Maintaining a Current Belief?

[Tone]

So this guy in the video keeps talking about what is moral and good and how we understand all this now, and he even goes so far as to say that much, if not all, of the Biblical material could've been said by any decent human being at the time.

However, he fails in one big area--his own historical context.

The fact of the matter is that this earthshaking and changing information did indeed come through Judeo-Christianity and all of the moral ideas he himself holds are the result, so really, it all comes down to him, not judging the Creator, but his own self.

 

[cvanwey]

So this guy in the video keeps talking about what is moral and moral and how we understand this all now, and he even goes so far as to say that much, if not all, of the Biblical material could've been said by any decent human being at the time.

However, he fails in one big area--his own historical context.

The fact of the matter is that this earthshaking and changing information did indeed come through Judeo-Christianity and all of the moral ideas he himself holds are the result, so really, it all comes down to him, not judging the Creator, but his own self.

Do you have the ability to answer a simple question, yes or no? I'm not going to engage until I receive some type of clarification from you.

Again, of the two avl. choices...

1). Covenant based theology
2). Dispensationalism

 

[Tone]

Do you have the ability to answer a simple question, yes or no? I'm not going to engage until I receive some type of clarification from you.

Again, of the two avl. choices...

1). Covenant based theology
2). Dispensationalism

It must've been a scientist that came up with the whole "Divide and conquer" thing...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate this answer. I feel we've been down this road before. If we are not clear what IS given by God, then how can we effectively discern what wasn't given by god(s)? (rhetorical)...

Ultimately, in the past, you yourself ultimately eluded to "Lessing's ditch". In such a case, why have you landed upon the side of THIS set of books being 'true', at their core, when this set of books may present just as many 'set of problems' as any other currently circulating competing set of circulating books of claimed 'truth'?

Because the epistemic 'truths' involved in the concept of Lessing's Ditch is one of the 'brass tack facts' I was alluding to earlier.

In following this recognition, we need to acknowledge that the Bible doesn't provide us a systematic nor a comprehensive understanding of our world (or of the cosmos). It simply affirms the presence of the Alpha and the Omega without explaining the 'how' of all of the intrinsic divine aspects that may be at work within our reality. We're invited to choose to live in it rather than to completely figure it out. We can discern some of it, but not all of it. We can learn to follow Jesus without fully understanding and comprehending what and who He is as one of the Trinity. We can know that God makes covenants, but our response of faith which follows from what we each individually think we understand will be tempered and conditioned by our human limitations as we handle, read and interpret the Bible.

So, I can't say that I am a supporter of Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, strictly speaking, even if I may think that both of these attempted systematic approaches to Christian theology have some interesting points we all can think about and ponder over as we reflect upon our journey in Christ. These theologies, in and of themselves, cannot serve as any kind of final theological resting point as we consider the relationship of the O.T. to the N.T.

 

[cvanwey]

It must've been a scientist that came up with the whole "Divide and conquer" thing...

You seem to go out of your way to not answer a direct question. Why is this?

A) God entered into finite contracts with specific individuals, which later are no longer binding entirely - for this or that reason(s)....

OR

B) God delivers limited amounts of information, as we can digest them. - Progressive revelation until the NT. And/or, we are too stupid and muck up the given message, because we are flawed humans and the Bible is the best we could come up with....

Which of the two above demonstrates a 'better' understanding of how you perceive the Bible, as given, A) or B)?

 

[Tone]

You seem to go out of your way to not answer a direct question. Why is this?

A) God entered into finite contracts with specific individuals, which later are no longer binding entirely - for this or that reason(s)....

OR

B) God delivers limited amounts of information, as we can digest them. - Progressive revelation until the NT. And/or, we are too stupid and muck up the given message, because we are flawed humans and the Bible is the best we could come up with....

Which of the two above demonstrates a 'better' understanding of how you perceive the Bible, as given, A) or B)?

I took the purple pill...

 

[cvanwey]

Because the epistemic 'truths' involved in the concept of Lessing's Ditch is one of the 'brass tack facts' I was alluding to earlier.

In following this recognition, we need to acknowledge that the Bible doesn't provide us a systematic nor a comprehensive understanding of our world (or of the cosmos). It simply affirms the presence of the Alpha and the Omega without explaining the 'how' of all of the intrinsic divine aspects that may be at work within our reality. We're invited to choose to live in it rather than to completely figure it out. We can discern some of it, but not all of it. We can learn to follow Jesus without fully understanding and comprehending what and who He is as one of the Trinity. We can know that God makes covenants, but our response of faith which follows from what we each individually think we understand will be tempered and conditioned by our human limitations as we handle, read and interpret the Bible.

So, I can't say that I am a supporter of Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, strictly speaking, even if I may think that both of these attempted systematic approaches to Christian theology have some interesting points we all can think about and ponder over as we reflect upon our journey in Christ. These theologies, in and of themselves, cannot serve as any kind of final theological resting point as we consider the relationship of the O.T. to the N.T.

In observance to post #25, it would appear that you might adhere to both concepts? If so, I only scratch my head further....?

Not only do you have to grapple with the self-manifested problems of A. (OR) B,. but now have instead compounded/doubled your presented 'problems'.

Though I understand where you are coming from, I then must ask you first...

For sake in brevity, let's just assume a 'first cause creator' exists. Let's not argue 'deism', or even 'theism.' It's true, an alpha/omega truly exists... Case closed there...

Why the Bible, and not some other opposing claimed set of 'revelation'? Especially in light of the fact we, as humans, are flawed humans and get things wrong all the time? Many, in the past, and even in the preset day, claim to be of the divine. Why Jesus?

 

[Andrewn]

Do 'morals' change over time?

Morals can be different in different cultures. In some cultures they kill and eat people of different tribes. In this time and age, children are almost worshipped, which was not the case even one generation ago.

The video mentions 2 'types' of believers:

1). Covenant based theology
2). Dispensational based theology

Which of the (2) looks to be a 'better' fit for your belief system?

Definitely not Dispensationalist.

 

[cvanwey]

Morals can be different in different cultures. In some cultures they kill and eat people of different tribes. In this time and age, children are almost worshipped, which was not the case even one generation ago.

Please allow me to adapt or tweak my prior question, as I'm aware human standards in 'morality' change in time

Does God's 'morals' change in time?

Definitely not Dispensationalist.

Then you will need to be very careful upon how you answer the above question; since you look to more-so prescribe to a covenant based theology, rather than a dispensational one.

 

[Andrewn]

Does God's 'morals' change in time?

God's own morals do not change but his commandments adapt to the culture. In other words, He tolerates a degree of imperfection.

As you described covenant-based theology, "God delivers limited amounts of information, as we can digest them."

 

[Rachel20]

I stumbled across a video, 26 minutes in length, which looks to raise a topic I still have genuine wonder about today.... Which-is-to-say, what justification do [you] Christians use, if you do fit the criteria here, in stating "ah, but that was the Old Testament" ???

Dispensationalism. But I don't like the purpose for dispensations that Dillahunty presents - that man starts out stupid and God has to spoon-feed him while he grows intellectually. I prefer the purpose John Walvoord suggested :

"... dispensationalism is a form of stewardship or responsibility of humanity to obey God and to honor Him. Each dispensation recorded in the Bible ends in failure, thus proving that no one under any arrangement can achieve perfection or salvation. Even in the millennial kingdom, with its near-perfect circumstances, humanity will still fail.

In every dispensation salvation is by grace through faith, made possible by the death of Christ. On the one hand the dispensations have diversity of requirements for human conduct, but on the other hand salvation is always by God’s grace. Salvation is the unifying factor in Scripture"

 

[Tone]

I found some scissors...

...snip...snip...

a 'better' understanding of how you perceive the Bible

Here's my perception of the better (best) way:

Knowing and believing that it is the same Light that shined in the beginning, that also came into the darkness to say, "I Am the Light of the World." (John 8:12)

And

Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure..."

So, I don't subscribe to any manmade constructs in an attempt to scientize the Bible. This is not to say that some of these models haven't served some believers at some time, but such skin must be shed in order for the tree to grow.


*If you really want a good understanding of a more organic approach to Scripture, watch this video from around the 2:22:00 mark:

I know it's a lot of time to commit, but if you really do want to dig deep, it's well worth it!

 

[Andrewn]

So, I can't say that I am a supporter of Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, strictly speaking, even if I may think that both of these attempted systematic approaches to Christian theology have some interesting points we all can think about and ponder over as we reflect upon our journey in Christ.

So, I don't subscribe to any manmade constructs in an attempt to scientize the Bible. This is not to say that some of these models haven't served some believers at some time, but such skin must be shed in order for the tree to grow.

Do you believe that Christ will reign in Jerusalem for 1000 years following his 2nd coming and that at the end of that time Satan will be released and will incite nations to attack Jerusalem?

 

[cvanwey]

God's own morals do not change but his commandments adapt to the culture. In other words, He tolerates a degree of imperfection.

Okay, so "God's moral character does not change"; noted. Can you give me an example or two of "God adapting to the culture"? Can you also give me an example or two, in regards to 'tolerating a degree of imperfection'?

As you described covenant-based theology, "God delivers limited amounts of information, as we can digest them."

You seem to be inter-mixing the two. Your answer looks to involve both A) and B) - Post #25:

A) God entered into finite contracts with specific individuals, which later are no longer binding entirely - for this or that reason(s)....

OR

B) God delivers limited amounts of information, as we can digest them. - Progressive revelation until the NT. And/or, we are too stupid and muck up the given message, because we are flawed humans and the Bible is the best we could come up with....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you believe that Christ will reign in Jerusalem for 1000 years following his 2nd coming and that at the end of that time Satan will be released and will incite nations to attack Jerusalem?

Personally, I don't think that the "1000 years" is a literal and distinct solar count of 1,000 human years. It's a metaphor for a time that is substantive in nature, but still less (obviously) than Eternity. In fact, I assume that much of what we find in chapters 4 through 22 of the book of Revelation is what we could call Jewishly prone prophetic metaphor. It's referring to events that will turn out to represent real history but not given in literal terms like we'd find in a modern history textbook.

 

[cvanwey]

Dispensationalism. But I don't like the purpose for dispensations that Dillahunty presents - that man starts out stupid and God has to spoon-feed him while he grows intellectually. I prefer the purpose John Walvoord suggested :

"... dispensationalism is a form of stewardship or responsibility of humanity to obey God and to honor Him. Each dispensation recorded in the Bible ends in failure, thus proving that no one under any arrangement can achieve perfection or salvation. Even in the millennial kingdom, with its near-perfect circumstances, humanity will still fail.

In every dispensation salvation is by grace through faith, made possible by the death of Christ. On the one hand the dispensations have diversity of requirements for human conduct, but on the other hand salvation is always by God’s grace. Salvation is the unifying factor in Scripture"

Under such a set of conclusions, seems as though morals/Commandments are irrelevant? Unless you wish to argue that lack in belief/faith is 'immoral', verses amoral?

If belief is not a choice, and many do not currently believe from what I can gather, they will not have faith anyways, will they?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In observance to post #25, it would appear that you might adhere to both concepts? If so, I only scratch my head further....?

Not only do you have to grapple with the self-manifested problems of A. (OR) B,. but now have instead compounded/doubled your presented 'problems'.

Though I understand where you are coming from, I then must ask you first...

For sake in brevity, let's just assume a 'first cause creator' exists. Let's not argue 'deism', or even 'theism.' It's true, an alpha/omega truly exists... Case closed there...

Why the Bible, and not some other opposing claimed set of 'revelation'? Especially in light of the fact we, as humans, are flawed humans and get things wrong all the time? Many, in the past, and even in the preset day, claim to be of the divine. Why Jesus?

Why the Bible? Well, I'd side with Pascal in averring as to "why the Bible," [Pascal does briefly treat this in his Pensees, believe it or not.]

The best part is that since I've studied World Religions and Eastern Philosophies at the university level (i.e. their doctrines and histories of doctrine) like I've done for the Western Religions, I have no reason to think that anything "Eastern" holds any clear leverage over and against biblical religion. In other words, I've done my homework......... and no one gets to try to spin the Outsider Test for Faith canard on me in this regard.

 

[Andrewn]

Can you give me an example or two of "God adapting to the culture"? Can you also give me an example or two, in regards to 'tolerating a degree of imperfection'?

1) Tolerating slavery to a certain degree.

2) Tolerating animal sacrifices.

3) Tolerating polygamy.

4) Prohibiting pork.

5) Ordering circumcision.

6) War w/ Canaan.

All of the above were Middle Eastern customs that made it into the OT.

 

[cvanwey]

Personally, I don't think that the "1000 years" is a literal and distinct solar count of 1,000 human years. It's a metaphor for a time that is substantive in nature, but still less (obviously) than Eternity. In fact, I assume that much of what we find in chapters 4 through 22 of the book of Revelation is what we could call Jewishly prone prophetic metaphor.

Where does 'metaphor' begin and end? If 'Adam and Eve', 'the flood', the 'Tower of Babel', 'the Exodus', and much of 'Revelation' is all metaphor/other, then maybe so too is the 'resurrection' story?

 

[cvanwey]

I found some scissors...

...snip...snip...



Here's my perception of the better (best) way:

Knowing and believing that it is the same Light that shined in the beginning, that also came into the darkness to say, "I Am the Light of the World." (John 8:12)

And

Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure..."

So, I don't subscribe to any manmade constructs in an attempt to scientize the Bible. This is not to say that some of these models haven't served some believers at some time, but such skin must be shed in order for the tree to grow.


*If you really want a good understanding of a more organic approach to Scripture, watch this video from around the 2:22:00 mark:

I know it's a lot of time to commit, but if you really do want to dig deep, it's well worth it!

You seem incapable of answering direct and straight forward questions. A or B that is, in this case. I'll pass.