Bertrand Russell quote

[dumpsterdiver45]

Ah yes this is why I suggest all doctrine must be coherent with Yahweh's character and all other doctrines. Consistency is paramount. It's interesting that I've also never seen a Universalists budge an inch; this is human nature unfortunately, but no indication of if a doctrine is correct, or not.

I think we're going backwards here water man. The coherency of truth requires interpretation of Scripture to be consistent with God's revealed character and the Bible's moral principles in order to establish truth in doctrine. Or is this what you meant? You seem to be saying doctrine is true if it agrees with God's character and all other doctrines.

The problem I run into all the time is that most Christians don't know how to judge an opposing view [much less their own] on its truth merits. They judge competing interpretations using their own doctrine. This makes one's doctrine identical to truth and establishes it as the standard by which all other views are judged. Of course this is circular: "You're clearly wrong because the Bible says [read: my doctrine says] thus and thus!"

When did you decide that Universal salvation was correct ?

1994. And yes, what you say is true...humans tend generally to hold to their doctrine come hell or high water, Universalist, Annihilationist and traditionalist alike. Beliefs do change from time to time, though I believe this takes a spiritual work on God's part, a course correction.

 

[bhsmte]

The problem I run into all the time is that most Christians don't know how to judge an opposing view [much less their own] on its truth merits. They judge competing interpretations using their own doctrine. This makes one's doctrine identical to truth and establishes it as the standard by which all other views are judged. Of course this is circular: "You're clearly wrong because the Bible says [read: my doctrine says] thus and thus!"

I think this relates to the comments I will make below, but I agree, some Christians will claim their interpretation is correct and that is the benchmark. The simple fact, there are so many denominations of Christianity and with it, varying interpretations, will tell you how many Christians themselves, disagree on various points.

1994. And yes, what you say is true...humans tend generally to hold to their doctrine come hell or high water, Universalist, Annihilationist and traditionalist alike. Beliefs do change from time to time, though I believe this takes a spiritual work on God's part, a course correction.

If I still believed in a God, I would likely be a Universalist, because I have significant trouble with reconciling the theology that all who don't agree Jesus was God, are basically doomed, even if they live good caring lives. I can't reconcile that with a loving caring God and it also means, 2/3 of the world's population is doomed, according to some Christians view of their theology.

I also agree doctrines are tightly protected and this site is a good example of the same. One's theology, tends to be important to a person's psyche and it will be protected at all costs by many. It is only when that psyche accepts new knowledge and can no longer reconcile this new knowledge with their theology, that they can come to accept changing beliefs.

 

[FireDragon76]

Religion is superfluous to morality and frequently a catalyst for immorality.

I disagree completely. I know firsthand religious people motivated to do good because of their beliefs. I have yet to see atheists get together and feed the homeless because their denial of God's existence motivates them, or pay for a counselling center for troubled individuals because God doesn't exist.

 

[Paradoxum]

You have a very limited perspective on religion.

Do you think more atheists or theists are against equal marriage, drug freedom, prostitution legality, or control over one own life (assisted dying)?

Religious people tend to oppress others more.

I think then, that you give a lesser value to sexual relationships than Jesus and I do.

We aren't talking about value. There is absolutely no objective value in sexual relationships... or anything.

I'm concerned about what is moral, not what is personally valued.

But I don't think sexuality is magical and sacred... is can be deeply meaningful, but it can be done for fun, and there's nothing immoral about that.

 

[FireDragon76]

The worst parts of modern christianity likely aren't Biblical, nor from Jesus' teachings. Any person who believes in sexual liberty ( any sexual contact outside of marriage of man/woman ) will not agree with Jesus teachings on this subject.

That's only half true. Jesus' society of his day tolerated a lot that modern Christians often do not, such as prostitution. Ever Christian empires such as Rome and Byzantium legally tolerated prostitution. And Jesus himself did not favor throwing prostitutes or adulterers in prison, or worse. Jesus was not a moralist that believed everybody had to live the way he did to have their humanity recognized and respected, to be loved.

If you read the Gospels carefully you will notice while he does at times speak against sexual sins in a very vague way, most of the time he's speaking out against the religious establishment very explicitly.

Do you think more atheists or theists are against equal marriage, drug freedom, prostitution legality, or control over one own life (assisted dying)?

On what basis do you know those things are objective goods?

Religious people tend to oppress others more.

I don't see religion as a universal force of oppression, I believe that is a childish idea that is uninformed by a serious reading of history.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I disagree completely. I know firsthand religious people motivated to do good because of their beliefs.

If they would be doing good regardless then religion is superfluous.

I have yet to see atheists get together and feed the homeless because their denial of God's existence motivates them, or pay for a counselling center for troubled individuals because God doesn't exist.

Of course you haven't. That would be silly. Atheists do it because it's good, not because they don't believe in a deity. One would hope that the same is true of theists.

 

[FireDragon76]

If they would be doing good regardless then religion is superfluous....

.... Atheists do it because it's good, not because they don't believe in a deity. One would hope that the same is true of theists.

[/quote]

That's the whole problem... I do not believe people are basically good, as you do. You probably explain human depravity in purely materialistic terms. I find that inadequate .

 

[SteveB28]

That's the whole problem... I do not believe people are basically good, as you do. You probably explain human depravity in purely materialistic terms. I find that inadequate .

But the problem is not one of determining the inherent 'good' or 'bad' of humanity. It is about the means by which we determine what those descriptors mean.

A supernatural solution is of no use to humans who live in the real world.

 

[agua]

I think we're going backwards here water man. The coherency of truth requires interpretation of Scripture to be consistent with God's revealed character and the Bible's moral principles in order to establish truth in doctrine. Or is this what you meant? You seem to be saying doctrine is true if it agrees with God's character and all other doctrines.

I think you have simply said the same thing it 2 different ways garbo man ( I do like nick names no offence garbo is Autralian dumpsterdriver )

The only difference you suggest is between Bible doctrine and Bible moral principles. Morality as presented in the Bible is a doctrine, but not the only one. Please if we disagree I'm not about to twist your arm.

The problem I run into all the time is that most Christians don't know how to judge an opposing view [much less their own] on its truth merits. They judge competing interpretations using their own doctrine. This makes one's doctrine identical to truth and establishes it as the standard by which all other views are judged. Of course this is circular: "You're clearly wrong because the Bible says [read: my doctrine says] thus and thus!"

This is why I asked which method you use to establish good doctrine. Do you have some groundrules etc ? Recently I've apopted a teaching that suggest 8 rules to sound Bible interpretation, which seems very good. I suggest if you have no agreeable method of interpretation then we likely settle on what we prefer, for doctrine.

1994. And yes, what you say is true...humans tend generally to hold to their doctrine come hell or high water, Universalist, Annihilationist and traditionalist alike. Beliefs do change from time to time, though I believe this takes a spiritual work on God's part, a course correction.

I hope you're incorrect about it taking a spiritual work from Yahweh to change a person doctrine correction. It may be true in some instances, but the Bible does suggest in several places that we must study and search the scriptures, and that following false human teachings will lead into the same problem they have ie. We have great responsibilty to search the scriptures to see what is correct doctrine.

( many years ago here the garbos ( very hard working men ) would physically lift and empty every bin into the truck. Come Chriostmas time some householders would leave these men a present for the hard working men, usually in the form of a beverage )

 

[agua]

That's only half true. Jesus' society of his day tolerated a lot that modern Christians often do not, such as prostitution. Ever Christian empires such as Rome and Byzantium legally tolerated prostitution. And Jesus himself did not favor throwing prostitutes or adulterers in prison, or worse. Jesus was not a moralist that believed everybody had to live the way he did to have their humanity recognized and respected, to be loved.

I'm refering to Jesus teachings, not society's, because we know that society, even Christian ones, fail to follow all teachings correctly. Because Jesus didn't condemn sinners doesn't imply in any way that he He found the sin acceptable/allowable. Can you show me where Jesus made allowances for sin, or immorality ?

 

[agua]

We aren't talking about value. There is absolutely no objective value in sexual relationships... or anything.

I'm concerned about what is moral, not what is personally valued.

But I don't think sexuality is magical and sacred... is can be deeply meaningful, but it can be done for fun, and there's nothing immoral about that.

The value of sexual relationship is directly linked to it's morality, from the Christian perspective. You hold it in a lesser light than I do.

Do you give an objective value to life ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's the whole problem... I do not believe people are basically good, as you do.

I don't know what "basically good" means. If someone does good because it is good, then whatever religion might have to say about it is entirely beside the point; they're doing it because it's good, not because they believe some god commands it of them.

You probably explain human depravity in purely materialistic terms. I find that inadequate .

What would you have me explain it with? Would my explanation be more credible if I invoked talking serpents?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

which method you use to establish good doctrine. Do you have some groundrules etc ? Recently I've apopted a teaching that suggest 8 rules to sound Bible interpretation, which seems very good. I suggest if you have no agreeable method of interpretation then we likely settle on what we prefer, for doctrine.

I've devised no rules for proper Bible interpretation per se, though I'm currently editing papers outlining an allegorical interpretive structure by which the salvation of all is found allegorically in both Testaments.

What are your eight rules?

I hope you're incorrect about it taking a spiritual work from Yahweh to change a person doctrine correction. It may be true in some instances, but the Bible does suggest in several places that we must study and search the scriptures, and that following false human teachings will lead into the same problem they have ie. We have great responsibilty to search the scriptures to see what is correct doctrine.

I find it odd that you resist the notion of God working within the soul to modify false doctrine. Studying alone places not only responsibility but ability in human hands to conceptualize spiritual truths.

And BTW I really like the 'garbo' title, especially when I say it with a Spanish accent. The "r" rolls off the tongue fluidly and seems to grant to me a sophistication I don't otherwise possess in everyday life!

 

[SuperCloud]

In his History of Western Philosophy, Russell writes about Socrates:



Do you agree with this dichotomous view of Greek and Christian thought, especially in the light of concepts such as the divine Logos?

Who sees themselves as Greeks in this description and who as Christians?

Christian.

If that is what the ancient Greeks thought then they never experienced a crack cocaine or IV heroin epidemic.

 

[agua]

I've devised no rules for proper Bible interpretation per se, though I'm currently editing papers outlining an allegorical interpretive structure by which the salvation of all is found allegorically in both Testaments.

What are your eight rules?

I think without solid rules we will struggle to be consistent, and correct, in our Bible exegesis.

I will give the rules I'm sure Pastor Warner won't mind ( I hope )

1. _Infallible Bible
2. _Historical context
3. _Correct order
4. _Harmony
5. _Consistency with Yahweh's nature
6. _Doctrine source
7. _Grammar integrity
8. _Literal priority

I'm using them atm and agree with them ( still considering the grammar one a bit )

I find it odd that you resist the notion of God working within the soul to modify false doctrine. Studying alone places not only responsibility but ability in human hands to conceptualize spiritual truths.

Here we have a major doctrine difference instantly, I think. What's the soul to you ?

Conceptualising spiritual truths is intuitive once we have good doctrine, and correct understanding of Yahweh's Character. Of course being Born Again is vital.

Oh, I don't resist the notion that Yahweh can instruct us into good doctrine but this seems unusual considering the major doctrines that Christians differ in. this alone suggests to me that we must search the scriptures for the truth. Who do you suggest Yahweh chooses to instruct in correct doctrine, and why ?

And BTW I really like the 'garbo' title, especially when I say it with a Spanish accent. The "r" rolls off the tongue fluidly and seems to grant to me a sophistication I don't otherwise possess in everyday life!

I have never met a Spanish Garbo, but I think it's possible

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hopefully "moral scientists" and social psychologists will try to teach us how to live, alongside natural science tealling us all sorts of complicated stuff abourt the external, material energy. Then the division will not be so stark.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I think without solid rules we will struggle to be consistent, and correct, in our Bible exegesis.

Are they manmade rules or God's? If God's, where in Scripture can they be found? This is one of the big problems with literalism, manmade hermeneutical rules (many or most of which are borrowed from rules applied to secular literature) are imposed on readers of the Bible so that it must be read in a certain way...literally...or it is wrong. Brings to mind Jesus' comments in Mat 23:15.

If one can control how we are to read the Bible he controls what it is allowed to say, and one can then control the sheep.

Conceptualising spiritual truths is intuitive once we have good doctrine, and correct understanding of Yahweh's Character. Of course being Born Again is vital.

But it would appear that being "born again" isn't vital at all if one is expected to form doctrine from one's (or more often someone else's--the guys who make up the "rules") own intellectual pursuits. If we first have to establish doctrine before waiting for intuition to kick in, what value can there be in doctrine?

Oh, I don't resist the notion that Yahweh can instruct us into good doctrine but this seems unusual considering the major doctrines that Christians differ in. this alone suggests to me that we must search the scriptures for the truth.

Christians probably actually don't differ that much in major doctrines....too many of us just make uninformed choices as to what "major" doctrines are.

Who do you suggest Yahweh chooses to instruct in correct doctrine, and why ?

Anyone He wishes to choose. I think He has chosen lots of folks over history to contribute to an understanding of the truth and continues to do so. Why? Because on our own we tend to follow Job's friend's advise: "For the ear tests words, As the palate tastes food. Let us choose for ourselves what is right; Let us know among ourselves what is good." (Job 34:3-4)
This is the basis for my surprise at your approach to establishing proper doctrine.

 

[agua]

Are they manmade rules or God's? If God's, where in Scripture can they be found? This is one of the big problems with literalism, manmade hermeneutical rules (many or most of which are borrowed from rules applied to secular literature) are imposed on readers of the Bible so that it must be read in a certain way...literally...or it is wrong. Brings to mind Jesus' comments in Mat 23:15.

If one can control how we are to read the Bible he controls what it is allowed to say, and one can then control the sheep.


But it would appear that being "born again" isn't vital at all if one is expected to form doctrine from one's (or more often someone else's--the guys who make up the "rules") own intellectual pursuits. If we first have to establish doctrine before waiting for intuition to kick in, what value can there be in doctrine?

Christians probably actually don't differ that much in major doctrines....too many of us just make uninformed choices as to what "major" doctrines are.

Anyone He wishes to choose. I think He has chosen lots of folks over history to contribute to an understanding of the truth and continues to do so. Why? Because on our own we tend to follow Job's friend's advise: "For the ear tests words, As the palate tastes food. Let us choose for ourselves what is right; Let us know among ourselves what is good." (Job 34:3-4)
This is the basis for my surprise at your approach to establishing proper doctrine.

Ok Garbo man; I accept that we're miles apart in our doctrine and understanding of how to attain it. I'm still curious of what you suggest a soul is, and why.

I wish you well in you studies. God bless.

 

[bhsmte]

I think without solid rules we will struggle to be consistent, and correct, in our Bible exegesis.

I will give the rules I'm sure Pastor Warner won't mind ( I hope )

1. _Infallible Bible
2. _Historical context
3. _Correct order
4. _Harmony
5. _Consistency with Yahweh's nature
6. _Doctrine source
7. _Grammar integrity
8. _Literal priority

It appears as though your rules are designed to affirm what is written in ancient text, by many unknown authors, as opposed to using some level of objective means, to determine the credibility of the same.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I'm still curious of what you suggest a soul is, and why.

The soul is the immaterial essence of a human being. I use the term in different ways in different contexts...in the view of dichotomists, soul essentially equals the combination of mind and spirit with all the properties of minds. Trichotomists generally split man into body-spirit-mind. Many Tri- folks interchange soul with spirit as an animating force. I think both are useful; each brings a somewhat different set of debating points to the table.

When I use soul in my writing it could mean either spirit or mind. Context usually is apparent, or at least manifest enough to imply one or the other.

Why is what I view soul to be important to you?