Should I eat breakfast or not?

[AzA]

When I came to certain conclusions about the nature of God, grace, and the laws of creation, I found that those conclusions had consequences. In the face of those consequences, I had two realistic options.

I could stay as I was, with some ideas and practices disjuncted, or
I could shift so as to realign ideas and practices.

The "if" governing my choice was "If coherence is important to me." A sense of coherence is important to most people. Even a delusional man seeks some measure of coherence -- this is why he'll try to enlist you in his paranoia about the CIA and the utility of a tin-foil hat.

If coherence was not important to me, I didn't have to make any changes. But if coherence was important to me, I had to make changes.

 

[AzA]

It might be premature to say someone has passed the buck by referencing another -- especially if one hasn't yet read the reference in question.
We don't make that assumption when people cite Paul.

 

[Avonia]

I could shift so as to realign ideas and practices.

This is the nature of growth. To the extent that if you are on the fast track, you may be unrecognizable in ten years.

 

[AzA]

This is the nature of growth. To the extent that if you are on the fast track, you may be unrecognizable in ten years.

A possibility that frightens many. I had to reassure one of my friends that I would not divorce him, lol.

 

[MRHarvey]

When I came to certain conclusions about the nature of God, grace, and the laws of creation, I found that those conclusions had consequences. In the face of those consequences, I had two realistic options.

I could stay as I was, with some ideas and practices disjuncted, or
I could shift so as to realign ideas and practices.

The "if" governing my choice was "If coherence is important to me." A sense of coherence is important to most people. Even a delusional man seeks some measure of coherence -- this is why he'll try to enlist you in his paranoia about the CIA and the utility of a tin-foil hat.

If coherence was not important to me, I didn't have to make any changes. But if coherence was important to me, I had to make changes.

Thank you for your testimony AzA !

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

I think that you are saying, in so many words, that it wasn't so much that you "had to" realign your ideas and practices, as it was that you preferred to make the changes rather than accept the consquences of not making those changes!

If I understand you correctly, then this supports my point that the truth is not that, "People don't change unless they have to." Rather, the truth is that people change when they decided that they would rather change than accept the consquences of not changing!

With love in Christ,

MRHarvey

 

[MRHarvey]

It might be premature to say someone has passed the buck by referencing another -- especially if one hasn't yet read the reference in question.
We don't make that assumption when people cite Paul.

AzA, please don't place Thomas Kuhn on the same level as the Apostle, Paul! I am sure that Thomas Kuhn was a great writer, but he shouldn't even be compared with Paul! Remember, the writings of Paul are the Word of God; the writings of Kuhn are not!

It might be premature to say someone has passed the buck by referencing another -- especially if one hasn't yet read the reference in question.

Maybe so, but to put it kindly, it would have been better if Senti had at least quoted a specific passage from Thomas Kuhn, and explained how that passage supports his statement, "Humans don't change unless they have to."

What Senti did, in the posting to which I was refering, would be tantamount to me saying something to the effect of, "If you read the epistles of Paul, you will see why we don't have to keep the kosher dieatry laws or the Sabbath," without even citing a single specific specific passage from Paul's writings!

If I did that, you would at least question whether or not I knew what I was talking about. And you would be right to do so!

With love in Christ,

MRHarvey

 

[MRHarvey]

This is the nature of growth. To the extent that if you are on the fast track, you may be unrecognizable in ten years.

Personally, I hope that I am on the fast track to growth, to that extent! To say the least, there are times when I feel so disgusted with the person that I am right now, that I want to be so different that I won't even be recognizable as the same person, ten years from now!

 

[MRHarvey]

I have been trying to figure out this exchange and I now see the source of your confusion. When I said, "humans only change when they have to" you read that to mean "everytime humans change it is because they have to" when this is not what I said.

First of all, I have not -- at least, not so far -- put any words in your mouth that you did not say. I was going to (in this message) go back to your previous message (#50). But I have decided instead to focus only on your most recent posting.

In the above quotation, you have now said that you are not saying, "Every time humans change it is because they have to." Of course, the converse of that statement is, "Sometimes, at least, humans change when they do not necessarily have to."

That is the main point that I have been making all along; that humans sometimes change when they do not necessarily have to. So if you are saying that as well now, then we are in agreement!

With love in Christ,

MRHarvey

 

[AzA]

Thank you for your testimony AzA !

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

I think that you are saying, in so many words, that it wasn't so much that you "had to" realign your ideas and practices, as it was that you preferred to make the changes rather than accept the consquences of not making those changes!

If I understand you correctly, then this supports my point that the truth is not that, "People don't change unless they have to." Rather, the truth is that people change when they decided that they would rather change than accept the consquences of not changing!

No, I don't think you understand me correctly, because I said what I meant to say. You do seem aware that "have to" holds a wider range of conditions than you're currently allowing for -- necessary conditions. Certain things flow from others. That is the nature of consequence. And that is what I have pointed to.

 

[AzA]

AzA, please don't place Thomas Kuhn on the same level as the Apostle, Paul! I am sure that Thomas Kuhn was a great writer, but he shouldn't even be compared with Paul! Remember, the writings of Paul are the Word of God; the writings of Kuhn are not!

I sense we differ in our understanding of what "knowledge" is. And what men are. And maybe even what inspiration might be. So I won't press the issue, but I'm happy for my comment to stand. It doesn't undermine anybody.

What Senti did, in the posting to which I was refering, would be tantamount to me saying something to the effect of, "If you read the epistles of Paul, you will see why we don't have to keep the kosher dieatry laws or the Sabbath," without even citing a single specific specific passage from Paul's writings!

If I did that, you would at least question whether or not I knew what I was talking about. And you would be right to do so!

I do hear your objection, and so if you choose to follow up on the Kuhn suggestion, add "paradigm shift" to your Google search. It was the start of a lot of good changes; seminal work and widely applied. Have fun.

 

[StormyOne]

AzA, please don't place Thomas Kuhn on the same level as the Apostle, Paul! I am sure that Thomas Kuhn was a great writer, but he shouldn't even be compared with Paul! Remember, the writings of Paul are the Word of God; the writings of Kuhn are not
MRHarvey

not quite... the writings of Paul are just that... the writings of Paul..... are you suggesting that Paul speaks for God? Is there any proof of this belief? What I mean is there something somewhere that God has said, Paul speaks for me? I don't think so..... so while Paul may have been inspired (by God) to write, they are his words, not God's.....

 

[Avonia]

To say the least, there are times when I feel so disgusted with the person that I am right now, that I want to be so different that I won't even be recognizable as the same person, ten years from now!

In the course of your personal evoluation, you are perfect just as you are. There are paths and not just destinations for a reason - we are to walk them!

 

[Avonia]

Remember, the writings of Paul are the Word of God; the writings of Kuhn are not!

We shortchange ourselves when we view inspiration as some cosmic fluke that happened a long time ago.

You are a child of God - you have a direct link. It's up to you to develop it.

 

[StormyOne]

We shortchange ourselves when we view inspiration as some cosmic fluke that happened a long time ago.

You are a child of God - you have a direct link. It's up to you to develop it.

flesh and blood did not reveal that to you Av, dare I say it? I think I shall..... your comments are definitely inspired....

 

[MRHarvey]

not quite... the writings of Paul are just that... the writings of Paul..... are you suggesting that Paul speaks for God? Is there any proof of this belief? What I mean is there something somewhere that God has said, Paul speaks for me? I don't think so..... so while Paul may have been inspired (by God) to write, they are his words, not God's.....

What I am saying is, the writings of Paul (at least, those writings of his that we still have with us today) are part of the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God, therefore the writings of Paul are part of the Word of God!

That said, it is as important to understand what I am not saying as it is to understand what I am saying. I am not saying that all of the Bible was inspired by verbal dictation (in other words, God speaking to the writers in an audible voice). I do not believe that; I do not believe that God works that way now, nor did He back then.

I hope I have made both what I am saying and what I am not saying clear enough!

 

[StormyOne]

What I am saying is, the writings of Paul (at least, those writings of his that we still have with us today) are part of the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God, therefore the writings of Paul are part of the Word of God!

That said, it is as important to understand what I am not saying as it is to understand what I am saying. I am not saying that all of the Bible was inspired by verbal dictation (in other words, God speaking to the writers in an audible voice). I do not believe that; I do not believe that God works that way now, nor did He back then.

I hope I have made both what I am saying and what I am not saying clear enough!

God did not write the bible, thus the bible cannot be the word of God...... the bible can be called the words of men inspired by God, but the bible is not "the word" of God......

 

[moicherie]

When Paul wrote his letters to him they were just that letters......they were not God personal email.

 

[MRHarvey]

On the authority of the Scriptures.

God did not write the bible, thus the bible cannot be the word of God...... the bible can be called the words of men inspired by God, but the bible is not "the word" of God......

When Paul wrote his letters to him they were just that letters......they were not God personal email.

Moicherie, StormyOne, I am inclined to believe that we are not that far apart. So I am going to try very hard to respond to both of your postings without sounding like I am arguing! I hope I do okay!

StornyOne, you say that the Bible is "the words of men, inspired by God." Since I have already said that I don't belive that the Bible was inspired by verbal dictation, I suppose I can agree with that ... at least until I am able to more clearly define what I believe.

Moicherie, are you also agreed that the Bible is inspired by God, even you do not consider it to be the Word of God?

Assuming that all three of us can agree on that, I would also like to add this ...

I do not believe that the Bible is one of several equally inspired, equally authoritative books! I do not believe that the Rig-Veda, or the Bhavavad-Gita, or the Kama Sutra, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or even the Talmud is equal in authority to the Bible!

At the moment, I am not necessarily saying that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, but I believe that no other authority on Earth today is equal to the Bible!

I would like to end this message by asking both of you a two questions: (1) What do both of you think of what I have said above? (2) Is it possible to belive that the Bible is the highest authority on Earth today, without necessarily believing in the inerrancy or the infallibility of the Bible?

 

[StormyOne]

it is possible to believe that the bible is the highest authority without believing it is inerrant/infallible.... what you have said is you believe that the bible is the highest authority on earth....

Having said that, while that is your belief I would ask why do you believe the bible is the highest authority? Authority for what?

 

[sentipente]

It is strange that even there is nothing in the Bible that says the Bible or any other text was inspired by God that claim continues to be made. The texts says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." That is all it says. It does not say anything about the quality of what is in said scriptures.