when Mohammad's followers outnumber Christians will that mean Islam will be the real Truth? Or will the Christians engage in yet another crusade to keep that from happening? Of course, the Christians will naturally claim to only be defending themselves while fighting in Muslim countries.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
From my understanding, you would not be a gnostic.
I only mentioned it because of you bringing up the issue of Jesus's mortality with respect to the common views.
FWIW, I have little in common with the orthodox view on this subject and would probably be considered a heretic by FMM, AFM, and the others here, so I'm probably not a worthy foil for you. I solve the problem handily by considering the body of Jesus to be completely human, mortal, cellular, and chemical, with absolutely no special material properties whatsoever, except that his DNA may have been somewhat different with respect to the impulse to sin, etc. What was "divine" about him was the consciousness, or "spirit". That thing predated the body and was responsible for the existence of the universe. It was a "divine spirit" joined via the brain with a human body, and thus to spacetime, just like any one of us. The body was no more "divine" than a rock.
But that's just me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 11, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Hey TP,
What ever gave you that idea?I simply provided a way for a honest discussion of the trinity to move forward. Your response proves once again that you are not ready for such a discussion. I’m ready when you are.
In this case either understanding works no need to blow smoke.
No, a person is a person the standard definition is fine.
I don’t care what you would suggest every one has an opinion.
I care what God has revealed and he has revealed that Christ is eternal and the Father is a person. Would you like Chapter and verse?
So?Yur point is? your constant attempts to muddy the watters gets old.
Yes It’s in the Bible. The word of God.no opinions nessary.
If Jesus is who he claims to be inerrancy is implied.
That explains why you did not understand it at all. Perhaps you should try it again and this time try reading like the authors meant for it to be read. It’s only common courtesy.
I’m not asking you to understand it I’m asking to acknowledge that the Bible teaches it.
Tha fact is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Some folks are willfully blind.
Once again you completely miss what is being discussed the question is not the inerrancy of scripture it’s the lordship of Christ. As long as you deny Christ his rightful place you will have trouble with his Word.
If you accept that he’s who he claims to be the rest follows necessarily other claims notwithstanding.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 11, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
You wrote…
In case it isn't obvious by now, I agree with this sentiment.
I would only add the what made Rabbi Yeshua "divine" is the same thing that makes all the Children of God divine.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Hi TP,
This would be a lot more fruitful and enjoyable for all involved if you would deal with it forthrightly and not as some kind of chain-jerking exercise.
You just told FMM that you don't think of God the Father as a person. But on the previous thread, when it so suited you and you weren't interested in telling us what you meant by the terms you were using that:
It wasn't really close enough, was it? It wasn't the same thing at all.
Maybe you just meant "close enough for obscurantism".
You bet it does. That's what truth is, objective. And just because I can't GROK it in every instance doesn't mean it isn't true, believable nor a reasonable inference (if not a direct logical deduction from the evidence). Right?
A step, really, in the direction of the evidence. Don't tell me Quantum Quack (an affectionate term based upon your own previous characterizations) is suddenly opposed to such steps just because "he thinks and therefore, is".
Load a question much? Why don't you ever just try discussing an issue?
No, an interpretation is not true because it is popular. No, faith in the veracity of the Bible is not faith in inerrant interpretation – in fact, faith in the Bible as truth rules out the possibility of inerrant interpretation.
I didn't comment on purgatory or indulgences, either. The Biblical evidence for the Trinity is not mysterious whatsoever. The mystery refers to how is one God three persons, or how did one Person possess two natures? It is not a a mystery that this is the case.
Absolute certainty? Is that the requirement for knowledge now? Better contact the epistemology police.
Absolutely the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is/was God.
I bet you didn't read the Bible anymore than you read Behe. What causes a rainbow to appear in the sky, TP?
As FMM says:
You keep challenging that for some reason we ought to be quaking in our boots because when you really bring you Biblical criticism to bear our poor, fragile faith will be demolished. Yet it is always your smoke and your mud we have to clear.
Comment by Pez — April 11, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Excuse me for taking some things out of order. To my presumption that the Bible was written by humans who were trying to cope with both metaphysical and practical challenges you wrote…
How many religious discussions have you had with Orthadox Jews? The authors of the Old Testament clearly meant it as a spiritual and practical guide for living day to day in the Jewish tradition.
I notice you didn't answer my question about Genesis allow me to repeat it here for your convenience…
So, "without preconceptions", am I to presume a supreme being appeared before a 600 year old man to lay down a practical guide to surviving with a promise that he would continue providing food and will refrain from engaging in worldwide genocide, again? And. Furthermore, should I presume we know this covenant is real and legitimate because, prior to the flood, water droplets didn’t act like prisms and form rainbows?
Or is it more likely, that imaginative and well-meaning humans did the best they could in explaining things they didn’t understand (sick animals, rainbows, etc) which evolved into a story and creed that served them well (including not killing each other)? And since nothing succeeds like success, God was thanked and worshipped.
To my suggestion there were many references to children and sons of God, you asked…
The point is you are cherry picking only the parts of the Bible that fit your "preconceptions". Looking at the Bible holistically only muddies the water for those trying to make their Truth everyone's Truth.
Genesis 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Matthew 5:9
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Romans 8:14
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"
Romans 8:16
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"
I need to go now. I will finish responding to your comments later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I did not respond to your question because it had nothing to do with a discussion of the Trinity or the lordship of Christ . It’s a red herring the proper response to a red herring is to ignore it
If we agreed that Jesus was who he claimed to be and that the Trinity was a Biblical doctrine and you still had trouble understanding what God wanted to convey in Genesis 9 I would be happy to discuss it. Until then I will treat your question for what it is, a diversionary tactic.
When did I cherry pick? I have never claimed that Jesus's title as The Son of God proves his divinity. I don’t need to.
The Bible is much more explicate than that. It comes right out and say Jesus is God not merely the Son of God but God. In It Jesus accepts worship as God it also quotes OT passages refering to God and ascribes them directly to Jesus.
The Bible makes it crystal that Jesus is Yahweh something that is never done for any other human. Do you need to see chapter and verse.
To bring up "Sons of God" passages is not looking at the Bible holistically. It's like like your Gen 9 rabbit trail just a diversionary tactic.
If you want a real discussion stay focused on the topic.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 11, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
TP: I would only add the what made Rabbi Yeshua "divine" is the same thing that makes all the Children of God divine.
FWIW, I think that "divine" refers to a status and not a nature. "God" is the creator/ruler group/corporation, of which I consider Jesus to be a member of, in particular, the creator of this spacetime. I don't think I've ever been a part of sych a group, so I do not consider my own consciousness ("spirit") to be "divine", ie, not part of "God." However, I do think that it is possible for humans to enter that group and thus become "divine."
But that's just me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 11, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
kornbelt888 wrote:
Not I, said the angry old fat man.
I'm not Catholic, as TP seems to think. I have very unorthodox beliefs about Christianity myself. My 62-year-old mother, who was raised as a Pentacostal, would probably freak out at some of the stuff I believe. My Dad the Episcopalian-turned-Wackjobbian… not so much.
I did something radical for a pew-napping Baptist – I read the Bible and compared it to what the preacher was preaching. Turns out a lot of the stuff I was supposed to be scared of wasn't in there, and a lot of stuff he didn't care about was in there.
Rather than ignoring both the Bible and the preacher's sermons, I chose just to ignore the preacher. It worked out for the best, in my opinion. It drove me to learn a lot more about Christianity than many of my friends who stayed in the pews, especially after meeting my first militant atheists online.
I never knew there could be such a thing as a militant atheist. After all, Christians had the Great Commission, the command from Jesus to go out and spread the Gospel. The atheists didn't believe in God or a divine Jesus, so there was no news to spread – yet here they were, preaching as fervently as my old preacher. And to think I had almost stopped believing there was a Satan…
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 11, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Why ask? Why not just give it. I would be interested in the chapter and verse that starts with something like "And God said…."
But I suspect you would provide verses where gospel writers are either making statements on their own or quoting Rabbi Yeshua even though they weren't present when he said it.
Of course your most likely response is a repetion of…
This is assuming the conclusion. BTW, where in the Bible does it say the entire Bible in the inerrant Word of God? I think it might be in there, but I don't remember where.
Muslims insist the Quran is the word of God. From Quran 4:171…
"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" .
Does this mean you consider all the people who prior to the First Nicene Council interpreted the Bible differently than you were "willfully blind"?
Any biblical evidence for the Trinity comes from strained, indirect interpretation and a blind eye to Rabbi Yeshua's doubts and other less-than-perfect moments.
The Trinity didn't make sense in 325 AD and it doesn't make sense now.
To my Noah quote and questions you responded with…
But it is very relevant to the challenge you made concerning the Trinity. Remember?
Reading the bible means reading the entire bible. I was showing you clear evidence as to why someone reading it cover to cover would be inclined to realize that it can't be taken too literally. I suggest only someone with a preconception of inerrancy or an apologetic agenda would be willfully blind to something this obvious.
Interesting.
Do you have a passage showing Rabbi Yeshua accepting "worship" besides those that reference him as the "Son of God" or the "Son of Man" (e.g. Matthew 14:33)? Rabbi Yeshua clearly called himself the Son of God and others the Children of God. It would be a stretch to suggest that when people affirmed this it meant they were worshipping him as God and/or he was accepting that worship.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 12:27 am
April 12th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
I pegged you well. My mentions of "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Secret" were quite relevant, as evidenced by one of your later comments to kornbelt888:
We are not divine. This idea that we are gods is the central theme in both "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Secret". Not only is this idea blasphemous, but it is dead wrong.
The fact that we need governments, laws, and a justice system is plenty of evidence that we are not divine.
As for the blasphemous part, Genesis 3:4-5:
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
The "S" in the word "Secret" on the book cover for "The Secret" is styled to look a lot like a snake. Coincidence? Maybe. I doubt it, though.
You've been ignoring any of Jesus' ideas you don't like and talking about apocrypha as if it was Gospel that you alone discovered and understood. This is exactly how the largely ignorant, gullible, and rebellious fans of the two pop-lit books in question act.
While you may or may not have studied the subject more than the aforementioned rebels-without-a-clue, it remains to be seen if you can do anything but copypaste from xians-r-dumb-hyuk-hyuk.com, talk about knowing the [T]ruth that you don't know the [T]ruth, and repeat that Descartes phrase which should mean absolutely nothing to you.
I suspect that you are actually closer to a Theosophist than any other category of religion, since what you've told me of Christian Science seems to fit the Theosophy mold. A Crowleyian, I'd wager. You'll be in good company soon, if my calculations are correct.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 12, 2009 @ 12:27 am
April 12th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Hi TP,
Jesus is God
Titus 2:13
Romans 9:5
Acts 20:28
Philippians 2:6
John 20:28
Revelation 22:13
In Matthew 14:33 the disciples didn't say only "You are the Son of God". They worshipped Him.
You can try the blind man in John 9:38, the disciples in Matthew 28:17 and Luke 24:53, and the women in Matthew 28:9. (Don't forget Thomas in the previous list)
And God Himself says in Hebrews 1:6 that all His angels will worship Jesus.
Do you think Jesus didn't know that only God accepts worship? Or gives eternal life? Or is the Alpha and the Omega? Or forgives sins? Or judges the righteous and the unrighteous?
Do you think the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for saying "I and the Father are One" because He was leading by example and telling them all that they were spiritual beings? They knew they were spiritual.
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."" John 10:33
And today…
He is risen!
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 9:53 am
April 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
All scripture has an implied preface of “and God said” someone who read it “cover to cover” several times should know that
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
The Quran also insists the Bible is the word of God (Surah 2:285).
The Bible claims that Jesus is God and the Quran denies that claim.
Therefore if the Quran is true it’s false.
As finite sinful humans all of us are prone to error. Holding on to an error when it is conclusively pointed out from scripture would be considered willful blindness.
and remember the Trinitarian controversy at First Nicene Council was not about the divinity of Christ it was about whether the Son was co eternal with Father. The Arians had a much higher opinion of Christ than you do.
This is coming from a guy who embraces square circles.
Please explain what God’s commands to Noah have to do with the Trinity and I will be happy to respond.
Inerrant does not mean literal these are two very different terms and concepts that you would confuse them is very telling
Of the top of my head John 9:38, Rev 5:9-14, Luke 24:52, and Acts 7:50-60
I can give you more if you like.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 12, 2009 @ 9:58 am
April 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Hi Pez and Happy Easter,
You made an appropriate observation to a mistake I made when I said "Close Enough" to your definitions. Let me try to make amends by making my philosophy clearer…
TP's concept of God and Man's true essence:
I consider my true self to be immaterial consciousness and love. Alternative names for it include "soul" and "spirit". Note, however, this shouldn't to be taken to be like a typical ghost seen in scary movies. The true self is completely without form and can't be seen or otherwise directly detected. Since other living things show indirect signs of consciousness, I presume they also possess a true essence. This includes, in varying degrees, most of the animal kingdom and, possibly, plants.
"God is Love" Love is God.
I consider God to be the collection of all the individual consciousnesses and universal Love (not an individual “person”). This makes God omnipresent. And with the mind-over-matter concept, it also makes God omnipotent. Recent advances in Quantum Physics provide supporting evidence that consciousness creates reality.
TP's concept of the material world:
With the NOMA separation, I look at the "reality" of the material world with the same view as the reality of a game of monopoly. The material world is an artificial construct of God's collective consciousness with strict rules making it internally consistent.
TP's concept of religion and the Bible:
Players in the game of Monopoly can start to act and feel like the game is real. They feel happy, sad, angry, etc based on what is happening to "them". This concept is amplified to the extreme in the material world. Players are easily fooled into thinking matter is all there is. However, our internal consciousness gives us hints there is something more. Throughout history mankind has tried to use its conscious intellect to make sense of reality with less-than-perfect results. I consider Christianity, and its Bible, one of many attempts that falls short of perfection because it was too influenced by short term material and political “needs”.
I am well aware that I could be totally wrong on this. I could easily have been biasedly influenced by suggestions offered by Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Mohammad, John Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.
For all I can definitively prove, the material world may well be all that there is and we are a bunch of zombies. Alternatively, there could be a supernatural being who created our universe as a science fair project (if so, I hope we got a blue ribbon).
However, I am who I am. And I need to understand something before I accept it. That means I need to understand HOW it makes sense.
If there is a supernatural being who made me the way I am, he can't very well fault me for being who I am. However, if this being punishes me anyway (either directly or through neglect) then that is my fate in this universal game of Monopoly.
There is a saying I have occasionally seen on posters and other places that goes something like…
For all the scientists' hard work climbing the mountain of knowledge when they finally reach the top, they will find the religious believers are already there.
I am comfortable with that. I think knowledge needs to be obtained (grok'd) not handed down from on high.
Otherwise, why bother playing?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 10:42 am
April 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hi Pez,
Continuing with the rest of your comment. You wrote…
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting all interpretations should be ignored because the Bible, and only the Bible, is the source of inerrant truth?
I would suggest that would mean how I read, and interpret, the Bible is just as valid of a truth as when you do it.
If I don't understand "how", I don't understand. "How" should be easy. It is usually the "why" that is hard.
"How" a rainbow appears is understood to be a result of sunlight shining through water droplets. That is the scientific side of the NOMA. Asking "who" or "what" created a universe with laws that allowed for rainbows to appear is on the philosophical side of the NOMA.
I interpret the passage in Genesis to be an obvious and well-intentioned attempt to encourage a clan of people to act in way that is advantageous to the greater good. They topped it off with a good sounding explanation for the mysterious rainbows.
BTW, do you believe an actual human named Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 11:31 am
April 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hi Kornbelt888,
You wrote…
If you read my previous comment summarizing my philosophy, hopefully it is obvious that I consider the Children of God to be part of god.
But that's just me.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 11:41 am
April 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Hi AngryOldFatMan,
You wrote…
I didn't and don't think you are Catholic. In fact, there was a comment in AtBC that suggested you were a clever sock puppet. Until recently, I kept an open mind on that. While it is still a possibility, I am beginning to doubt it.
I know very little about The Da Vinci Code and even less about The Secret.
I suggest the definition of "divine" might be the source of our differences. If our true selves are in the image and likeness of God, I would suggest it makes us divine. However, I can certainly understand how people would hold that only God could be considered divine.
My Truth isn't your Truth and your Truth isn't mine.
According to Wikipedia, Theosophy was established in 1875 whereas Christian Science was established in 1866.
You seem to be obsessed with the idea that I am trying to claim my arguments are new. I am arguing the exact opposite. The ideas are very old and I suggest we went down the wrong path around 325 AD. It is of no surprise that Christianity has become very fragmented and more people are challenging its foundation.
It didn’t make sense in 325 AD and it still doesn’t make sense now.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Hey kornbelt,
I'm just one man and I’m not the judge but for me Christianity is a centered set with the Christ of the bible Being the center point that grounds the set
I consider a person to be Christian if he holds the biblical Jesus to be his Lord and Savior. Christians can and do disagree about a lot of things but we don’t disagree about that.
Granted I don’t know you except what you post here but I have seen nothing that would make me doubt that you are my brother in Christ.
Have a great Easter
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 12, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Hi Pez,
Per your suggestion that all we need is to let the Bible speak for itself…
Titus 2:
Romans 9:1-11
Acts 20:1,16-32
Philippians 2:1-8
John 20,1,2,24-31
Revelation 22:1-14
Matthew 14:27-34
John 9:32-41
Matthew 28
Luke 24:1-10,51-53
Hewbrews 1:1-9
Well, that should about do it, right?
Surely everyone who reads this will automatically realize the Trinity is the one and only Truth for all, right?
Interpretation or explanations by religious leaders isn't needed, right?
Happy Easter.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for your clarification on your philosophical outlook.
Am I take it to understand then that you are one of, what is it, two, people on earth who understand QM?
And you, alone, understand, how gravity works? And action over a distance? And retro-causality? And consciousness? Human development?
Interesting.
We can understand and know without our own inerrancy.
That's how I understand it as well. Now what if the writers of the Bible presented the case that not only did God give the rainbow as a sign but also that there were previously no water droplets in the sky? Do you allow that the atmosphere may have, at some point, undergone some kind of changes during Earth's history?
It works for me. Do you believe that dragonflies once had a two foot wingspan (do you know how this could be?) and that rodents once grew to ten feet long?
Life on earth used to be quite different, don't you agree?
But I didn't quote anything on the Holy Spirit – Two a Trinity does not make.
If you like we can do the Holy Spirit next; that is, demonstrate that He shares the attributes of God Himself, and yet is a distinct Person.
I did answer your question as to whether or not the Bible makes the claim that Jesus is God, though, as these verses attest:
A little more on the "First and the Last" (Alpha and Omega), we know that God says this of Himself throughout the OT, including in Isaiah and that He is referred to as such in the book of Revelation as well. But in Revelation we have John say:" 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead. But he laid his right hand on me and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.[i]"
But God, the Father never died.
I don't actually also have to show you how the sections you've quoted – to provide for context – demonstrate that Jesus was worshiped and that His worship was mandated by the Father?
Since you've read the Bible cover to cover and studied in many a church I'd have thought you'd already have known these things. But rather than acknowledge they exist, now you would like to serve up yet another red herring.
Doesn't it embarrass you that people keep trying to honestly engage you and you pull trash like this?
I said we can't expect our interpretations to be inerrant – I didn't say we don't have to know how and be willing to read.
Thanks for your wishes. Happy Easter to you as well.
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
To my request of
"BTW, where in the Bible does it say the entire Bible in the inerrant Word of God? I think it might be in there, but I don't remember where."
You responded with…
It was interesting that you neglected to include my admission that I thought it was there and also questioned my veracity of reading the Bible "several times" when I had only claimed to have read it cover to cover once. BTW, that was over 30 years ago.
That being said, I thank you for pointing out what I couldn't remember.
If it is not obvious by now, I like to put these verses in context from the King James version….
2 timothy 3:14-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God…" is somewhat different than claiming the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
To my reference that Muslims consider the Quran the word of God you replied with…
Thank you for the reference. From verses 2:284-286…
(284) Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's; and whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will call you to account according to it; then He will forgive whom He pleases and chastise whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all things.
(285) The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers; We make no difference between any of His messengers; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.
(286) Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought: Our Lord! do not punish us if we forget or make a mistake; Our Lord! do not lay on us a burden as Thou didst lay on those before us, Our Lord do not impose upon us that which we have not the strength to bear; and pardon us and grant us protection and have mercy on us, Thou art our Patron, so help us against the unbelieving people.
From Quran 4:171…
"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian".
Are you claiming the Trinity is an inerrant interpretation?
If Arius' interpretation had won the day at the First Nicene Council would that have negated your claim against the Quran's reliability?
By "conclusively pointed out" do you mean winning by popular vote?
Once again, this falls under the concept of inerrancy in interpretation.
I suggest Arius' interpretation was closer to an unbiased reading of the Bible than the Trinitarian nonsense.
As you should know, I suggest square circles can exist in geometries that don't match our observable universe. Square circles cannot exist in our natural universe, but they can easily exist supernaturally (i.e. metaphysically).
There was no problem when a dual nature of Jesus was recognized as many early Christians believed. Unfortunately, the zeal to elevate the Jesus myth to a PHYSICAL object to be worshipped overrode even the first commandment prohibition against worshipping graven images (It’s only a cracker!)
The pull of materialistic thinking is just too strong.
Once claims are made equivalent of postulating square circles, it no longer makes sense in our observable universe.
It didn't make sense in 325 AD and it still doesn't make sense now.
I was waiting for this acknowledgement. Thank you.
So who gets to separate the inerrant truth from the literal meanings of the words written?
The obvious answer is that it would be a personal responsibility (Orthodox Jews come close to practicing this).
However that wasn't, and isn't, conducive to promoting the power and prestige of the "universal" Christianity (Catholic means universal).
After all who wants to be a Quaker? (Apologies to Allen)
Or worse, a Unitarian/Universalist?
For examples of Jesus accepting worship you offered… (Thanks)
I had previously quoted John 9:38 in context. To me Thomas' exclamation was that he no longer doubted God’s existence or Jesus' divine nature.
Revelation 5
I already quoted Luke 24:52 in context. This was after Jesus' ascension. Jesus wasn't physically present.
Acts 7:50-60
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Hi TP,
You say to FMM and I can't help but intrude…
Somewhat. But maybe you want to know what "inspired" means. "Inspiration" here, "theopneustos", means, literally, 'God-breathed' or from "God's spirit". And God is not a man, that He can lie. Of course, having said that we have to discuss his use of real humans, not a dictograph, and using their particular voices.
Please deal with the facts and not your group-think slogans.
When the bishops heard Arius' explanation of his teaching it was rejected flat-out. This was not what they were teaching. This is not what the Church had been teaching and this was not the way the Bible had been interpreted.
It's not like this was a matter of great question and debate that they decided to finally nail down. His minority view was not Biblical and was not the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles or the Church and it did not withstand scrutiny.
And it wasn't a matter of political will winning out. Constantine himself was baptised by an Arian and he couldn't have cared less which way the question went – he just wanted peace. In the decades that followed political rulers were just as likely, if not moreso, to be Arians and to banish Trinitarians (Athanasius, for one obvious example) as otherwise. The matter was a losing case for Arius because it did not have enough explanatory power and was not Biblical.
No. Winning by sound argument and Biblical facts. Sometimes, though rare these days, what is popular is also what is true.
Your suggestions are far from compelling as you don't even know the Book you are deriding.
Another TP red-herring. What's His physical presence at that moment got to do with Whom they were worshiping?
He was certainly present in the boat. He was certainly present to Thomas (and I'm sorry, but who cares what you think Thomas was saying?) and tot eh blind man.
He was certainly present to Mary.
Matthew 28:
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Hi Pez,
To my "I need to understand in order to accept" you wrote…
While this is an excellent response from a worthy debate opponent, I do have some counter points to make.
I do not claim to know THE Truth. I accept that my understanding is undoubtably flawed, but I have a version of understanding. While Oleg will probably choke on this, I have some working knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and strive to understand it better. My knowledge will certainly not get me a Nobel Prize, but it is AN understanding, even if it is severly incomplete.
The same with gravity. In past comments of mine, you may have noted my space curvature calculations. And while I am no Roger Penrose, I try my best to understand his working model. Once again, I know my understanding is severly incomplete, but it is there.
Everyone makes assumptions. I think it is important to constantly test one's assumptions and openly admit the assumptions may be wrong.
This kind of attitude doesn't make for a good rallying cry ("follow me because I might be right") but that is the price one pays to maintain independent and open-minded thinking.
It never rained before the flood?
This is just too materialisticly focused for my tastes.
To my question of "BTW, do you believe an actual human named Noah lived to be 950 years old?"
It is my understanding that life wasn't that different 4100 years ago.
Or is my presumptions of the biblical timeline mistaken?
I have always found it incredible when people pull single sentences (sometimes half sentences) out of the Bible to argue their point of view. It is practically the only debate situation where it is tolerated.
Normally the obligation would now be on me to provide the one liners were the Bible clearly references Jesus standing next to, not part of, God, along with the multiple times Jesus questions God’s plan and shows doubts. And then there are the parts where God knows things Jesus will never know.
I don't think I need to do that because you undoubtably know them better than I. But I will make an exception for your favorite quote from Rabbi Yeshua that shows up at least three times…
(Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19)
"Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."
If I said "my wife and I are one" would that mean I am claiming we are literally a single person?
Sure, I could have argued both sides, but people generally get confused when I do that and/or opponents just yell "strawman".
This was not a "red herring"
You have shown a very good working knowledge of the Bible. I wanted to see your best shot to test my presumptions. Maybe you could have shown me something I didn't notice or hear argued before.
Is that the normal "willing to read" in context or is this the special kind of reading that is applied only to the Bible?
I presume everyone in the TT blog could read the biblical excerpts I provided.
Whether or not, they try to read it without preconceptions or an agenda is up to them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
TP
Actually that was in response to this
See what happens when you constantly try to muddy the waters instead of dealing with the topic before long you lose track of where you are at.
I never said it did. Obviously this discussion would be much better if you tried to focus instead of constantly going off on off topic tangents.
The trinity is not an interpretation at all it’s the plain teaching of scripture as you yourself are clearly illustrating with your quotes.
Arius’s doctrine was not an interpretation but a philosophical argument based on the word begotten. It can be easily refuted by schripture.
If it had been accepted it would have simply meant that the counsel was in error as to the eternality of the Son. The Quran would still be in conflict with the bible.
Not at all. by conclusively pointed out I mean shown to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt.
Inerrancy in interpretation has nothing to do with it. There is no group that allows for The Perspicuity of Scripture that does not agree that Christ is God.
This is not an issue about interpretation The Bible is clear.
I said that inerrant was not the same thing as literal.I never said that inerrant truth was different than the literal meaning of the words written.
For instance if I said “the sun rose this morning” the literal meaning of the words written would be something like “it became daylight” but it would be a literalist mistake to believe that the sun gained height.
This is simple reading comprehension 101
Once again it would make this a better discussion if you would try and pay a little attention to what is being said.
What are you talking about John 9:38 is not even about Thomas?????????
What are you talking about? Is Jesus physical presence necessary for him to be worshiped? Are you saying that Jesus is unable to discourage worship unless he is physically present?
You are not even making sense. Perhaps you should take a break and actually look at what you are commenting on. It would make for a better discussion.
I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are making it very hard.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 12, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Hi TP,
Thank you for your opening comment and thank you for admitting that you accept even without understanding.
Yes, I notice you can apply equations to problems and come up with answers. Just like a true believer can cite dogma. That doesn't imply the least bit of understanding as to how gravity works, how masses can act to curve that thing called "space-time".
What we have at work here is a double-standard. Or rather, a claim to a double-standard. It is a highly dubious claim, however, that it is a commitment to epistemological rigour which causes you to withhold assent. You don't do it elsewhere, so why should you do it here?
That's what the Book you read cover to cover says. That is quite consistent with the claim about the rainbow.
That's the point. Your understanding is incomplete – as is mine. But certainly stranger things have happened on this planet than that people can get very old. Or that after a cataclysmic resurfacing of the planet (which nobody doubts has happened on any other planet) lifespans may have been altered.
What I find incredible is that you claim to have read the Bible but don't know 1) that these sentences exist or 2) what these sentences mean. And then that you bury them amidst their surrounding text (a very good idea – never read a Bible verse, as Koukl says) but act as though that context somehow changes the point.
I've merely pulled the sentences in question back out to make the point. Your "providing context", sans anything resembling a case or an argument, does nothing to change the clear meaning of these words.
No, it would not. Again, you don't know the Book or the doctrine you are critiquing – The Son and the Father most emphatically are not a single person.
Unlike you, I have read the Bible many times over. I read a portion every day and have for 30 odd years (a day or two missed here and there, of course). And my understanding is still less than miniscule and I still learn all the time what the true context means and says. The only "special reading" of the Bible I see here is that of gleaning so-called troublesome passages to cast aspersions on the whole. This is not the kind of reading one would do with anything else. They certainly wouldn't act as though their single reading 30 years ago was sufficient to comment on how conclusions drawn from the text are "nonsense".
And the people you are discussing had read the Bible as a whole, many times over, had studied it and, in Paul's case, had taught it. And, in context, and viewed through the experience of the life of Jesus, they concluded that He was fulfilling prophesies, including Psalms 45 where God, the Father, called Him God, and mandated that the angels themselves would worship Him, and called Him the Alpha and the Omega, and said that He has existed with the Father for all time. He Himself, a student and teacher of the entire Jewish Scriptures, said that before Abraham was, I AM. And the Jewish Pharisees, who also had more than a passing knowledge of Scripture, picked up stones to kill HIm with when they heard His words and said that He was making Himself equal with God.
If you attempted to read without an agenda you would have long ago admitted that, yes, the Bible does say that Jesus is God, and yes, Jesus did accept worship as only God can and made many other claims to attributes that only God possessed.
Your argument then would have been "well, I don't believe the Bible" – which is, of course, an acceptable position and your complete right.
Instead, because of your agenda, you've tried to deny that which is perfectly obvious.
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
By the way, this might be more productive if you didn't think of this as a debate and us as opponents.
Try sometime to have a discussion with partners.
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Hopefully Pez will understand me taking the comments out of order. It's your turn.
I'll skip over your attempt to deny the significance of me saying "I think it might be in there, but I don't remember where." Anyone reading this thread will see what happened.
This is why I have been providing all these biblical quotes in context. I am not surprised you think the Trinity is so clear and obvious from these quotes. I am suspecting that others reading this thread will think otherwise.
Except for over a Billion Muslims.
But you jumped all over me for focusing on the literal meaning of the words written.
While your rising Sun example may seem trivial, it is an example on the need for interpretation. Who gets to decide the interpretation?
Shouldn't this mean anyone with everyday reading comprehension should be able to make their own interpretation of the Bible?
Wasn't that kind of the point when Martin Luther was saying things like "Perspicuity of Scripture". Of course, he was excommunicated for it.
You are right, Thomas was John 20:28. John 9:38 was the blind man showing his gratitude.
By the way, in other discussions it has been argued that "worship" is little more than showing appreciation and love. As in we worship God, not because he demands it, but because we are showing gratitude.
I am not sure of your take on that.
FWIW, I appreciate your patience. I happen to think we are providing some thought provoking ideas for those listening in.
I have learned some things. I am sorry if you have not.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
But that's not what the King James says. It says that the blind man worshipped Jesus.It did not say the blind man thanked Him.
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
April 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Apostles and angels are worthy of appreciation and love. But when they are offered worship they say "don't do it, for I am merely a creature like you".
Jesus did not say this.
Comment by Pez — April 12, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 6:55 am
This is the kind of thing that frustrates me. Muslims explicitly deny that that the bible is clear that is why they believe a new book was necessary. Yet you site them as a counter example to my statement.
Can you see how a body would get the idea you weren’t paying attention to what others were saying?
Yes duh, The point of the reformation was that we don’t need others to tell us what the bible says that is because it’s clear at least about things like the deity of Christ.
Exo 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2009 @ 6:55 am
April 13th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Not at all. I’m saying that you might not be focusing on the literal meaning at all but instead applying a naive literalism. It might take some study to determine this in the case of the rainbow and the antediluvian longevities of humans.
When reading any text it’s best to understand the easy parts like Christ’s divinity before you tackle hard stuff like exact physics and biology of the ancient earth.
The short answer is God through the Holy Spirit does
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2009 @ 7:26 am
April 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Hi Pez,
I quick response to one item (I will get to the others later).
You suggested…
Where's the fun in that?
Seriously, believe it or not, I do question myself on several things including my habit of approaching everything as a challenge and/or debate.
However, I find it an effective method for flushing out useful and relevant information while avoiding the contentment that either leads to Group Think or the simple agreement to disagree,
I suggest a non-confrontational discussion would have resulted in the trivial observation that you consider the Bible to be more authoritative than I do. Followed by another trivial observation that I think Christianity's "religious" doctrines were significantly influenced by political and material practicalities while you disagree.
I don't know about you but, until recently, I didn't know who Athanasius was of that he was one of the first to voice the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity. I also didn't know the Quran directly challenged the Trinity concept by name (I thought it was just implied).
I wouldn't have been motivated to do the research if I had no short term reason for doing so.
Another example is your insight into the meaning of the Greek word "theopneustos". I thought that was great. I really doubt that would have come out in discussions which avoided fully exploring our differences.
Whether it is relevant to this discussion of not, I would like to share an experience I had when I was in High School.
I had happened upon an after school discussion group led by a Methodist minister. I joined in the question and answer activities and things were reasonably pleasent and relatively non-confrontational. It was apparent that most of the group knew each other and the minister from church and that I was an outsider. Towards the end of the discuss one of the girls complained to the minister how she thought is was unfair/wrong that some born-again Christians recruited two church members during a recent church picnic.
The minister responded by telling her it was obvious the church members didn't have a firm grasp of their beliefs if they could be so easily convinced to change them. The minister then pointed at me as an example of someone who wouldn't easily change beliefs. He did this in an approving manner.
At the time this surprised me on two counts. First, he had insight into my personality even though I hadn't been very aggressive in my questions. Second, he was teaching his impressionable young flock it was ok that others had beliefs different from theirs.
Looking back on it, I realize even a well behaved bull in a china shop gets noticed and that there are many religious leaders quite content to preach modest ideals to modest congregations of people willing to listen.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 13, 2009 @ 11:59 am
April 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Hi Pez,
Excuse me for breaking these comments up, but I have gotten overly wordy.
You wrote…
Either I didn't communicate it very well or you are being intentionally provocative. Either way, I did not suggest I accept without understanding. What I meant to say was the exact opposite of that.
I think the fancy terms for what I preceive is our fundamental difference are Internalization and Externalization.
Assuming you accept for a right triangle that the sum of the squares of the two sides equals the square of the hypotenuse…
Do you accept that because Pythagoras and your 8th grade math teacher said so, or do you understand it?
When I was in high school I took the effort to prove to myself that the Pythagorean Theorem by using only basic Euclidian Geometry. I reduced my assumption to a minimal basic level.
This is how I approach things. In Penrose’s Road to Reality he starts out with Euclidean Geometry and walks the reader through (at a very fast pace) the mathematics necessary to get a working understanding of space-time geometry and Quantum Physics.
I accept that Minkowskian Geometry describes the geometry of our observable universe.
This is internalized knowledge that is free from any external ties. Roger Penrose could be found to be a fraud and all his books rejected by the scientific community but I would still hold on to my internalized knowledge until someone show me the mistake in my logic flow.
Which gets to the part that will likely cause confusion. My internalized knowledge means that I have an understanding that allows me to accept things whether or not my understanding is correct.
“I think, therefore I am” is the most basic kernel of my philosophy. What I think and understand is what makes my Truth, the Truth for me.
If it isn’t obvious by now, my philosophy practically makes it impossible for me to accept a Truth from any other source but myself. Be it a Supreme Being, the Bible, or a 2000 year-old Rabbi. I can, and will, learn from external sources. But until I see a step-by-step process for going from the basics to whatever knowledge is being alleged, I will be incapable of internalizing it.
If there is a Supreme Being who made me this way, then I am doing his/her/its will.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 13, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hi TP,
Your claim to be the only person on Earth whose knowledge base is not 99% authoritative doesn't strike me as genuine.
I accepted the Pythagorean theorem because I was taught it – of course I did – and you did too. Nobody has the time to go out and test every claim, nor have they the ability. I also solved many a problem using this knowledge, I also confirmed it by measuring the angles with my protractor and I also proved it the Euclidian way. I do not accept it any more after having done so than I did when I was first taught it.
No more than I accept the ration of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere, the distance to the moon, the existence of electrons, the past existence of Julius Caesar, etc.
Your claimed epistemological rigour strikes me as self aggrandizing (and selective) – as do so many of your statements and as have caused me to engage you so often on this blog.
Again, you accept the truth of gravity, right? You even accept that it is the result of the curving of space-time. But do you understand how that results? If not, then how do you accept that it does?
Next, whether you accept the truth of the Trinity or not, your failure to do so has zero impact on whether or not the Bible teaches that Jesus is God or that He accepted worship. Your trifling over these points demonstrates that you do not approach this question free of bias, or with an attempt to be free of bias.
Comment by Pez — April 13, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
By the way, I shelved my response earlier to your previous comment. I appreciate and thank you for it.
My concern is not with the sentiment behind your calling me a "worth debate opponent" but with its presumptions. I am making no pretense that we are debating and I don't think to do so would be a valuable exercise.
If we are only debating then we are intent on winning, not seeking truth and understanding. We would also be utilizing strategies toward that artificial goal rather than toward real knowledge. Strategies that can include deliberate obfuscation, deliberate provocation, deliberate distractions and the twisting of your "opponents" words, etc.
None of these is productive, yet they might each be useful if the idea is to "win".
Comment by Pez — April 13, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Hi Pez,
In your TP/FMM response you wrote…
As I indicated earlier, I found your reference to the word "theopneustos" very interesting. Excuse me for asking, but 30 years ago most of the religious people I debated with argued that the King James version was just as "God Inspired" as the original. Since that time, I have noticed many people going back to the original Greek for support to determine the actual meaning.
What is your take in the inerrancy of the multiple modern biblical translations that are available?
And if you could excuse a potentially provokative question. At the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was being actually written, would you agree the "scripture" only included the Old Testiment?
Alternatively, if "scripture" included all future documents would the Quran qualify?
To my question of whether "my wife and I are one" equals "person" you responded with…
I made a mistake. I should have remembered how loaded the term "person" is. I should have used "being" instead.
That is why I like
debatingdiscussing things with you. I am getting a different point of view from someone with the background to make solidargumentsinsights.Comment by Thought Provoker — April 13, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:
I don't know what "AtBC" stands for, but I've seen it mentioned here and gather that it's another one of the online evo fever swamps.
I'm flattered that I've affected somebody enough to comment about me and that they think that I need to pretend to be someone I'm not. Whether they actually meant it as flattery doesn't really matter to me; I'm flattered all the same.
My user name is the same on all the comment boards I go to, mainly because it's a way to publicize my Youtube videos. I've used this same one for around 4 years now, though I've used different ones before that. And I've never created more than one account at a time on any particular site.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 13, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Do you have a reference for your claim? I suggest devote Muslims would never question the clarity of Allah's words. They also wouldn't speculate Allah's motivations for creating the Quran.
You are coming close to making a no-true-Scottsman argument. If you won't accept Muslims as an example, how about Jehovah's Witnesses?
They are known for being fanatical in their presumption of the Bible's clarity. Here is a link to a Q&A on their website….
"JESUS never claimed to be God. Everything he said about himself indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God in any way—not in power, not in knowledge, not in age.
In every period of his existence, whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God. God is always the superior, Jesus the lesser one who was created by God."
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 13, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
TP
From here
quote:
The Noble Quran came to confirm Truth that exists in the Manuscripts in the different canons and to filter out Truth from falsehood in them. Allah Almighty never claimed that the bible is fully and 100% Divine. Islam is a witness on the Bible. It filters out the truth from falsehood and corruption in the Bible. The Noble Quran only recognizes the Bible as a HISTORY BOOK with errors and man's alteration in it. Anything that agrees 100% with Islam is valid, and anything else that has even the slightest disagreement with Islam is discarded:
I concede it’s possible there is a group that allows the bible to speak for itself and denies the deity of Christ but I don’t know of it The burden of proof is on you it’s your claim
It's not the JW.
From here
quote:
The Faithful and Discreet Slave is described as a "class" of Christians that operates under the direct control of Jesus Christ and has been delegated the task of "feeding" Christians with scriptural instruction and exercising direction over their interests and affairs. The concept is a central doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses' system of belief and is based on their interpretation of one of the parables of Jesus Christ at Matthew 24:45-47 ("a faithful and wise servant" KJV).
Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus uses this group exclusively "to publish information on the fulfillment of Bible prophecies and to give timely direction on the application of Bible principles in daily life" as the only means of communicating God's messages to humans. Hence, it is referred to as God's "prophet" and "channel"
end quote
nuff said
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 13, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Hi TP,
They are not inerrant but they demonstrate God's protection of His Word. Not only has He brought us thousands of mss from the early centuries but we have them in various languages and from all over the empire which we can cross reference. And we see that the alterations and glosses do not change the meaning or doctrine that God had set out from the beginning. His original authors were allowed to present their inspiration with their own voices and language, without destroying the message or inspiration, and when we look at translations we find that any alterations or errors that found their way in have the same effect. That is, they do not cause us to question any significant or doctrinal portion of the message transmitted.
I wouldn't. We know that Paul had been writing for at least a decade before this epistle was written and that he was writing what Jesus had personally revealed to him, what Jesus spoke through him, and what the Lord had commanded. When he was giving answers to questions not directly answered by Jesus in the flesh he tells us that he is writing such from "the Spirit of God". We also know that the other Apostles considered his writings to be scriptural and inspired.
At the same time, as he is writing this epistle to Timothy he quotes St. Luke from his Gospel alongside Moses and refers to both as "Scripture". He also includes in his works the ancient creed which he had received, demonstrating that the words already existed – as did all the narratives about Jesus' birth, life, death, and Resurrection – long before this letter was penned.
So you amend this to mean instead "literally a single being". No, I would doubt you meant that. But if you told me that in addition to the fact that you and your wife are one, that anyone who knows you knows your wife, anyone who sees you has seen your wife, that you are in your wife and your wife in you, and you also claimed attributes, respects and titles that belong to and describe exclusively your wife I'd say I had a genuine mystery on my hands – and not just a figure of speech.
Comment by Pez — April 14, 2009 @ 1:43 am