Showing our weaknesses
- Thread starter briareos
- Start date
Well what I am learning in school is that it really is ok to allow people and other Christians in particular to breathe and express their thoughts, opinions and individuality on their faith no matter how diverse, controversial, unorthodox or orthodox the next person views them. There really aren't that many "official" right answers here. It all depends on how you look at it. Let me tell you. My teacher said people/scholars argue over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons...really? would've never guessed it...was Darwin a Christian even though he was the founder of Evolution...was the earth formed in 6 days or six thousand years...did Moses write the Pentateuch or were other authors involved... which books belong in the canon and which don't... the list never ends and neither do the debates.
So those that think they have all "the answers" simply bc they call themselves Christians or can recite a passage or two might have another thing coming. If you only know half the story and half the facts then you only get half the truth. So the OP made a very valid suggestion about relinquishing spiritual arrogance (none of us should be that proud) bc I truly believe now that no one's knowledge (especially here on this forum...not in a mean way...just as an observation) is all it is cracked up to be. From my perspective, moderators and staff included, we are all just babies in Christ. Avg at best. Whether we were saved a year ago or 15 years ago or 40 years ago, we shouldn't have a sense of superiority over others. Life comes with a lot of teachable moments that we can all learn at any age.
So those that think they have all "the answers" simply bc they call themselves Christians or can recite a passage or two might have another thing coming. If you only know half the story and half the facts then you only get half the truth. So the OP made a very valid suggestion about relinquishing spiritual arrogance (none of us should be that proud) bc I truly believe now that no one's knowledge (especially here on this forum...not in a mean way...just as an observation) is all it is cracked up to be. From my perspective, moderators and staff included, we are all just babies in Christ. Avg at best. Whether we were saved a year ago or 15 years ago or 40 years ago, we shouldn't have a sense of superiority over others. Life comes with a lot of teachable moments that we can all learn at any age.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It was the Greeks who saw anything other than pure intellect as less than ideal. Feelings, mercy, compassion were seen as weaknesses. But the mystery of the Gospel is that our strength is made perfect in weakness, that forgiveness and mercy lie at the heart of our faith. Our only strength and shield is Christ and His life within us.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
This forum has a widely varying spectrum of posters, and they are free to post their widely varying ideas and points of view. Thankfully, though, we have God's Word, which is absolutely full of right answers, to use as a means of judging the rightness or wrongness of the views of any poster.
Are you aware of how post-modern this statement is? Let me ask you: Is one stone added to another stone going to amount to two stones? Could the answer be four or seven, if I like? Or is the answer all in how you look at it? Is a completely black dog also white, or purple? How many right angles does a circle have? Is the answer totally at the mercy of personal perspective? Could someone say correctly that a circle contains ten right angles or twenty? Obviously not. Jesus said,
6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)
Is what Jesus says here true? Or was he just offering his opinion? Should we take Jesus seriously when he says this, or just dismiss it as just his personal point of view?
So? It is through debate that answers are often uncovered, that the truth is found and clarified. Certainly, the answers that are found may be trivial in some cases - but not in all. Sometimes the answers that are revealed are absolutely vital!
What qualifies someone as an authority in your view then? Are you as qualified to do open-heart surgery as the heart specialist who has trained for a dozen years to do so? What about the Christian who has spent half his life studying the Scriptures and the information gleaned by Christian scholars over the last 2000 years? Is he just a blowhard ignoramus no farther ahead in his understanding of God's truth than a new convert?
The last remark you make in the above sentence is what is known as a self-refuting statement. If "no one's knowledge is all its cracked up to be," then that includes you. And if your knowledge about other's knowledge isn't all its cracked up to be, then we ought to ignore it - or at least view it very skeptically.
I disagree (somewhat) with this. Most definitely no one arrives at a place where they can't learn any more. However, there are just as definitely some people whose knowledge and understanding is superior to others. Admitting the former truth does not necessarily preclude the latter. The truth that we all remain learners no matter how much we come to know does not mean those with greater knowledge and understanding are not superior in their knowledge and understanding to others. I tried to make this point with the heart surgery analogy. One mustn't act superior to others in an egotistical way, but some certainly are superior to others in their knowledge, understanding and abilities. And its often important to recognize this fact. I recognize my doctor is superior to my Mom in his understanding of medicine and human health and so I go to him when I'm looking for advice on, and remedies for, health issues. If I need my car repaired, I don't take my car to my thirteen year-old nephew for fixing. He may know a lot about Halo, but diddly-squat about car engines - and its important for me to understand this! There are also some who know more about God's Word and who have walked with Him a long time and in so doing have deepened their understanding of the spiritual life. It is foolish to refuse to recognize that this is so and to take advantage of their accumulated wisdom and knowledge.
Selah.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
.This forum has a widely varying spectrum of posters, and they are free to post their widely varying ideas and points of view. Not necessarily but I won't get into all of that.
Thankfully, though, we have God's Word, which is absolutely full of right answers I personally would say that's somewhat incorrect as well based on all the research I've done. I expounded upon that in this thread, to use as a means of judging the rightness or wrongness of the views of any poster. SMD to that one.
Are you aware of how post-modern this statement is? Let me ask you: Is one stone added to another stone going to amount to two stones? Could the answer be four or seven, if I like? Or is the answer all in how you look at it? Is a completely black dog also white, or purple? How many right angles does a circle have? Is the answer totally at the mercy of personal perspective? Pretty much. Could someone say correctly that a circle contains ten right angles or twenty? It all depends on who you ask. Obviously not. Jesus said,
6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)
Is what Jesus says here true? Or was he just offering his opinion? Should we take Jesus seriously when he says this, or just dismiss it as just his personal point of view? It all depends on who you ask.
So? It is through debate that answers are often uncovered, that the truth is found and clarified. Certainly, the answers that are found may be trivial in some cases - but not in all. Sometimes the answers that are revealed are absolutely vital! Oh...k. Again, that all depends on who you ask as well.
What qualifies someone as an authority in your view then? Are you as qualified to do open-heart surgery as the heart specialist who has trained for a dozen years to do so? What about the Christian who has spent half his life studying the Scriptures and the information gleaned by Christian scholars over the last 2000 years? Which ones? Is he just a blowhard ignoramus no farther ahead in his understanding of God's truth than a new convert? Trust me. There's not a lot of absolutes in Christianity (whereas with open-heart surgery it is a different story), so again, it all depends on who you ask.
The last remark you make in the above sentence is what is known as a self-refuting statement. If "no one's knowledge is all its cracked up to be," then that includes you. I already included myself in that list. Only in the second week of class. And if your knowledge about other's knowledge isn't all its cracked up to be, then we ought to ignore it - or at least view it very skeptically. The thing is, why would I take offense to that if I see nothing but people who operate at a substandard level anyways? Shouldn't that be expected in this scenario? People just don't know any better. Trust me, it took place in that thread and I just yawned and kept it moving. Unimpressed. The guy boldly assured me that he could refute all the claims I made against the inerrancy of scripture and there were never any edits that took place in the Bible but then I posted a response to this "challenge" and never heard back.So why would I care if I am ignored or falsely accused of remarks I never made? It is to be expected when one's not working with much else, right? According to everything I'm learning at school, the Bible leaves a lot of questions unanswered and that's ok. All we can do is offer our best guess or our own hypothesis for the most part. That's basically what all of our best scholars are doing.
I disagree (somewhat) with this. Most definitely no one arrives at a place where they can't learn any more. However, there are just as definitely some people whose knowledge and understanding is superior to others. If you go to seminary, understand that there's a lot more to scripture than meets the eye and get out of the head space that reading the KIV/KJV is all you need to know about Christ and Christianity...then I would agree. But no, the concepts people hold here on this board and the approach they have to diverse beliefs, don't cut it to me. It shows how inferior their knowledge is to me bc scholars are the complete opposite. They get it.
Admitting the former truth does not necessarily preclude the latter. The truth that we all remain learners no matter how much we come to know does not mean those with greater knowledge and understanding are not superior in their knowledge and understanding to others. I haven't witnessed it here. I haven't seen anybody with above avg intelligence when it comes to this stuff and that includes everybody. I've seen the mainstream speak or the status quo recite verse after verse from the Hebrew bible but there really is a whole lot more to learn about this religion which many tend to ignore or overlook or don't know about.
I tried to make this point with the heart surgery analogy. One mustn't act superior to others in an egotistical way, but some certainly are superior to others in their knowledge, understanding and abilities....I would add just not here on CF. Can't wait till I meet someone like that though. I think my professor is very wise. I would consider him a superior intellect on this subject matter bc he discusses it all. And its often important to recognize this fact. I recognize my doctor is superior to my Mom in his understanding of medicine and human health and so I go to him when I'm looking for advice on, and remedies for, health issues. If I need my car repaired, I don't take my car to my thirteen year-old nephew for fixing. He may know a lot about Halo, but diddly-squat about car engines - and its important for me to understand this! There are also some who know more about God's Word and who have walked with Him a long time and in so doing have deepened their understanding of the spiritual life. It is foolish not to refuse to recognize that this is so and to take advantage of their accumulated wisdom and knowledge. I would say my professor fits the bill for sure.
Selah.
Upvote
0
Most believers "come to Christ" and quickly go from step 1 to finished, last step. For most of us there are about 10 steps between the two points, give or take.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
I've done some research myself and am convinced that in its original form the Bible is without errors. As for the contradictions that are said to permeate the Scripture, I have looked at a great many of them and found them not to be true contradictions and very susceptible to reasonable explanations.
I won't bother to comment here on your remarks in another thread. If you have specific issues concerning biblical inerrancy you want to discuss, then feel free to post them in a new thread.
No, I'm afraid its not. I think you are confusing subjective perspective with objective truth. They are not the same thing. No matter how you look at it, one stone added to another amounts to two stones.
Not if one intends to offer an answer that accurately reflects, and/or corresponds to, reality.
I don't think so. Again, if one intends to render the correct, the true answer, one cannot declare that a circle has any right angles. By definition, a circle has no right angles.
Perhaps. I am asking you, however.
If you're taking a completely subjective approach to everything, then I suppose you could assert this. But just because something doesn't seem vital to you doesn't mean it actually isn't vital.
Why do you ask?
Trust you? What is there to trust? That nothing is trustworthy? LOL! I'm afraid I don't agree. I have been a student of Scripture for a long time now and nothing you have said so far bears out what I have come to understand of the Christian faith - or of logic itself. In fact, there are a great many absolutes in the Christian faith. One may not want to accept them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
I don't think you understand my point. You empty your statement of any authority, of any reliability, of any capacity to speak the truth, when you make it self-refuting. In essence your statement that "no one's knowledge is all its cracked up to be" is just a roundabout way of saying that your knowledge is "not all its cracked up to be." But if your knowledge is not all its cracked up to be, then its not trustworthy, it cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect reality. And, since this is so, we ought to ignore it. Your willingness to "include yourself in the list" amounts to ruling yourself out as a poor source of knowledge.
The thing is, since you acknowledged that your knowledge isn't "all its cracked up to be," then why should we consider your statement about people "operating at substandard levels" as accurate or true?
Yes, there are many things to which the Bible does not attempt to speak. And there are some things the Bible leaves as a mystery. Neither of these things, however, precludes clear and absolute statements in God's Word.
Again, you're trying to assert something here, but you can't do this with any authority and at the same time espouse a "its all in one's perspective" philosophy.
I am friends with a number of seminarians and can tell you that seminary is definitely not the be-all-and-end-all of biblical scholarship. More and more these days, seminaries breed confusion rather than clarity, uncertainty instead of confidence. Insofar as this is so, seminaries are failing profoundly.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion...
My statement above is true regardless of location. Superior knowledge and ability are superior wherever they are found. You may not think such knowledge exists on this forum, but that is just your opinion and carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion. Its only true for you, right, so why should I or anyone else care about it? (Do you begin to see the problem with the "depends on who you talk to" position?)
You'll grow out of this - I hope.
Selah.
Upvote
0
Hun? What would that be exactly? The debate over the origin of the Bible is just as convoluted and extensive as the debate over the content within.
...The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated." Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851
... Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version.
An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version
But you are entitled to your opinion.
Subjective statement.
Even though I could take this another route, I won’t. You are comparing apples and oranges here. This is a non sequitur. I think you are confusing subjective perspective with objective truth. They really aren’t the same thing. I agree. There are absolutely no parallels between mathematics and personal philosophy; however, you are desperately trying to establish a connection here. The rules of arithmetic aren’t subject to the varying degrees of interpretation/subjectivity that religion/Christianity is, so what is the point of trying to compare the two?
Who’s reality?
That was my answer when you asked me. I like Christ. I can’t deny the things GOD has done for me in my life and I believe He is who He says He is; however, I can’t deny others for having a perspective that varies from mine either. There are just too many loopholes in scripture and everyone’s entitled to their opinion and that’s the reason for JWs, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. That’s the main point behind everything I am saying. People have a right to pick and choose what they want to believe in for the most part bc there aren’t that many well-established absolutes in Christianity, so I can see why someone would choose one route over another. For instance, at least with Islam it is well documented that their Prophet PBUH is real. He was a real live human being and that’s never been called into question. Christianity is a different story though. The debates over Jesus Christ whether he was a living person or did he live but if all of those miracles were just attributed it to him after death, etc will continue to rage on til the end of time. Based on the non-scriptural evidence I can now see why other people are on the fence about that. That’s the point I am making. The protestant church just decided to pick and choose what verses and books they wanted to keep in their Bibles and which ones they wanted to toss out so everybody has that freedom from my perspective.
Because Christian scholars have varying perceptions that often times conflict with each other. So I was asking to see what was the point you were making. I mean, there’s no one universal answer to a lot of these questions within our religion. It all depends on how you look at it.
Oh...k. Sure. Although the argument you presented here doesn’t logically flow in the least bit. I never said nothing was trustworthy. I just said based upon my research it all depends on the source/information you choose to trust on an individual basis. If that doesn’t make logical sense then it seems to me you are choosing to consciously ignore the varying and conflicting perceptions on everything Bible – from experts, scholars, textbooks, preachers, pastors, etc. That’s your choice. I choose to accept reality for what it is.
No. In essence, I am really talking about people like you in a roundabout way. However, I am not trying to be offensive but in order to prove your point you did just try to make a comparison between math and philosophy when in reality there is no correlation between the two.
No. I am saying I would rather be better/well informed about my faith then speak or teach from a place of ignorance. I see nothing wrong with that whereas others here tend to prefer the latter. That’s why I said it doesn’t seem like anyone’s knowledge is all it is cracked up to be on CF. If archeologists, experts and biblical scholars agree that the Bible is nothing more than a book of fragmented parts in which a lot of it can’t be validated beyond a few strong hypotheses, Paul’s teachings were actually influenced by Zoroastianism, reincarnation was removed from scripture, and the protestant church just up and decided to cut the book in half and remove what it doesn’t like then those are the things I would like to learn, know and study about my religion, book and faith. To me, that symbolizes the epitome of open-mindedness, whereas most here seem close-minded and out of touch with reality. Despite science and contradictory proof, they just want to stick their heads in the sand, ignore reality, and say none of this ever occurred or none of this is true. The KJV/NIV is the only true Word of GOD and none of it was edited or has any errors or contradictions. Now that statement would be highly incorrect no matter which way you looked at it but there are some Christians that would shout it from the mountaintops without a lick of evidence to back up their claims.
I see you continue to miss my point.
I thought I was stating an absolute.
I think what you refer to as confusion and uncertainty might be considered knowledge by others. It seems you would rather people stick their heads in the sand and say KIV/KJV is all one needs to know about scripture and Christianity even though that solution breeds ignorance and intolerance instead of open-mindedness and revelation.
Now you are getting it.
I maintain, I haven't witnessed it here.Again, what’s the beef? I see nothing wrong with only viewing my perspective as an opinion and nothing more. In fact, I keep saying that. I’m saying when others are discussing these things, they should have the same mindset bc that’s all it is really. Each person’s voice (especially on Christianity and the Bible) is only one opinion in a sea of many. There aren’t that many absolutes here. True and historical research proves this.
Selah, you want me to grow out of learning from an educated Christian scholar who has 17 or more years of experience behind him??? See how backwards that is??? Instead, you would rather I glean wisdom from uneducated folks on an internet forum who know little about the origin and history of their Bibles, who can barely recite scripture and have probably never read their bibles in full, who are only acquainted with a KJV or NIV, and who are inwardly bias toward diverse beliefs even though that’s what the Bible is composed of. You’ll evolve from that understanding - I hope. God bless.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Hmmm...I wasn't commenting on the origins of the Bible here but on the original form of the Bible. I'm referring to a matter related to textual criticism while you are thinking of issues related to higher criticism. There is ample manuscript information available to establish with a very high degree of accuracy and reliability the original form of the Scriptures. This is possible through the discipline of textual criticism. Where the Bible came from, which is a question pursued in higher criticism, was not part of my point.
Yes, I am.
Well, you offered one so I thought I'd offer a counter one in return.
Apples and oranges? No, I don't think so. And what, exactly, in what I wrote was a non-sequitur?
The basic rules of logic which govern mathematics also apply to personal philosophy. In this regard, at least, they have something in common. (In fact, there is whole realm of philosophy of mathematics!) Certainly, a person may hold views and ideas that contradict basic rules of logic, but they cannot then claim to hold these views rationally or reasonably. There are some facts, some absolute truths, which transcend personal philosophy and constrain it. Mathematical absolutes are a good example, which is why I used it. Not everything in one's personal philosophy can be made subject to personal interpretation, like the example of the basic geometry of a circle.
I wasn't comparing them; I was establishing that one cannot utterly subjectify everything and remain rational and logical in doing so. When someone's perspective becomes too irrational, too subjective, they are deposited in a facility with straight jackets and rubber rooms.
Are we all in separate realities? If so, how do we communicate with one another? If your reality is completely different than mine, then how are we able to use language efffectively? Phillip K. Dick remarked that reality is that which remains even when we stop believing in it. There is some truth to this. As I said, some things transcend subjective perspective, they remain what they are regardless of what we may feel or believe about them, and it is to those things I refer when I speak of reality.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are equal. In fact, some opinions are downright stupid! Imagine sitting in a restaurant and seeing a man lurch up from his table, grab his throat, and begin to make strangled noises. His face turns beet red and moments later he collapses to the floor. Someone jumps up and exclaims, "His food was too hot!" Another person calls out, "No his food was too cold!" Still another person cries out, "He didn't care for the taste!" Finally, a man rushes over to the fallen man and declares, "No, you are all wrong! He is choking to death!" He lifts the fallen man up, performs the Heimlich maneuver, and out pops the food blocking the man's windpipe. The choking man recovers and all is well.
Now, all of the offered theories about the choking man's behaviour could have been correct. They were all at least possible explanations for his bizarre behaviour at the table. In fact, some of his behaviour was in keeping with the theories that were offered. But, were they all correct? No, actually, except for one theory, they were all completely mistaken. But if the fellow who had rescued the choking man had said to himself, "You know, there is so much debate here! Obviously, no one can know for sure what this guy's problem is," the choking man would have died. Fortunately, the rescuer in this scenario didn't believe that the mere presence of debate precluded a definite answer. And neither should you.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the question of Jesus actually existing is a well-established fact. Check out Dr. Gary Habermas's book "The Historical Jesus" for a very thorough look at the historical evidence for Christ's life, death and resurrection and excellent answers to the objections raised to it. Habermas is not in the minority in his view on Christ - even among secular scholars.
I should like you to explain how my comments don't "logically flow in the least bit."
When you assert that "no one's knowledge is all its cracked up to be," which you did, you are asserting, in essence, that no one's knowledge is accurate and therefore trustworthy. If this is so, then there is little ground upon which to trust you - or anyone else.
You are wanting to have it both ways and don't seem to realize it. You want, on one hand, to suggest that everything is all a matter of perspective and no one's got it right and then, on the other, make assertions about what is true (ie, there is too much debate to be sure of much of anything - especially in the realm of Christian doctrine). If no one has it right, then this includes you and all the assertions you make about whatever. If its all a matter of perspective, then what you say is no more true or real than a view that is completely opposite to your own, in which case I am free to dismiss it.
You made your confusion quite clear when you wrote,
"I never said nothing was trustworthy. I just said based upon my research it all depends on the source/information you choose to trust on an individual basis."
It sounds to me here like you're saying that some sources of information and/or the information itself are trustworthy - but only because one chooses to believe they are. Basically, this is to say that truth is purely subjective; only what I accept as true is, in fact, true. But this both denies reality and creates severe logical issues - some of which I've tried to highlight for you.
I think you're painting with rather a broad brush here...
You're not being very open-minded about the close-mindedness of others. Why is that? Being truly open-minded would allow for people to stick their heads in the sand if they like. They are entitled to their perspective, right? And no one's perspective is superior to another's, correct? Head in or out of the sand, each has their own and equally valid reality, yes?
As someone who is constantly urging uncertainty as a result of debate, you seem awfully sure of what you're saying here...There are many biblical scholars who would not agree at all with what you've written above. What makes the ones who disagree with them superior in your thinking?
This is silly. I've said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
Is your assertion about the "sea of many opinions" one of those absolutes? If so, why should we believe you? On what basis is your assertion absolutely true?
No, I'm hoping you'll grow out of the blind faith you seem to be placing in what he is telling you. From what I can see, he's giving you a very skewed view of things.
Where did I say this? Where have I even implied it? Please, show me!
In fact, I don't hold to any of the things you charge with me here. You are however just as guilty of bias as those you describe above! That bias has insinuated itself all through what you write. Furthermore, you seem to think you're the only one on this site who has advanced beyond High School in their studies. You are quite wrong in this.
Selah. (Which isn't my screen name, by the way, but Hebrew for "Stop and consider.")
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I know Aiki is your screen name. But I thought Selah was your real name. Most ppl sign off with their real names which often vary from their screen name. And Selah’s not a bad Hebrew name either but since you brought it up that it means “stop and consider” (love that btw), I want you to take some time and do exactly that.
Actually, it can. Absolutely EVERYTHING! in one’s personal philosophy is subject to personal interpretation. Absolutely everything - no matter the religion, the book, the doctrine, the faith, the dogma, etc. Everyone has the freedom to pick and choose exactly what they want to believe. How can they not? What ultimately restricts them from doing so? The short answer and only answer: Nothing. That’s all that’s taking place here actually, however, this is the point that seems to always miss you by a mile but then you have the gall to say I have it backwards. I am the one confusing subjective perspective with objective truth.
[FONT="]
Almost everything.
Not everything in one's personal philosophy can be made subject to personal interpretation...
Actually, it can. Absolutely EVERYTHING! in one’s personal philosophy is subject to personal interpretation. Absolutely everything - no matter the religion, the book, the doctrine, the faith, the dogma, etc. Everyone has the freedom to pick and choose exactly what they want to believe. How can they not? What ultimately restricts them from doing so? The short answer and only answer: Nothing. That’s all that’s taking place here actually, however, this is the point that seems to always miss you by a mile but then you have the gall to say I have it backwards. I am the one confusing subjective perspective with objective truth.
What are those? I am all ears.
I actually never made the case for “everything” (I have maintained from the beginning that I am simply talking about personal/religious philosophy) whereas you keep trying to compare everything to religious/personal philosophy and don’t see where the disconnect has occurred. You outline very definitive, concrete and tangible scenarios and then say See! All personal philosophy (which is purely subjective btw) is governed by the same principals. That makes no sense. If 1+1 always =2 that means (I personally don’t know how you are equating it to your faith – that part remains lost on me but I’ll give it a shot) Christianity is always right over all other religions. This rational and the similes you are using are hard to compute. A guy is about to choke to death on food while people stand around and theorize that it is something else instead of helping him. The definitive answer is that he needed the Heimlich maneuver. And you are saying all of that to say, this is the same thing as Christians and non-Christians sitting around having a philosophical discussion on their diverse perspectives and opposing viewpoints. Both will present research, history, and knowledge which favor their position but in the end both parties will reach a clear consensus on who’s right and who’s wrong based on the fact that 1+1=2 and there are no right angles in a circle? Science and math aren't even divinely inspired.
Apparently so bc the rule which states 1+1 always = 2 doesn’t govern personal philosophy in my world.
There are just as many books out that could counter his entire thesis. It is just one opinion in a sea of many is all I am saying.
I hope I did that for you.
I said here on CF no one’s knowledge is all it’s cracked up to be. That wasn’t an all-inclusive statement to mean the entire world. I was saying people here on CF – including staff and moderators – just don’t seem to have it together. They don’t know much beyond what the KJV/NIV teaches. Then I go onto mention that I value my professor’s opinion bc he seems a bit more knowledgeable then anybody here.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Maybe this is where the confusion came in. [/FONT]
What’s happening is you keep dismissing the fact that I continue to reiterate that I am offering nothing more than an opinion which you are free to dismiss if you choose to. (ie [FONT="]I see nothing wrong with only viewing my perspective as an opinion and nothing more. In fact, I keep saying that.) [/FONT]I see nothing wrong with that. That’s the very definition of personal philosophy from my standpoint. From my perspective, we should all be mature enough and humble enough to recognize this. Most Christians don’t.
I think you’re confused. That statement ties in with the fact that I view everything as a personal opinion and a personal choice. Oh...k.
Interesting choice of words.
I am saying that it is ok to choose that reality for yourself but that is not how I personally want to live.
No biblical scholar worth his salt would disagree with that statement. All the experts agree that the canon was formed as a result of removing books from the bible, etc. Most tend to agree that the text doesn’t offer a lot of definitive answers either.
There’s actually no blind faith here. Everything he says actually corresponds with my Christian textbook.
Elaborate plz.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
SoldierOfSoul
Senior Veteran
Did not Jesus say this?:
"I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)
Jesus said that if you do not believe a certain view of Him (that He is God, Saviour, Messiah, Lord) you will die in your sins...Is this open to interpretation too? I do not base my worldview on what my limited finite mind decides on as truth, I trust in Jesus Christ and His word to LEAD me to His truth. He is infallible, we are fallen and flawed.
Arj, if you post back, please do not write an essay, a simple rebuttal will suffice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's true. But even so what we understand salvation to include as an example can vary. We also have a view of Jesus that has been formed over the centuries. Writers such as Phillip Yaney are asking whether we have got the real picture.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
Actually, it can. Absolutely EVERYTHING! in ones personal philosophy is subject to personal interpretation. Absolutely everything - no matter the religion, the book, the doctrine, the faith, the dogma, etc. Everyone has the freedom to pick and choose exactly what they want to believe. How can they not? What ultimately restricts them from doing so? The short answer and only answer: Nothing. Thats all thats taking place here actually.
Upvote
0
SoldierOfSoul
Senior Veteran
I like Yancey and I have read his book "The Jesus I Never Knew", but the point I was making is that Jesus declares that there is a truth in Him that must be believed for salvation. Jesus declared that He alone was the Way, Truth and the Life and that we were to follow Him as such. Our mind is not the way, our reason is not the way, but Jesus Christ presented in Scripture IS the only Way to Him and the Father.
"Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him--to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen." (Romans 16:25-27)
We are to be established in the gospel ACCORDING to scripture, as Paul makes clear in the above verse.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SoldierOfSoul
Senior Veteran
I would say GOD. God can keep someone from falling into error. He declares that His Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, if we have constant dependence on Him and His leadings and not the scholastic arguments of our own brains (check quote in sig), He will continue to guide us.
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13)
"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)
Here is a warning to stand firm in the truth of Christ:
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." (1 Timothy 4:1)
If we follow the Holy Spirit we will not be deceived, it is when we follow man's spirit that deception develops.
Upvote
0
Didn't Christ walk as a man? What if one is atheist, agnostic or polytheist? You jumped in the middle of a conversation on personal philosophy and personal philosophy is all encompassing. It doesn't presume the whole world is Christian or people only read the KJV/NIV. You have to be more open-minded about these things instead of assuming one to two verses from the protestant Bible represents the only answers to these types of questions. My Christian textbook even stated amongst conservative christian scholars there's no clear consensus amongst who wrote the Pentateuch. And I just read tonight, James said faith without works is dead, however, Paul said faith is all one needs. Those are two conflicting messages within the KJV/NIV NT but people hold the Bible never contradicts itself. Please don't reply with a whole bunch of out-of-context verses to dispute this. It is all written there in black and white. Based on the way James tackled this issue, I personally believe he was directly countering what Paul said. Many people who share the same beliefs have disagreements amongst themselves about what religion entails, what faith requires, what GOD is about, etc. From the way it reads, that's what seems to have taken place here. I see nothing wrong with that either. Two men hashing this stuff out. In the same manner that's what's taking place in this forum.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, the Truth is in Him, and in Him alone. But I am not Jesus. I have only glimpses of Him. These form my faith and I have confidence in them.
There is the overlapping consensus of people who believe much the same things about Jesus, people who have made incarnate something of the incarnate Christ. I tend to agree with Barth that there is only one Word of God, the living Jesus who reveals the scriptures to us out of relationship. Thus there is no purely 'objective' understanding of jesus , or Father either, from merely written words and doctrines. We must meet and come to know better the only Word (John 1:1) and only then will biblical statements become life and bread to us.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Hmmm...I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes here...
Let me see if I can clarify my thinking some more for you and clear away some of the verbal debris that seems to be accumulating in our discussion.
All of us perceive the world around us through our physical senses. The perceptions of our physical senses are typically filtered through our personality, our past history and education, our emotional make-up, etc. Insofar as this is the case, one may say that everything we know about the world and perceive in it is subjective. That is, we can only perceive reality through our own individual senses and psychological filters. We cannot literally perceive the world exactly as the next person does. Some take this to mean that since no two people perceive the world in precisely the same way, it is impossible to declare that anything can be objectively known, that anything is absolutely true. For example, is my living room hot or cold? My wife often feels that the room is cold, while I often think it is hot. Who's right? Some would suggest that we are both right - subjectively speaking. For my wife, the room is truly cold, as it is truly hot for me - even when we are in the same room together at the same time! There are a myriad of similar examples one could offer in demonstration of what I'm saying.
Is it logically reasonable to suggest that because there are sometimes significant differences in how people perceive the world around them that nothing can be said to be objectively true? I don't think so. And much of what I've been writing to you has attempted to demonstrate this. You see, I got the impression initially from what you'd written that you were convinced that, because everything is subjectively perceived, objective reality and absolute truth were an illusion. You have clarified that you don't go quite this far in your thinking, but you seem very close - too close, I think.
But this isn't actually so. Reality itself restricts us profoundly. If we refuse to acknowledge the restrictions reality imposes upon us, the consequences can be harmful and even fatal to us. Many obvious examples come to mind. If you believe you can fly and jump of a high cliff without the means to reach the ground safely, you will - your belief notwithstanding - fall to the ground with a fatal impact. If you believe you can eat a bottle of cyanide without fatal effect and do so, both you and your belief will be shortlived. If you believe you can play on a busy freeway without harm, this belief will not prevent you from being flattened into a bloody pulp by a semi-truck, or car. And so on. Most people recognize that belief must submit to and/or correspond to reality. One's survival often depends on this recognition.
I think some of the things you've written suggest that you do and I've taken pains to demonstrate how.
I have pointed to both arithmetic and geometric facts to which one must conform their thinking. You can also see above for other examples.
I have no idea where you got this from. No where in all that I have written do I make anything like this statement.
Actually, I was very clear about the purpose of my analogy. Let me repeat it for you:
"Fortunately, the rescuer in this scenario didn't believe that the mere presence of debate precluded a definite answer. And neither should you."
You seem to have concluded that definitive answers are rare or non-existent in the Christian worldview merely because there is debate within it. Debate by itself, however, doesn't necessarily mean that what is being debated is completely uncertain, or that the reasons for the debate are even legitimate, which was the point of my analogy.
I never suggested that it did. It does, though, constrain certain aspects of your life regardless of your overall personal life-philosophy. Personal finances, monetary transactions at retailers, and washing your socks are good examples.
This is dismissive and, frankly, intellectually lazy. By no means does the mere presence of contradictory books diminish the scholarship, or truthfulness of Habermas' book. And Dr. Habermas does not simply project an opinion but looks very closely at the historical record, both biblical and secular, to establish his view.
What's the point in offering it? If its just your opinion, and just "one in a sea of many," why shouldn't we all do with your opinion what you seem to suggest ought to be done with Dr. Habermas' book and simply dismiss it? If you believe you have nothing more than an utterly subjective perspective to offer, why is it worth offering at all? We've all got our own opinions, so why ought we to consider yours? Do you begin to see the problem with consigning everything people say to the realm of simple opinion?
No, you did far more than express your preference! You were criticizing those who were more absolute in their approach to things. The phrase, "sticking their heads in the sand" that you used implies willful ignorance and is plainly derogatory. You also declared that they were "out of touch with reality" and were "ignoring reality." This doesn't sound the least like you have an open-minded attitude toward such people. Not at all!
Where do you get this from? In fact, the canon of Scripture was not so much decided upon as it was simply formally acknowledged; the biblical canon wasn't so much determined as it was discovered. There were also a set of standards to which each book was held in proving it to be worthy of being part of the canon.
Was the book written by a prophet of God?
Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
Does the book tell the truth about God?
Did the book come with the power of God?
Was the book commonly in use among believers?
Textual criticism (or "lower criticism" as it is sometimes called) examines the twenty-thousand plus extant ancient manuscripts of Scripture and from them pieces together with an extremely high degree of accuracy what the original text of the Scripture actually was. Higher criticism looks at the origins of the Bible, not necessarily the accuracy of the text of the Bible itself. Check out the following link for more info on biblical textual criticism:
Stand to Reason: Is the New Testament Text Reliable?
Selah.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I wish you would get this through your head that you are actually the ONLY one thats been saying and doing this throughout this entire discussion. Im the one thats actually been countering this viewpoint throughout but you arent listening to me. In fact, despite my persistent opposition you continue to take my views and opinions which are strictly on spirituality, religion and personal philosophy out of context. Then you turn around and try to pin the logical fallacy on me.I think you need to apply the concept of selah in your own life. Either that or this is one lame straw man strategy
which is overtly apparent.
I actually NEVER stated that. I never said anything like that in fact. If I did, please repost those remarks. Simply put, you are purposely misrepresenting my position on the issue.
Wiki: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Case and point:
In this instance, you once again purposely took my words out of context and isolated a single solitary statement that was purely about religion in order to apply it to the entire spectrum of reality, yet you arent actually refuting my position on religion and personal philosophy in the least bit. I find that ironic when you claim to be working with so many absolutes within Christianity itself. If your faith can counter my position then why isnt it? No ones making these irrational claims but you and you continue to (deliberately?) sidestep the actual debate by doing so. No ones disputing the fundaments of gravity or the inevitability of death and personal injury.
In context, my words read: Absolutely EVERYTHING! in ones personal philosophy is subject to personal interpretation. Absolutely everything - no matter the religion, the book, the doctrine, the faith, the dogma, etc. Everyone has the freedom to pick and choose exactly what they want to believe.
Regardless, the consequences you mentioned above dont preclude people from believing in them at all. If you want to rationalize this last sentence out of context (which is a whole other discussion thats unrelated to the matter at hand) I said everyone has the freedom to pick and choose what they want to believe. Reality tends to keep most from acting on such rash decisions, in some cases it does not, but that doesnt mean they dont have the freedom to believe in those concepts. Satan obviously had that freedom, despite the limitations of reality.
Matthew 4:6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
With regards to the absolutes found in scripture, you truly believe in the history of mankind no one dared to believe or was brave enough to tempt fate after reading this and other passages:
Psalm 91:11-12
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
Even Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son in hopes that God would intervene right before the fatal blow. (Gen 22:1-14) Believe, throughout history, others have tempted fate in pretty much the same fashion purely based off beliefs. Reality doesnt stop them.
Thats where youd be wrong. I dont have it backwards. You do. Every time I try to correct you on yourTrust me. There's not a lot of absolutes in Christianity (whereas with open-heart surgery it is a different story), so again, it all depends on who you ask... I actually never made the case for everything (I have maintained from the beginning that I am simply talking about personal/religious philosophy) whereas you keep trying to compare everything to religious/personal philosophy and dont see where the disconnect has occurred...The rules of arithmetic arent subject to the varying degrees of interpretation/subjectivity that religion/Christianity is, so what is the point of trying to compare the two logical fallacies (not mine) ...... There are absolutely no parallels between mathematics and personal philosophy; however, you are desperately trying to establish a connection here... During a philosophical discussion, both parties will present research, history, and knowledge which favor their position but in the end both will reach a clear consensus on whos right and whos wrong based on the fact that 1+1=2 and there are no right angles in a circle? Science, math and medicine aren't even divinely inspired....you are comparing apples and oranges....these are non sequiturs...etc. (the list goes on and on btw) you say I shouldnt confuse subjective perspective (which is exactly what Id categorize as personal philosophy, spirituality and religion) with objective reality (which, imo, is categorized as modern medicine, math, science, gravity etc.) - anything thats generally universally accepted as indisputable facts.
For instance, to me, gravity would fall into the latter category but you (not me) just tried to apply it to this philosophical discussion in your previous statements. I repeat, selah. Notice, you (not me) are the only one constantly drumming up parallels between concrete facts and philosophical subjectivity two polar opposite concepts btw - throughout this entire discussion.
Case and point:
... How many right angles does a circle have? Could someone say correctly that a circle contains ten right angles or twenty? One cannot declare that a circle has any right angles. By definition, a circle has no right angles...
...If you believe you can fly and jump of a high cliff without the means to reach the ground safely, you will - your belief notwithstanding - fall to the ground with a fatal impact...
You are the one thats not keeping this discussion strictly within the confines of religion, spirituality and personal philosophy. I dont have my realities confused. You do.
Thats correct. You never suggested it. You came right out and stated it: Me: There are absolutely no parallels between mathematics and personal philosophy; however, you are desperately trying to establish a connection here... In response you replied: The basic rules of logic which govern mathematics also apply to personal philosophy. In this regard, at least, they have something in common. Youre absolutely full of nothing but double talk and then you wonder why I view your opinion on this matter as substandard.
You have a real problem with selective hearing, I see, and Im sure I am not the only one thats pointed this out to you. You obviously didnt read the material I was referring to in the previous threadat the beginning of this discussion. I never said anything like this nor have I concluded that debate by itself precludes definitive answers. If I did, quote me on that. Again, you continue to take my words out of context and misrepresent my position. And this is completely ironic coming from someone who uses selah as a sign off. This entire discussion is starting to seem like a complete wash. You arent getting the picture of what I am saying and thats simply bc you refuse to listen to anything other than your own opinion.
Yet again, your umpteenth analogy doesnt relate to the scenario at hand. As the pics from my textbook reveal, these arent a bunch of ignoramuses walking around preaching heresy and contending with the Word of God for the hell of it. No, these are world renowned, expert analyses backed by science, archeological findings, scholarly research, professors, etc (iow licensed authority figures on Christianity) which state theres no conclusive answers to a lot of these questions... this hypothesis cannot be definitively proven...our extensive research hasnt unearthed any evidence that this occurred...etc.
I never once said that debate is the reason for no conclusive answers. Just the opposite is true. I have reiterated over and over again that most experts agree that a lack of concrete evidence is the reason for no definitive answers. As a result, there are a lot of varying perceptions about what did and did not occur during biblical times and according to a lot of expert testimony (such as Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851 and others) your best guess is as good as it gets for the most part.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
