Is Tithing Binding To Modern Christian ?

sentipente said:

What is sad about all these discussion is the fact that our theology has convinced us that humans are not a part of the family of God. This is why keep trying to make a case why we should be included as well as find reasons why others should not be included. This is a very sad state of affairs.

Click to expand...

I suppose that "what is sad" is in the eye of the beholder. I find it sad that some seem to conclude that God is the author of error. I've yet to find a basis for concluding that God created shortfall.

BFA

Byfaithalone1 said:

I find it sad that some seem to conclude that God is the author of error. I've yet to find a basis for concluding that God created shortfall.

BFA

Click to expand...

Then you must have found the other Creator. Please tell us more about him/her.

Byfaithalone1 said:

I suppose that "what is sad" is in the eye of the beholder. I find it sad that some seem to conclude that God is the author of error. I've yet to find a basis for concluding that God created shortfall.

BFA

Click to expand...

Suggesting that error is idiopathic - and stopping there - takes us out of meaningful conversation.

Why not propose a conceptual model?

Here's one. In-istence and ex-istence. In this model, it's possible that only one pole is manifest (exist) even though there is the potential for the other (inist). Applied to Christianity, the poles represent good and evil.

Here's another. Bohm's implicate and explicate order. I like this one because of what it suggests about spacetime. Explicate forms in spacetime rise out of - and fall back in to - an implicate cosmic ocean. The ocean - or "everything soup" - is not bound in the same way as those things that form from it. Applied to this conversation, the model suggest that the "something out of nowhere" does indeed come from somewhere - but that "somewhere" has different working conditions. In this model, the creative impulse not only pushes out from the implicate, the explicate creatively draws from the implicate. Said more simply, we - as an explicate form - have something to say about what else forms.

These make for interesting conversation, but will not resolve the "multi-source dilemma" Senti is pointing out. His questions are so simple and so systemic, they are easy to underestimate.

Avonia said:

Suggesting that error is idiopathic - and stopping there - takes us out of meaningful conversation.

Click to expand...

Who has suggested that error is idiopathic? Since I agree with the words attributed to John in 1 John 4, I conclude that the source of error is not God. Rather, since I agree with the words attributed to Matthew in Matthew 4, I conclude that the source of error has another name. Since I agree with the words attributed to John in Revelation 12, I conclude that there is one who deceives, but that one is not God. Whether or not we agree on these points, I have not suggested that error is idiopathic.

If we were to believe the words attributed to David, we might conclude that God destroys those who speak falsehoods and we might wonder why God might destroy those who speak falsehoods if He is the author and creator of falsehoods (i.e. I'm referring to Psalm 5:6). What kind of God would do this?

If we were to believe the words attributed to Solomon, we might conclude that a righteous man hates falsehood and we might wonder why a righteous God would create falsehood if He hates it (i.e. I'm referring to Proverbs 13:5). What kind of God would do this?

If God is the creator of falsehood, must I conclude that the following is a part of the falsehood He created:
I know that I've yet again stepped on the toes of some by discussing Scripture and I suspect that we will once again need to go through 5 more pages, discussing all of the reasons why enlightened persons conclude that the Bible is errant and cannot be trusted. However, let's skip that discussion this time. I note in advance your objections to my discussion of Scripture and fully understand that we view this subject differently.

BFA

BFA, if your argument is based on words found in a book that may (or may not be) be written by those attributed, and its working for you, there is no problem... as Carlin says, "Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."

Byfaithalone1 said:

I've yet again stepped on the toes of some by discussing Scripture

Click to expand...

Scripture is beautiful.

There is a difference between the quest for deciding and the quest for knowing.

Byfaithalone1 said:

I find it sad that some seem to conclude that God is the author of error. I've yet to find a basis for concluding that God created shortfall.

Click to expand...

What about the conclusion disturbs you, bro?

As Edison noted, we learn most thoroughly through the process of getting things "wrong," falling short, or approaching the target. It may be that we learn more by going somewhere than by getting there. I'll also suggest that shortfall is less about right and wrong and more about range or capacity. Often we acknowledge God for part of that range but disavow Him for the rest of it.

A few examples in nature:

Wiki tells me that sequoia cones have 15-25 segments on them. If they have 15, God made them. If they have 25, God made them. If they have 14, God still made them. If they have 26, God still made them. The Father Jesus described in Matthew 6 clothed the flowers. It would be odd for that Father not to have been aware of how those flowers developed.

The same God was said to have knitted together a couple of Bible writers in the womb. I love the image of a human being "knit" because, although we now have machines that allow us to observe the process and it's nothing like knitting, there is still a lot of range involved. Lots of points at which something could go "wrong."

Yet God still makes the forming baby, is intimately involved in its development, and fully conscious of how the baby turns out. If the baby has 10 fingers, God made it. If it has 9, God made it. If it has 11, God made it. On what basis will we call God's creation an error? Deviation from the mean? "Average" is an unusual baseline for perfection. But I'll go ahead and admit that sometimes I fall back into the habit of using average as my baseline.

As a result, for some traits I sometimes characterize myself as an "outlier." But "outlier" doesn't mean "wrong" for me. Nor does it mean "not created by God." It simply means "not average."

I found that I became able to use and learn from my not-average traits only when I acknowledged their actual source. Until I owned them as part of God's gift to me, they were burdens to me. I've heard similar stories from others.

Wonderfully said AzA. Ten stars for your wonderfully "flawed" crown.

We too often describe Creator's heaven devoid of creative tension.

Avonia said:

These make for interesting conversation, but will not resolve the "multi-source dilemma" Senti is pointing out. His questions are so simple and so systemic, they are easy to underestimate.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, I myself do not grasp the underlying concepts in my questions. I appreciate when you and others help me see them.

Does God hate falsehood?

Is God against those who speak falsehoods?

Does God destroy those who speak falsehoods?

Is there a "Heaven?"

Wherever "Heaven" may be (if it does in fact exist), would one find falsehood there?

BFA

Byfaithalone1 said:

Does God hate falsehood?

Is God against those who speak falsehoods?

Does God destroy those who speak falsehoods?

Is there a "Heaven?"

Wherever "Heaven" may be (if it does in fact exist), would one find falsehood there?

BFA

Click to expand...

If Heaven is where God is and God is everywhere you should have the answer to all your questions. Are you truly seeking answers or are you trying to advance an agenda?

Byfaithalone1 said:

Does God hate falsehood?

Is God against those who speak falsehoods?

Does God destroy those who speak falsehoods?

Is there a "Heaven?"

Wherever "Heaven" may be (if it does in fact exist), would one find falsehood there?

BFA

Click to expand...

We are so obsessed with Aristotelian logic. In Buddhist teachings, we get a glimpse of something important about "falsehood" with Master Nagarjuna's logical propositions:

1. True
2. Not True
3. Both True and Not True
4. Neither True nor Not True.

In this teaching, "Neither True nor Not True" is the most enlightened.

I also appreciate the way he understood contrast - that shortness exists only in contrast to some idea of length. We can discover something important about "falsehood" by pondering this for a bit as well.

Some believe that God created falsehood.

I believe that God did not create falsehood.

How can we evaluate the topic without exploring questions that relate to it? In an open dialogue, we would find both sides asking and answering questions. That rarely happens here. Though I answer many questions, mine consistently remain unanswered. Each poster is free to answer whatever questions he wishes. But hopefully folks will refrain from judgment until they are actualy willing to enter into a 2-sided discussion.

BFA

(this was originally in response to BFAs post below before it was edited. When I saw it was edited, I deleted this one to honor his wishes)

Edit.

Byfaithalone1 said:

You've never sensed arrogance toward me because I believe the Bible to be the word of God?

Click to expand...

Of course not.

Byfaithalone1 said:

You've never sensed an underlying attitude that I am less than enlightened for holding that belief?

Click to expand...

Of course not.

BFA, that was a hilarious exchange of edits! I left the last one in because I appreciated your two questions and the opportunity to answer them.

Avonia said:

Of course not.

Of course not.

Click to expand...

Of course not.

BFA