Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

Yep. What more do we need to know than the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Only thing that seems to come of going further is unnecessary division.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Kylie]

Getting the right message doesn't require much if any interpretation. Naling down the nitty gritty doctrinal positions is secondary through interpretation is secondary, though.

Then why are there so many different denominations of Christianity?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are there so many different denominations of Christianity?

Two big reasons:

1. Different people put emphasis on different areas of the Bible.
2. Satan employs divide-and-conquer tactics.

 

[Fervent]

Then why are there so many different denominations of Christianity?

Because people elevate non-essentials to being essential and split over them. Also, political disputes have historically been given religious glosses. How is denominations existing supposed to demonstrate interpretation being a primary issue, anyway? Division can and does happen over secondary and even tertiary issues on matters of meaning and morals.

 

[Kylie]

Two big reasons:

1. Different people put emphasis on different areas of the Bible.

Why would they do that if they have the inspired word of God telling them what is important?

1. Satan employs divide-and-conquer tactics.

Why would the Almighty's plan be susceptible to such tactics?

Because people elevate non-essentials to being essential and split over them.

Of course, you know what's really essential and non-essential, I'm sure!

Also, political disputes have historically been given religious glosses.

Ah, so you agree that religion has been co-opted by politicians as a means to control the general population?

How is denominations existing supposed to demonstrate interpretation being a primary issue, anyway? Division can and does happen over secondary and even tertiary issues on matters of meaning and morals.

How can that be unless morality is subjective?

 

[Fervent]

Of course, you know what's really essential and non-essential, I'm sure!

I know of one essential, Jesus Chrsit and Him crucified. Everything else is up for debate.

Ah, so you agree that religion has been co-opted by politicians as a means to control the general population?

Yeah, that's kind of the point of the gospel. But abuse does not preclude proper use.

How can that be unless morality is subjective?

Lack of knowledge of what true morality demands. Morality that is subjective is no morality at all, as it ultimately comes down to doing whatever you desire so long as you can get away with it.

 

[Kylie]

I know of one essential, Jesus Chrsit and Him crucified. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything else is up for debate?

So the Bible can't be taken to be 100% accurate then, since by this admission it must make some claims that are not absolutely correct?

Yeah, that's kind of the point of the gospel. But abuse does not preclude proper use.

And who is it who can proclaim what the proper use is?

Lack of knowledge of what true morality demands. Morality that is subjective is no morality at all, as it ultimately comes down to doing whatever you desire so long as you can get away with it.

What's the difference between something that is subjective and something that is objective?

 

[Fervent]

Everything else is up for debate?

Yep

So the Bible can't be taken to be 100% accurate then, since by this admission it must make some claims that are not absolutely correct?

Who said it was "100% accurate"? Not every Christian believes in inerrancy or the verbal-plenary theory of inspiration. No need for an all-or-nothing stance.

And who is it who can proclaim what the proper use is?

God

What's the difference between something that is subjective and something that is objective?

You tell me.

 

[Kylie]

Yep

So you agree that things like original sin, the flood, the exodus, etc could all be non-factual?

Who said it was "100% accurate"? Not every Christian believes in inerrancy or the verbal-plenary theory of inspiration. No need for an all-or-nothing stance.

Yet you seem to be insisting on an "all or nothing stance" when it comes to Jesus and him being crucified...

God

How do you know this?

You tell me.

If you don't know, how can you claim that subjective morality is no morality at all?

 

[Fervent]

So you agree that things like original sin, the flood, the exodus, etc could all be non-factual?

Not exactly, more like there might be considerable distance between what actually occurred and how it is portrayed in the Bible. What actually happened isn't as important as how it was remembered.

Yet you seem to be insisting on an "all or nothing stance" when it comes to Jesus and him being crucified...

Well, yes. The crucifixion and resurrection is one point that I don't believe can be compromised while maintaining some form of Christian belief. Christology is bound up in essentials, because any God that isn't the God-become-man is a different God from the God worshiped by Christians.

How do you know this?

He told me.

If you don't know, how can you claim that subjective morality is no morality at all?

Morality can't be subjective because morality requires genuine right and wrong. If it's all just matters of subjective opinion, then it's going to boil down to some flavor of might makes right. Whether that be monetary might, military might, or might via popularity the only thing that matters in subjective morality is how big of a stick you carry.

 

[Kylie]

Not exactly, more like there might be considerable distance between what actually occurred and how it is portrayed in the Bible. What actually happened isn't as important as how it was remembered.

So when you said everything else was up for debate, I guess you just forgot to mention that whether or not it happened is NOT up for debate.

Well, yes. The crucifixion and resurrection is one point that I don't believe can be compromised while maintaining some form of Christian belief. Christology is bound up in essentials, because any God that isn't the God-become-man is a different God from the God worshiped by Christians.

So you pick and choose what is essential based entirely on whether your particular beliefs require it to be true.

That doesn't seem like a good way to get the truth to me...

He told me.

Let me guess, you felt it deep within your heart, or something like that?

Morality can't be subjective because morality requires genuine right and wrong. If it's all just matters of subjective opinion, then it's going to boil down to some flavor of might makes right. Whether that be monetary might, military might, or might via popularity the only thing that matters in subjective morality is how big of a stick you carry.

*Looks at what is happening in the world right now.*

Yeah, that seems like the way it is going, doesn't it? People wielding political might in order to enforce their morality on others.

 

[Fervent]

So when you said everything else was up for debate, I guess you just forgot to mention that whether or not it happened is NOT up for debate.

No, it is up for debate. Some see the OT as allegory, I was just giving my personal view that there is some historical basis to the stories but that they are not reflective of genuine history. I see Genesis as a mythical history like the Odyssey and other annals of the Trojan War.

So you pick and choose what is essential based entirely on whether your particular beliefs require it to be true.

Nope, I only see one thing as essential to Christianity, which is Christology. People who don't believe in Christ as God are not Christians, they are some other sort of God-believer.

That doesn't seem like a good way to get the truth to me...

It's simple taxonomy, not a method of inquiry.

Let me guess, you felt it deep within your heart, or something like that?

Nope, He told me with words. First spoken, then visualized.

*Looks at what is happening in the world right now.*

Yeah, that seems like the way it is going, doesn't it? People wielding political might in order to enforce their morality on others.

So morality doesn't exist, just whatever you have the means to get away with?

 

[Kylie]

No, it is up for debate. Some see the OT as allegory, I was just giving my personal view that there is some historical basis to the stories but that they are not reflective of genuine history. I see Genesis as a mythical history like the Odyssey and other annals of the Trojan War.

In other words, it's completely unreliable as a source for knowing what actually happened.

Nope, I only see one thing as essential to Christianity, which is Christology. People who don't believe in Christ as God are not Christians, they are some other sort of God-believer.

In other words, you believe that Jesus is God because you believe that Jesus is God.

It's simple taxonomy, not a method of inquiry.

In other words, classify it as true to justify your belief that it is true.

Nope, He told me with words. First spoken, then visualized.

Can you go into more detail?

So morality doesn't exist, just whatever you have the means to get away with?

Why do you think it is either objective or non-existent? Why can't it be morality that we develop ourselves? In another thread I talked about how evolution can explain morality by selecting for behaviors that lead us to act cooperatively to make it easier for us to live in social groups.

In any case, I base my morals on empathy. I think about how I would feel if someone treated me that way, and I treat others that way.