Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Breaking Bad Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I definitely define Christian differently than do you. As far as I am concerned every Christian recognizes the Bible as divine revelation. You do not have to be an inerrantist to know that the Bible is divinely inspired.
    I never said that one needs to an inerrantist to 'believe' the Bible is divinely inspired.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      Religion, as man's effort, certainly may evolve. Truth does not evolve.
      Are you claiming you know absolute truth? To the exclusion of all other "truth claims," like Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, etc.?

      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      It is a pity you have Darth on ignore. He handled this quite well.
      I seriously doubt it. He's quite a bore, only interested in the sound of his own voice.

      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      I was born with a heterosexual bent. My early intent was to seek sexual pleasure with women. That was sin pure and simple.
      Are you celibate, then? That is an extreme position, even for a Christian. How does it feel to be in love with a woman, and not be able to have a relationship with her? Do you condemn all other heterosexual Christians who are married?


      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      Just because I wanted something did not mean (and still does not mean) that it is acceptable. The same thing is true (equally true) for homosexuals. Sin plain and simple. The Bible has not been proved to be, nor is it, wrong in this instance.
      Is being human not acceptable to you, then? The Bible believes that if you are born as a homosexual, you are in sin. That is clearly wrong. The ancient authors of the Bible were incorrect in their judgment of homosexuality.

      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      Since you are blind to Darth let me quote him.
      No, thanks.

      NORM
      When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        Man you're narcissistic to the point of high comedy. What makes you think my comment was about you personally? You said "I do not believe every Christian claims Divine Revelation." That's what I was responding to. I never said I was talking about you personally.
        You said 'If you do not claim Divine Revelation then you are not a Christian.' in a post to me. It would have been best to say: 'If [someone does] not claim Divine Revelation then ;[that person is] not a Christian.' or something like that.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          I definitely define Christian differently than do you. As far as I am concerned every Christian recognizes the Bible as divine revelation. You do not have to be an inerrantist to know that the Bible is divinely inspired.
          Wait. Are you equating Divine Revelation to Divine Inspiration? Are they not different things? I think that they are. Divine Inspiration is like "the gods whispering in your ear" kind of thing, while Divine Revelation is a god / gods speaking directly to someone.

          The Apostle, Paul, claims to have had a Divine Revelation from Jesus on the road to Damascus. It changed fundamental Christian doctrine. The Gospels, some claim, were Divinely Inspired. I think there are others, who claim it is Divine Revelation - i.e.; every word, punctuation mark and letter is literally God's word.

          The Orthodox Jewish Rabbis tell us that the Torah is Divine Revelation: G-d dictated, word for word, the Word of G-d. In HEBREW. IOW, you are not reading G-d's words if you are reading an English translation.

          NORM
          When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            It is a pity you have Darth on ignore. He handled this quite well.
            It's hard to tell because I don't really pay attention to him all that much but I think he's butthurt I mocked him when he tried to cow me into submission with his Jewish persecution syndrome.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I never said that one needs to an inerrantist to 'believe' the Bible is divinely inspired.
              Simply adding to the statement that every Christian recognizes the Bible as divine revelation. I would have expected some more weasel words from you on the subject. You will have to go one step further if you want to argue my statement.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                Are you claiming you know absolute truth? To the exclusion of all other "truth claims," like Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, etc.?
                Yep. Jesus Christ is the Way, The Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father but through Him.

                Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                Are you celibate, then? That is an extreme position, even for a Christian. How does it feel to be in love with a woman, and not be able to have a relationship with her? Do you condemn all other heterosexual Christians who are married?
                How about you address what I wrote instead of some strawman. What I labeled sin was the putting sexual pleasure above right behavior.

                Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                Is being human not acceptable to you, then? The Bible believes that if you are born as a homosexual, you are in sin. That is clearly wrong. The ancient authors of the Bible were incorrect in their judgment of homosexuality.
                Nope. Sin is sin. Just as heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sin, all homosexual sex is sin. That was my claim and you made up a straw man to shoot down. Was I not clear enough for you. Sorry about that.

                It is still true that the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible never had anything to do with whether it was a "lifestyle choice" or whether you were "born that way". Men are all born sinful. ("men" means human beings not male human beings)
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  You said 'If you do not claim Divine Revelation then you are not a Christian.' in a post to me. It would have been best to say: 'If [someone does] not claim Divine Revelation then ;[that person is] not a Christian.' or something like that.
                  You are not that thick are you?
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • I do not personally feel as comfortable setting the Bible as a parameter for faith because there have been cases where Christians have had to go without knowledge. Obviously, the gospel existed before all of the NT books were even written (much less compiled into canonical form); their faith was based on what the apostles taught. More recently, in Communist countries, there probably have been some converts who had no access to the Bible and had little to go on beyond what missionaries taught them and perhaps a few verses written down.

                    Now, this is not to minimize the role of Scripture in shaping faith at all, simply that I do not think we can mark any one view of the Bible as an inherent prerequisite for faith.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                      Wait. Are you equating Divine Revelation to Divine Inspiration? Are they not different things? I think that they are. Divine Inspiration is like "the gods whispering in your ear" kind of thing, while Divine Revelation is a god / gods speaking directly to someone.
                      So many things wrong here. There are not gods, only one God, creator of everything. If He whispers in my ear that is revelation. If I write it down for others it remains revelation, that is it has been revealed. The whole "every word, punctuation mark and letter is literally God's word" is sort of silly. I read the Bible as translated into English. The words, punctuation marks, and letters are all different. We clearly see divine revelation differently. Some people seem to almost worship the Bible, that does not mean they are correct.


                      The Orthodox Jewish Rabbis tell us that the Torah is Divine Revelation: G-d dictated, word for word, the Word of G-d. In HEBREW. IOW, you are not reading G-d's words if you are reading an English translation.
                      First of all I do not really care what Orthodox Jewish Rabbis have to say. Let us say you want to get to my house. We do not speak or write the same language. I send directions in my tongue and you have someone translate into your tongue. Will you be able to find my house if you are of normal intelligence? That is my revelation to you.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        I do not personally feel as comfortable setting the Bible as a parameter for faith because there have been cases where Christians have had to go without knowledge. Obviously, the gospel existed before all of the NT books were even written (much less compiled into canonical form); their faith was based on what the apostles taught. More recently, in Communist countries, there probably have been some converts who had no access to the Bible and had little to go on beyond what missionaries taught them and perhaps a few verses written down.

                        Now, this is not to minimize the role of Scripture in shaping faith at all, simply that I do not think we can mark any one view of the Bible as an inherent prerequisite for faith.
                        I have no argument with you KG. But you are speaking of, what today, are unusual circumstances. I am not intending to set the Bible as the entire parameter, as you say, of faith. It is true, I believe, that every Christian who has access to the Bible accepts it, or comes to accept it as divine revelation. Does that make you less uneasy?
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          I have no argument with you KG. But you are speaking of, what today, are unusual circumstances. I am not intending to set the Bible as the entire parameter, as you say, of faith. It is true, I believe, that every Christian who has access to the Bible accepts it, or comes to accept it as divine revelation. Does that make you less uneasy?
                          I'm on board with this. Especially any of us who are technologically/educationally advanced to be in such a place as a website such as this would have no excuse.
                          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                            Well, that's not true. I can't help it that only a few have bothered to describe how they think religion has evolved. I described the experience in Judaism, and I don't believe I've said that it is the only way. I am anxiously awaiting your response.
                            I was the first reply to this thread.

                            Have you looked any more into Newman since then?

                            Yes, actually Vatican II is a perfectly good example of some evolutionary changes (consequential, I'm sure) to the sacrament of Mass. But, I don't believe Vatican II addressed much substantive theological change. I could be wrong, but I think it was much later that the Catholic Church accepted evolution as compatible with Catholic teaching on Creation.
                            But there's so much more to Vatican II than going from Latin to the vernacular in the Mass (which isn't actually in the council documents, iirc). The Council Fathers constructed an impressive ecclesiology, clearly rejecting the Eusebian narrative of treating the boundaries of the visible church as exactly coincident with the boundaries of the Saved and further illustrating the connections and tensions between the eschatological (perfect) and historical (not so much) Church.

                            There are, in my mind, three key terms that define how we should understand Vatican II:
                            1. aggiornamento-- "bringing-up-to-date," engaging the Church in conversation with the world around it. Paragraph 1 of Gaudium et Spes, in my opinion, can give us a very good idea of what that means in the abstract.
                            2. Ressourcement-- "returning to the sources," theological engagement with the historical sources of Christian doctrine. Not simply taking the conclusions of great theologians as settled fact, but actively trying to understand them and their theology.
                            3. Hermeneutic of Continuity-- in contrast with a hermeneutic of "rupture"- the Church after the Council is still in its essence the same as it was beforehand. There was no radical change in doctrine or break with the past; the council was the occasion for the Church coming to a better understanding of her essence and mission in the world.

                            What failure? That the a Bible doesn't teach homosexuality is a sin, or that homosexuality is an orientation one is born with?
                            The failure of logic is the non sequitur. You proceed from the premise that homosexual attractions are natural to the conclusion that homosexual intercourse can be morally praiseworthy (or, at least, acceptable). The conclusion does not follow from the premises, so you can affirm (as even I do) that same-sex attractions are natural without affirming that sex between two men or two women is acceptable.

                            Just for the sake of clarity, the Bible condemns homosexual intercourse. Nowhere does it say that a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex is going to be sent to Hell or in any way held morally responsible for those attractions.

                            OK, let's not get hung up over semantics. Core beliefs. How's that? Would you not say that Sola Scriptura is a Core Belief of most Protestant denominations? Just as trinitarianism, virgin birth, etc.?


                            I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean, here. What is a "clericalist?" I was talking about women in the Church. In Paul's letters, men are said to have "headship" over women. Many Protestant and Catholic (especially) have this core belief. Do you think this is something that is evolving?
                            Women are allowed to take on leadership roles in the church and in church organizations. The head of Catholic Relief Services, for example, is a woman, and many parish administrators are women. Women are entirely allowed to exercise authority over men, and have been doing so legitimately since, oh... Biblical times, more or less. This is not, in Catholicism at least, something in need of a radical evolution (though, as ever, a practical one is in order), and in no Christian denomination that I know of is it actually a "core belief."

                            I think I understand the religions just fine. I think your bluster is a smoke screen because you are either uncomfortable with the question, or don't have a good answer. Or, perhaps you think Christianity is complete as is and is in no need of evolving. If so, just say so rather than trying to obfuscate the discussion.

                            But, if you think it should stay the same; why?

                            NORM
                            I apologize for my impatience. My only excuse is, well, the flaws in my character.

                            One of the subjects that interests me most is what theologians call inculturation: the interaction of the Gospel with given historical and cultural circumstances. The questions surrounding Jesuit missionaries in China in the 17th century, for example, are immensely interesting to me (dealing with ancestor worship, Chinese philosophy, etc). The degree to which Christian theology can or must make use of Hellenistic as opposed to Oriental philosophy is fascinating, but exploring these questions shouldn't threaten the fundamental integrity of the theology which the Church has already come to accept as rational conclusions with respect to what God has revealed to humanity, particularly through the historical experience of the Jewish people and most especially through the person of Jesus Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection.

                            ... is that better?
                            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              One of the subjects that interests me most is what theologians call inculturation: the interaction of the Gospel with given historical and cultural circumstances. The questions surrounding Jesuit missionaries in China in the 17th century, for example, are immensely interesting to me (dealing with ancestor worship, Chinese philosophy, etc). The degree to which Christian theology can or must make use of Hellenistic as opposed to Oriental philosophy is fascinating, but exploring these questions shouldn't threaten the fundamental integrity of the theology which the Church has already come to accept as rational conclusions with respect to what God has revealed to humanity, particularly through the historical experience of the Jewish people and most especially through the person of Jesus Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection.
                              This is a very central concern. To what extent was the historical experience of the Jewish people, and that of Jesus, an initial inculturation of the gospel? Saul of Tarsus insisted upon the universal character of the gospel. Some thought he was no longer 'Jewish', but I doubt that, for Judaism also had a impetus toward universalism, for lack of a better word, long before the time of Jesus and Paul. Apocalypticism has a strange mixture of the universal and particular, and I believe it is a phase of evolution that produces both progressive and conservative tendencies. Those who support or oppose evolution are both nonetheless caught up in it, whether they like it or not. Judaisms, christianities, and the church will all continue to evolve, or become extinct along the way. I remain highly optimistic, but I think the path of evolution should involve more profound reconciliation with Judaim, as even the most reactionary apocalyptic futurists seem to accept. Isn't it strage how 'reactionary' and 'futurist' can both be used to describe the same perspective?

                              NORM, I know in the past you have, for good reasons, considered both Hellenism and the apocalyptic to be foreign to Judaism. Is that still your view? What has been the more recent experience within Judaism of evolution? How accepting are the Othrodox, Hasidim, Conservative, and Reform Jews of each other as members of the same religion or same people? On the one hand, you have rejected the Hellenism of Philo of Alexandria, but on the other hand you embrace the assimilation of Reform Judaism? Maybe its time to cut Philo some slack?
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                                For example; doing away with superstitious dogma such as belief in the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the trinity, etc. IOW, expunging from the story of Jesus' gospel message all of the baggage that prevents normal people from considering the message of Christianity, which can be summarized as such: treat one another with love and respect. Don't allow dogma to rule your life. The Sabbath is made for man; not the other way around.

                                Simple.

                                NORM
                                in other words stop being a Christian is what you are saying NORM. what you are trying to get folks to do is to deny the fundementals of the Christian doctrine it won't happen. If you don't want to be a christian fine but don't tell us what our doctrine should be.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                35 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                421 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X