Sola Scriptura principle in SDA FB#1 good or bad?

Avonia said:

Excellent question CT.

Much of the efficacy of our beliefs may be measured by what's left if you remove them. If everything you believe about God proves untrue, what do you still know about God?

Falling in love is different than believing there is something called love. Being inspired is different than believing there have been those who were.

If nothing is outside of God, every experience we have tells us something about God. Our experience of doing anything to save our child provides insight into what a God would do for Its creation. The depth of our love for another provides insight into the nature of God's love for us.

The Bible is one perfect way, not the perfect way.

Click to expand...

I disagree with both of those statements. I don't think that the Bible is perfect, and I do think that the Bible is the best way we have.

Just because God is seen throughout His creation, doesn't mean that by looking at the stars/etc that it is the best way to see Him. After all, most Physicists are agnostic or atheist.

Every experience doesn't show us who God is. Being raped does not tell us that God is a rapist. Being tortured does not tell us that God is a torturer. Both of these are counter to who God is.

I will agree that the fact that God allows things counter to Him to exist, does tell us an important thing about who He is. But this isn't what you are saying when you are saying that every experience tells us about how God acts. It ignores the issue of evil, which is obviously seen in the world. Evil is outside of God. The belief that you are presenting here is fundamentally different than that believed by the majority of Christians and what most interpret the Bible to say.

And in the answer to your first question, you know nothing about God. Because without belief, you know nothing. This is true in science and this is true in every other aspect of life.

The reason why universalism fails is obvious. Things are counter to each other. It doesn't even take beliefs that lead to a belief in God, or a beleif in God to see this. It just takes a bit of rationality, a bit of logic.

JM

common tater said:

Dear Avonia,

Do you think there is room for a belief in something that you cannot prove? Is there room for faith?

Click to expand...

Yes. And . . .

Faith is about impressionability. It often requires the suspension of belief, not deeper investment in a belief.

Belief becomes occluding and not enabling when we are unwilling to consider seemingly oppositional beliefs. Or unwilling to consider evidence contrary to a belief.

We stop moving when a belief becomes the destination instead of the journey.

JonMiller said:

I do think that the Bible is the best way we have.

Click to expand...

That is primarily due to the circumstances of your birth. How many other ways have you explored in depth? Participated in?

JonMiller said:

Evil is outside of God.

Click to expand...

That's not well thought out. There is a problem with domain.

Only the natural stems from nature.

JonMiller said:

It just takes a bit of rationality, a bit of logic.

Click to expand...

Humorous given the post you just wrote. But carry on.

Dear Avonia,

Instead of suspension of belief, can't faith also require you to accept that what you see and what you know may be from a limited frame of reference?

common tater said:

Dear Avonia,

Instead of suspension of belief, can't faith also require you to accept that what you see and what you know may be from a limited frame of reference?

Click to expand...

Yes.

One of the most limiting conversations about scripture is whether it's right or wrong - as if it's a choice between one or the other. Scripture is always right and always wrong because of what you have pointed out - frame of reference

Avonia said:

That is primarily due to the circumstances of your birth. How many other ways have you explored in depth? Participated in?

Click to expand...

I don't need to jump of a cliff to determine that that isn't what I want to do. I have read quite a bit about other belief systems and the Christian one (in some interpretations of it) is the only one that is an agreement with the God that I want to worship and to exist.

It is a belief, which has personal (non-scientific) evidence behind it.

That's not well thought out. There is a problem with domain.

Only the natural stems from nature.

Click to expand...

It is well thought out and there is 2000+ years of theology behind it. If you say that everything is good, the quantifier good has no meaning. And is also obviously false, from the examples I gave.

For there to be good, there must be a possibility of evil. Otherwise good would not exist. For freedom to exist, the possibility of slavery must exist. Just like for slavery to exist, the possibility of freedom must. That is why a good God can create a universe where evil can occur but not be evil in Himself. That is how a good God can create a universe in which things counter to Him can exist.

I agree that a god that was neither good nor evil could be the source for everything. However, see my note about not believing in such a god.

And finally, as in my previous reply... an evil god isn't the God I choose to worship. I admit that there is some possibility that I am wrong, but I believe the way I want the universe to be, I would recommend that others choose their beliefs similarly.

Humorous given the post you just wrote. But carry on.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Moral relativism or universality of goodness/etc are obviously not correct logically. If you can define a true statement, you can also define a false statement.

And before you become one of those who thinks that our logic is wrong, remember it has all the generally agreed upon experience of science/etc behind it.

The central issue is that in things like physics we have clear and obvious answers and understanding. And people have determined the obvious thing that we don't have such clear and obvious answers and understanding in all areas of things like morality/etc. They than say that there are no answers and understanding, and while they are clearly and obviously wrong in areas of science... (although they still try) the lack of understanding in many areas of morality/etc means that many agree with them there.

But a lack of clear and obvious answers and understanding does not imply a lack of answers and understanding being possible. There are areas in physics which we can now begin to see which we will probably never be able to answer (that we aren't capable of making an experiment to measure). This does not mean that there is no answer to what exists in those areas, rather it is just that our minds/bodies/etc aren't capable of it.

JM

Avonia said:

Yes.

One of the most limiting conversations about scripture is whether it's right or wrong - as if it's a choice between one or the other. Scripture is always right and always wrong because of what you have pointed out - frame of reference

Click to expand...

This shows that you don't understand logic, that you aren't rational.

JM