Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I don't. I just don't assume that the Orthodox or any other given church has the one single true understanding and practice regarding those things.
I'm pretty convinced about most of the stuff I argue over. I often say "my personal belief is..." because I want to emphasise that I'm not instructing others what to believe, and I'm also humble toward the fact that I don't know everything, and may still change my mind.
The Holy Spirit would not be me
I don't follow any church fathers. I try to do what Paul talked about, to live according to the Spirit.
I don't reject any part of the bible any more than you do.
It can be really hard to stop tryinig to figure stuff out and actually wait on God... Many times I catch myself not really waiting on God, so much as I'm just looking for confirmations about what I already conveniently believe. It's a constant struggle.
You can't know God unless He leads you. Nobody comes to Him unless the Spirit draws them.
How is that, exactly?
Me too. But we interpret him differently.
What/whose history?
Well, that's pretty much how it is, isn't it? A kid in school simply has to decide to trust the teacher and the books. I've never been to the moon, but I think I have good reasons to believe that it's not made out of cheese, based on what I hear from people with mor knowledge and me. But ultimately, everything does boil down to faith and assumtion.
Well, but someone obviously privately interpreted that verse to mean that. I don't agree with that intepretation. The fact that it's not for "personal interpretation" doesn't mean that some church, for example, isn't personal. They're WAY personal! And besides, that way of thinking strands on its on lack of reason - "the church says this verse should be interpreted to mean that only the church can interpret it correctly." It just goes in circles.
Um, I really don't think that answers my question...?
True, it's not erroneous in the sense that it may be poetical, and it also reflects their limited knowledge. Take a witness in court, for example. A girl says she saw one man running away from the scene. In reality, though, there were TWO men running. But she only saw one of them, she didn't see the entire picture. So she is technically wrong, but she's not lying. See my point?
Well you keep saying these things but I've not seen any evidence from you.
Isaiah 41:9
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
There are also verses in Rev. talking about the corners of the earth. It appers that believing the earth was flat, was a common misconception in ancient times. No wonder, as they didn't have the ability to find out otherwise.
Well, it certainly wouldn't be honest to do somebody else's "thing"...
And there is no lack of leaders...
And YOUR opinion is that YOUR teacher, the Orthodox church, is infallible etc.
I absolutely believe in having teachers. In fact, I'm trying to teach you a thing or two right here. But you won't listen and agree.
Actually, they weren't trying to know God. They already knew Him. They wanted to know good and evil, they wanted to be like God. It is certainly not a story that can be taken to mean that one shouldn't question the Orthodox church.
Do you believe the bible has no errors? If so, why? How did you come to that conclusion?
Most of the things we "know" are actually faith, belief, and assumption. And there's always so much we don't yet know. I'm as human as anybody. Of course I acknowledge the fact that I'm not flawless and that my brain isn't omniscient. And the church, which consists of equally limited human beings, isn't omniscient either.
You have to keep in mind who Jesus is talking to, and when. For example, when He berates people and calls them "whitewashed walls," is He talking about you and me? When He refers to the scribes or the pharisees, is He talking about us? And when He teaches law to those under the law, is He teaching us?
Based on what though? For several days you've just been repeating things like this.
So you're arguing against a position of certainty based on you being uncertain?
I'm not talking about everything. Why would Jesus leave things to guess-work?
You can't turn this around. I asked you to point out the errors, you make mistakes by confusing poetic language for errors and make some general reference to 'the poles' etc. I press you for evidence and you dodged that.
So, you follow all of it, or you don't.
Well, observing cultural context is extremely important and obviously influences how I understand this or that bible verse. Also, I try to see everything through the lense of the gospel; so for instance, when Jesus is talking about punishment for sinners, I know that doesn't apply to me, because I'm not a sinner anymore, but a born-again rihgteous person.
I think reading the bible for myself and praying and trusting in God is a way better way to learn the truth than to just assume that some church has gotten everything right.
I believe it has erred pretty badly when it comes to communion, for example. You don't agree with that, and that's fine. You interpret the bible differently than I do. And I don't know every single belief and practice of the Orthodox church, just like you don't know everything about mine. But as we're talking and debating, we're learning, and we get to test our beliefs and traditions up against each other.
Well, if you follow a heretic you'll obviously end up in the same heresy. That's obviously a good reason to be careful following people and trusting them to tell you all truth on something as important as your relationship with God. I mean, there are a thousand different denominations and even more christians around, and they disagree on a lot of stuff. So how and why should I pick out one of them and place all my trust in their supposed infallibility?
The point is simply that there are mor doctrines in church than I think can be found in the bible. In the bible we see a lot of practices and traditions and so forth, and then the church crates a doctrine based on those things. But the doctrine itself isn't to be found there.
The thief on the cross, the bleeding woman, Peter, Thomas, Mary and Martha and all the healed sick people didn't establish deacons, priests and bishops
I still don't get your point. Are you criticising the church when you don't believe in sola scriptura?
You said before you didn't. No where would Luther say he's not acting without the spirit, so you're using it in a way unique to you.
Sure and Adam had a realatioship with God. Did this mean Jesus' coming was pointless? No, of course not. So what then was the point in Jesus coming and establishing the church?
That doesn't answer the question. Why would they do this?
Which still avoids the question.
Based on the fact that they are all human, based on my firm belief that a lot of the responsibility and ability they claim to have is actually the responsibility and ability of the Holy Spirit, and based on the fact that they themselves believe everybody else are getting it wrong...
No. I'm simply akcnowledging that I'm a human being and not omniscient.So you're arguing against a position of certainty based on you being uncertain?
OK, cool
Well, Irenaus isn't my teacher and I haven't (yet) read everything he had to say.
Which destroys your belief in your own faith.
So was Jesus wrong to pick people to teach?
Well I'm sure you'd just pick and choose from him to.
I don't argue that any one person was flawless. I say that the church is. It's a matter of checks and balances that Jesus established - and he promised that the church would not fail.
uh, it was a jibe, bro.
No, I already mentioned the fact that the gospel accounts are conflicting. I know there are ways to make it look like they don't, but I don't believe those explanations hold water, especially since they are based on the assumtion that there can't be any disrepancies.
Nobody "follows" all of the bible. One CAN'T "follow" all the bible, because the bible says one thing here and another thing there. For example, you can't both "follow" the mosaic law and make sacrifices without NOT "following" the new covenant.
Feel free to be more specific. When I say "most things" I mean stuff like how nature and the universe works, psychology, a whole lot of theology and so forth. We make educated guesses all the time. There are a lot of missing pieces, lots of info we don't know.Back to generalisations.... 'most things...'
I can know a lot about the church by visiting it. I'm learning a lot about the Orthodox church from you, and I'm assuming that you're portraying it pretty correctly, as I don't see other Orthodox stepping in and correcting you.
Some things are more reasonable than others. For example, there are those who would claim that the entire bible is just a grand scheme plotted out by the devil himself. I don't think that's a reasonable claim. I have too many arguments and experiences of the opposite.
Nope, never said that.
Just like you
You asked, and I answered. About the criminals executed with Christ, for example. One account says they both blasphemed Jesus, another account says that one blashpemed and the other repented.
