|
Notahippie posted:I read that chapter as having two basic claims: Yes, they do, but two ways that are still unsatisfactory. I guess as per your second point, it kind of reduces the problem rather than fixing it. So now instead of "millions of Christians therefore millions of views" we have "thousands of denominations therefore thousands of views". It makes my problem a little smaller, yes, but I'm still having to pick between seemingly equal and interchangeable interpretations. As for going to a community of the faithful and presenting your views - I mean, Martin Luther presented some radical reforms, but they weren't so obviously correct as to eliminate the entire Catholic tradition. In fact, Catholics still outnumber protestants. And are you (/is he) really trying to argue that whatever idea is the most popular is the most correct? A majority of people have sex before marriage, but for many Christians this is still hugely forbidden. As for turning inward, that's the exact method I'm criticizing in the first place. I'm sort of starting with the base assumption that those receiving revelation are doing so "correctly": they've simply read scripture and prayed on it, and come to some conclusion about it. Maybe we could argue that those getting it wrong aren't humbling themselves enough, but that's still an impossible metric to quantify and thus is useless to help in sorting the true from the false, and it's also essentially a No True Scotsman argument. But as per your point #1, if revelation doesn't "follow the rules" of ordinary logic or something, then I don't really know what to say. I still have a big problem, because I've never had a revelation myself, and it's impossible to sift through the revelations of others to find the truth. I've heard the knowledge of God compared to the knowledge of being in love: you just know. In this view, I'm someone who simply hasn't "fallen in love" yet, and it's useless to ask others who I should be in love with. If that's the case, then I have to wonder why God is withholding Himself from me. And how will I know when he does for sure? And if my revelation says that X rule is to be followed, but other Christians say it's not, how do I figure out who's wrong? Why not me?
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:because I've never had a revelation myself, and it's impossible to sift through the revelations of others to find the truth. Here's my favorite description of the revelatory experience of grace "Grace strikes us when we are in great pain and restlessness. It strikes us when we walk through the dark valley of a meaningless and empty life. It strikes us when we feel that our separation is deeper than usual, because we have violated another life, a life which we loved, or from which we were estranged. It strikes us when our disgust for our own being, our indifference, our weakness, our hostility, and our lack of direction and composure have become intolerable to us. It strikes us when, year after year, the longed-for perfection of life does not appear, when the old compulsions reign within us as they have for decades, when despair destroys all joy and courage. Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: "You are accepted. You are accepted, accepted by that which is greater than you, and the name of which you do not know. Do not ask for the name now; perhaps you will find it later. Do not try to do anything now; perhaps later you will do much. Do not seek for anything; do not perform anything; do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted!" If that happens to us, we experience grace After such an experience we may not be better than before, and we may not believe more than before. But everything is transformed. In that moment, grace conquers sin, and reconciliation bridges the gulf of estrangement. And nothing is demanded of this experience, no religious or moral or intellectual presupposition, nothing but acceptance. In the light of this grace we perceive the power of grace in our relation to others and to ourselves. We experience the grace of being able to look frankly into the eyes of another, the miraculous grace of reunion of life with life. We experience the grace of understanding each other's words. We understand not merely the literal meaning of the words, but also that which lies behind them, even when they are harsh or angry. For even then there is a longing to break through the walls of separation. We experience the grace of being able to accept the life of another, even if it be hostile and harmful to us, for, through grace, we know that it belongs to the same Ground to which we belong, and by which we have been accepted. We experience the grace which is able to overcome the tragic separation of the sexes, of the generations, of the nations, of the races, and even the utter strangeness between man and nature. Sometimes grace appears in all these separations to reunite us with those to whom we belong. For life belong to life." Have you ever experience real communication with, kinship with, understanding with, possibility intimacy with a other person? Those all can be revelatory experiences. The way I explain. In a service, when every one shakes hands and says "God be with you" if they mean it and there is real connection, that's a revealtion!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Have you ever experience real communication with, kinship with, understanding with, possibility intimacy with a other person? Those all can be revelatory experiences. The way I explain. In a service, when every one shakes hands and says "God be with you" if they mean it and there is real connection, that's a revealtion! Its no more revealing than telling someone 'Good Luck' You are trying to equate 'Revelation' such as visions and personal visitations with god with someone wishing you well. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Sooooo...the answer to the OP's question is to redefine revelation to include a hearty handshake and a "nice to see ya" and now revelation is a common personal and intimate experience available to everyone? Well, that's one way to resolve it I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Just a note to the OP, you might get more fruitful and relevant discussion/responses from the Liturgical Christianity thread in Ask/Tell than here in D&D. There's a lot of really knowledgeable people there, and they'd probably be really good at answering some of the specifics of your questions, as well as giving you some history and perspectives of some of the various Christian denominations. It's also a generally chill thread, but not quite as active as you might be used to here. It's also where I originally recognizes Kyrie eleison from; Kyrie poo poo up/trolled that thread a while back, was probated and left, and then later came back into the thread and apologized. I had thought he wasn't doing that stuff anymore, but then I saw his new D&D thread. fade5 fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yes, they do, but two ways that are still unsatisfactory. What exactly are you expecting to get out of this thread? The simplest explanation for your question is that Christianity is not the product of divinely inspired knowledge and therefore 'revelation' is, at best, a misunderstanding of some other process occurring at the brain, or at worst a form of self interested deception used to justify some goal. But you've basically ruled that explanation out. Now you're complaining that the answers you are receiving are unsatisfactory. Well, of course they are! I suppose one could argue (as I've seen Christians do from time to time) that God places obstacles in our paths to make us grow stronger. Perhaps the seeming incoherence of Christianity is actually a test of faith or an obstacle that was put there for our benefit. This wouldn't be entirely without precedent, after all parents sometimes force kids to go through seemingly arbitrary 'character building' exercises that seem utterly bizarre and mysterious to the kid. But since you seem not to be interested in the generic "He works in mysterious ways" answer to this question either I'm not sure what to tell you. So again, I don't really understand what answer you could possibly receive that would satisfy you here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are trying to equate 'Revelation' such as visions and personal visitations with god with someone wishing you well. Yes that's definately one way to resolve it. I'm also being scriptural. So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Our real encounters with others, when we accept them unconditionally as who and what they are (forgive), are revelatory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yes that's definately one way to resolve it. I'm also being scriptural. quote:revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities. No, they are not. Your scripture quotes are only valid within the context of your religion, and nowhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Having a philosophical problem with magic? Well, you shouldn't. Magic is just like not-magic so everything you do is magic. How can you doubt revelation but believe in handshakes? You can't. You've shaken hands before ergo the Gospels are literally true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What exactly are you expecting to get out of this thread? The simplest explanation for your question is that Christianity is not the product of divinely inspired knowledge and therefore 'revelation' is, at best, a misunderstanding of some other process occurring at the brain, or at worst a form of self interested deception used to justify some goal. Because for plenty of educated, logical people there is an answer that satisfies them and allows them to believe. Because if this poo poo is true, I want to know about it. Because if there's a way around the "problems" that I think I see, I'd like to find them. I would really, really like to believe. The benefits package is enormous! You get to not fear death, you get to know your life has purpose, you get to know where you and everything in the universe came from, you get guidance, you get a constant divine friend to help you in times of trouble, you get a community...the list goes on and on! But there are too many barriers in my way to really take the plunge. If some of those barriers can be knocked down, though...if there is a good reason to think of Christianity as true, as well as all other faiths as false, then I want to know about it. If my "problems" are simple misunderstanding, or failure to see something a certain way, I want to know about it. I'd love to believe in Santa Claus, too. I don't mean that to be flippant. I'd sincerely love to know for sure that despite everything, if I'm good, I'll get exactly what I want for Christmas. But I just can't...too much about the mythology seems implausible. Two billion people are not bothered by this problem. Possibly they have either not thought about it or thought about it but don't have a very good grasp on logic and thus have come to a poor conclusion. But, some people are very educated, very logical, very rational, and have come up with an explanation that satisfies them. And if it stands up to scrutiny, I'd like to know about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
You sound like you really really want to believe so just do it if it will ease your existential crisis. It's no big deal, just do me a favor and stick with the good stuff about charity and forgiveness, and don't get mixed up with the Moral Majority prosperity gospel villainy tia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Two billion people are not bothered by this problem. Possibly they have either not thought about it or thought about it but don't have a very good grasp on logic and thus have come to a poor conclusion. But, some people are very educated, very logical, very rational, and have come up with an explanation that satisfies them. And if it stands up to scrutiny, I'd like to know about it. I think that this is the problem. I don't think that everything has to stand up to scrutiny when it comes to the spiritual. There are tons of really bright, empirically minded people who believe in religion, and it's frankly insulting to think that they only do so because they haven't thought about it enough. The way you talk about religion as being a "benefits package", tells me that religion might not be for you. Religion for a ton of people isn't simply a transaction, where they put in a couple of "believer bucks" and out comes "salvation". For some people, there is a different sort of truth that only religion can point towards. If you're not interested in finding that sort of truth in religion then it just isn't worth it to try and figure it out the way you'd try to figure out why a rainbow happens or at what temperature water freezes. If you truly feel like you want to believe and put in the hard work but come out the other side unconvinced that it's the right thing to do then it's okay to just move on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Because for plenty of educated, logical people there is an answer that satisfies them and allows them to believe. Because if this poo poo is true, I want to know about it. Because if there's a way around the "problems" that I think I see, I'd like to find them. Ok, first of all you are treating "logic" like it is an attribute from Dungeons and Dragons or a computer game. "Oh, my character has 15 logic so when I roll this D20 to determine whether he can figure out the problem of Revelation I have a good chance of succeeding!" Logic is situational. Some people are really "logical" when it comes to engineering but totally illogical when it comes to understanding emotions. Some people are really logical in their professional lives while doing totally illogical or reckless things in their private lives. There are people who always seem to have a logical solution for other people's problems but who have no capability to apply that logic to their own personal situations, etc. etc. You should read up on the life of Linus Pauling. He was a brilliant scientist who won both the Nobel Peace Prize and a Nobel Prize in Chemistry (the only person so far to earn two unrelated Nobel prizes). He was considered (accurately) to be one of the greatest scientific minds of his generation. And yet, toward the end of his life, he became convinced, contrary to all evidence, that large doses of Vitamin C could prevent cancer. He basically destroyed his scientific reputation because he kept insisting that his false theories on vitamin C were accurate. By the end of his life he'd become something of a joke. Pauling was a famous scientist and he still made a fool of himself due to a mixture of wishful thinking and a refusal to recognize his own intellectual limits. So saying that 2 billion otherwise logical people are Christians isn't much support for anything. People can be entirely logical in one area of their lives and totally irrational in another area, especially when it comes to their own mortality. Now, second problem: you're dead wrong when you claim that Christians aren't bothered by the problem of revelation. Many prominent Christians (Kierkegaard, C. S. Lewis, etc.) discuss at length how Christians struggle with their beliefs in God. I guess there must be some Christians out there who never struggle with any self doubt but I think they are very much in the minority. Becoming a Christian does not free you fear or doubt: part of being a Christian is struggling with those feelings on a continual basis. It seems like your outsider perspective is causing you to attribute a degree of confidence, inner peace and calmness to the Christian pscyhe that doesn't exist in practice. I mean, I hate to say this, but chances are if you became a Christian then you might feel better for a short amount of time but pretty soon you'd be right back where you are now. Finally, I have to say that your overall motivations here seem very superficial. You're describing Christianity like its an insurance package or something. You literally just want to shut down the voice of doubt in your mind and seem to equate Christianity with a false sense of certainty. In other words you seem to be attracted to the worst aspects of religion rather than the best ones! I imagine that if you actually became a genuine Christian then your life would become much harder than it is now. If you imagine that all Christianity is going to do is make your life a bit more simple and easy then I think you're walking down the wrong path.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Helsing that's a very good post, but GAINING is coming from Christian background, just one very influenced by American evangelicalism. But your overall point is bang on - a person's faith should challenge as much as it comforts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yes that's definately one way to resolve it. I'm also being scriptural. Two Maoists conclude a self-criticism meeting, shake hands, and say, "Let's continue the struggle against reactionary forces, comrade." Truly it is divine revelation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Because for plenty of educated, logical people there is an answer that satisfies them and allows them to believe. Because if this poo poo is true, I want to know about it. Because if there's a way around the "problems" that I think I see, I'd like to find them. In all seriousness, have you attempted to make peace with the idea that one day you will not exist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
This is all pretty much true. And it's been a thing all the way back to St. Augustine et. al., and pretty much everyone who didn't actually meet Jesus or at the very least St. Peter or someone like him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:In all seriousness, have you attempted to make peace with the idea that one day you will not exist? "Annihilation has no terrors for me, because I have already tried it before I was born—a hundred million years—and I have suffered more in an hour, in this life, than I remember to have suffered in the whole hundred million years put together." -Mark Twain
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Great job forums poster GAINING WEIGHT..., you have discovered the rudest, most tentative early forms of existentialism. Despite their being rude and tentative, they're nonetheless sufficient to prevent your ever escaping the maw of atheism. Welcome! Stay. Not that you have a choice; changing from atheist back to christian is like trying to get all the toothpaste back in the tube.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:In all seriousness, have you attempted to make peace with the idea that one day you will not exist? As someone who has a lot of difficulty making peace with that idea & who also cannot engage in supernatural fantasy for whatever reason, I have to say that I do not recommend this state of being (...not that it's necessarily avoidable anyway. Though at least meds make it manageable, I guess).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
I want to remind everyone in this thread that there is no evidence in the real world that a loss of religion or religious authority would lead to any kind of societal collapse. Further, morality exists outside of religion and you can be a good person and lead a good life even if you reject your religious background even though religion takes every possible moment to convince you its not true. I would recommend that the OP not brush off atheism as "snarky teenage bullshit". Its just the unfortunate logical conclusion of humans understanding their place on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
The Ender posted:As someone who has a lot of difficulty making peace with that idea & who also cannot engage in supernatural fantasy for whatever reason, I have to say that I do not recommend this state of being (...not that it's necessarily avoidable anyway. Though at least meds make it manageable, I guess). I say this compassionately: don't fear death, enjoy your life as much as you can and recognize that humanity is actually on the whole a really great thing. You are going to not exist someday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
OP, you seem inclined to look at religion in pragmatic terms, so think of the Bible as a collection of literature. Christians, then, are essentially an organized group of fans that has been around for a couple thousand years. This is not an insult! Art is extremely powerful and is capable of communicating Truth in a unique way. But part of that uniqueness is subjectivity: the Truth that a work communicates may be different for different people. Hence the existence of art criticism, and the nonexistence of single, unambiguously correct interpretations of any work worthy of the word "art". So, ultimately, you're asking "why do people interpret this literature differently, and how do I pick the right one?" and the answer is the same as any literature: interpretation is subjective and the right one is the one that gets you amped up to go contribute something to the universe. And if none of them do that then try a different book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I say this compassionately: don't fear death, enjoy your life as much as you can and recognize that humanity is actually on the whole a really great thing. You are going to not exist someday. I wouldn't call my emotional response to the idea of death 'fear' per se; it just gets me really down. I really, really want to know for myself what things will look like in 100 years, in 1000 years, in 10,000 years... I want to look at a more realistic, geological timescale and gain that perspective. It's a burning curiosity that will never be filled for me, and it depresses me to know that in fact nobody will ever have that kind of perspective because our lovely bodies have such terrible shelf lives. But oh well, it is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I wouldn't call my emotional response to the idea of death 'fear' per se; it just gets me really down. quote:“Stand not by me, but stand under me, whoever you are that will now help Stubb; for Stubb, too, sticks here. I grin at thee, thou grinning whale! Who ever helped Stubb, or kept Stubb awake, but Stubb’s own unwinking eye? And now poor Stubb goes to bed upon a mattrass that is all too soft; would it were stuffed with brushwood! I grin at thee, thou grinning whale! Look ye, sun, moon, and stars! I call ye assassins of as good a fellow as ever spouted up his ghost. For all that, I would yet ring glasses with thee, would ye but hand the cup! Oh, oh! oh, oh! thou grinning whale, but there’ll be plenty of gulping soon! Why fly ye not, O Ahab! For me, off shoes and jacket to it; let Stubb die in his drawers! A most mouldy and over salted death, though;- cherries! cherries! cherries! Oh, Flask, for one red cherry ere we die!”
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:OP, you seem inclined to look at religion in pragmatic terms, so think of the Bible as a collection of literature. Christians, then, are essentially an organized group of fans that has been around for a couple thousand years. I have sometimes thought myself, with some amusement, that Christians, like Jews and Muslims, are basically a really dedicated fan club. In my opinion, having read the Bible, I don't really need to read anything else. I've already read the best book of all time. Nothing can possibly compare. Everything else I've read just seems like a path I've followed to get to the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:OP, you seem inclined to look at religion in pragmatic terms, so think of the Bible as a collection of literature. Christians, then, are essentially an organized group of fans that has been around for a couple thousand years. I don't think his problem is people interpreting the bible so much as it is people who claim to have had divine revelations, as in the Lord God literally spoke to them personally, and that such accounts rarely, if ever, are in agreement with one another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Henotheism, or the worship of one God above all others, developed before Judaic monotheism, yes. You see it in many of Yahweh's contendings with the Gods of other peoples in the earlier books of the Old Testament, just how he fucks up Dagon in Dagon's temple after the Ark of the Covenant is captured by the Philistines. The idea of God as the one true God rather than the best God ever comes mostly as a result of theological innovations from the Babylonian Exile, as a way to explain how Yahweh was not actually defeated by Marduk (Common near eastern theological explanation for losing a war was that your Gods also did battle and the enemy God defeated yours, much as his or her people beat yours on earth) but had rather used the Babylonians as the instrument of his wrath for the sins of Judah. That's really cool, I did not know that about the history of it. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:In my opinion, having read the Bible, I don't really need to read anything else. I've already read the best book of all time. Nothing can possibly compare. How very sad, and unfortunate, for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
zeal posted:How very sad, and unfortunate, for you. It's also pretty anti-Catholic, since sola scriptura is a heresy to them. It's more in line with one of the many variations on thumper churches in the US than Catholicism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:It's also pretty anti-Catholic, since sola scriptura is a heresy to them. It's more in line with one of the many variations on thumper churches in the US than Catholicism. Yeah Kyrie seems to be an uncharacteristically evangelical catholic. I've been assuming that he is an ex-protestant probably from the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Yeah Kyrie seems to be an uncharacteristically evangelical catholic. I've been assuming that he is an ex-protestant probably from the US. There is nothing "anti-Catholic" about the supremacy of holy Scripture. You guys really think Protestants own the Bible or something? We have four readings at every Mass. Again, I remind you all that Catholics compiled the Bible, and are the only ones who have interpreted it holistically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:There is nothing "anti-Catholic" about the supremacy of holy Scripture. You guys really think Protestants own the Bible or something? We have four readings at every Mass. Again, I remind you all that Catholics compiled the Bible, and are the only ones who have interpreted it holistically. So....you own the Bible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I wouldn't call my emotional response to the idea of death 'fear' per se; it just gets me really down. You can already have that perspective, but in the other direction. You might not be able to look 100 years into the future, but you can look 100 years into the past. You actually live in a time where you can almost look into the beginning of the universe! Why worry about being unable to explore the future when you have the ability to explore the past? History, Geology, Cosmology! There is enough detail about the past to consume your entire life time with interesting knowledge! Don't lament what you cannot have, when there is so much you already have. Direct your burning curiosity towards something attainable. Leave the future to our imaginations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:First, a quick background on me so that you know exactly where both I and this problem (as I see it) are coming from. I was born and raised in the American south, in the Episcopalian church. OK. You're making a whole lot of mistakes here. The first is that the Bible was written by a single person or to a single person. It wasn't. And it certainly wasn't written to anyone personally alive today. Anyone who thinks it was simply hasn't read it. If we look at the opening to e.g. 2 Timothy: 2 Timothy 1:1-2 King James Version (KJV) posted:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, Are you claiming to be Timothy, Paul's own dearly beloved son? No? Then that epistle was not written to you. It was written quite explicitly to Timothy. And it is this lens the epistle must be read through. Which is why when we get to the famous 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:") we need to take into account who it was written to. After all, that too is part of scripture. Everything that is in the bible is something someone found useful somehow. (Including the bits thrown out by Martin Luther, but I digress). But it was all written by people to people in specific circumstances (yes, this includes the Gospels - although the Epistles are much clearer about this). And it's all useful to someone. This doesn't mean that it is all useful at every given moment to you. Even Timothy had two epistles written to him saying different but related things because he was at a different point in his life for the two. But how useful 2 Timothy is to you personally depends on how like Timothy you are. And how like Timothy at that given time. Whether you are more like Timothy at the time of reading or Annias and Saphiria. quote:For example, many Christians believe women are not fit to teach in church. This is based on multiple passages from the New Testament, such as Paul's (second?) letter to the Corinthians, and Paul's first letter to Timothy. The passages seem very clear that women are not permitted to teach in the church, ever, at all - period. Let's look at 1 Timothy 2 - which is the harshest of those passages. First it was written by Paul to Timothy. And the normal quote is "But I suffer not a woman to teach". Remember that this is Paul writing to Timothy. You are neither Paul nor Timothy. And Paul was explicitly writing in the first person. Paul does not permit women to teach. Saul of Tarsus had ... more than a few hangups. quote:How does this happen? Is the Holy Spirit giving different advice, or are people simply making mistakes in interpreting it? Some people go to the Bible for guidance, others do for answers - IMO the second group are invariably wrong. Still more (the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, et. al.) also explicitly supplement the Bible with Holy Tradition which amounts to what they've worked out since the Bible was codified. (For the record I know of no subgroup of Christianity that doesn't have its own guidance beyond the bible and traditions). quote:Second, how does one figure out who is actually correct in their revelations? By their fruits shall thee know them. quote:And lastly, if what I'm referring to as "personal revelation" is such a poor and inaccurate method of obtaining information, why does anyone rely on it? The long version would take a dissertation. Suffice to say that the short version is that personal revelation is a post-Reformation thing. And the Reformation is a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church being incredibly corrupt? (You've seen The Borgias? By the standards of the real Borgias, The Borgias are close to sainthood - and I don't mean by buying it). Which means that the authority and tradition models needed replacing because they'd lead to ... the Borgias. quote:My question is more within just one religion: how can there be disagreement if the information is coming from the same divine source? Because it is being filtered through human eyes. And humans are all different. quote:Don't you have to kind of believe that you, alone, are infallible in interpreting the Holy Spirit to really believe you are right about your entire belief structure? I mean, if someone has to have made a mistake, couldn't it have been you? If you could be wrong, why aren't you in this case? All humans are imperfect. Anyone who thinks that their understanding of reality is entirely correct is demonstrating that they are wrong. (On the other hand I can say that things are incorrect even if I can't fully understand reality). Now which is the best way to proceed is an open question - but I can tell that some things are false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:OK. You're making a whole lot of mistakes here. No, Christians I've talked to are making a whole lot of mistakes. According to them, the laws prescribed even in the epistles of Paul are the Word of God, meant to be taken as universal rules as if from God Himself. At least, until you get to the untenable stuff about women in church. Then it only applied to the church in Corinth. And Ephesus. And only in the first century AD. The Holy Spirit told them so. See, this is one of the most exhausting problems of Christianity as a whole. Everyone plays by a different set of rules. When I talk to Biblical literalists, I find one set of problems. Then I bring up that problem to other Christians, who tell me, "no no, the Bible is not the literal Word of God, it's just a guidebook". I'll ask about one passage, and one group will say "of course we follow that!" but another will say, "no, you see, you have to read it from this perspective, which makes it actually say this. It should not require bending over backwards and baseless speculation to explain away problems so you can continue in your faith. The one true religion would not have this many inconsistencies or mistakes. The real God would not be this incomprehensible if it were required that we must follow his every command. I am all but ready to declare once and for all that Christianity is impossible to be true. The only other options I see are that God purposefully muddies the waters to guarantee that there will be a group of nonbelievers/wrongbelievers he can punish, or that free will makes the problem too far out of his control, and whatever tiny group has actually stumbled upon the correct interpretation is indistinguishable from all the rest. I bet it's Mormons. Wouldn't it just figure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I bet it's Mormons. Wouldn't it just figure? It's Dionysus, you foolish unbeliever. May you succumb to the divine ecstasy gifted to mortals by the God of Wine and loving!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It should not require bending over backwards and baseless speculation to explain away problems so you can continue in your faith. The one true religion would not have this many inconsistencies or mistakes. The real God would not be this incomprehensible if it were required that we must follow his every command. I am all but ready to declare once and for all that Christianity is impossible to be true. Using historical context and moral common sense is hardly "bending over backwards" or "baseless speculation". Why do you think God even desires "one true religion"? How can anything be outside of His control? How could only one group of people be right? Why would anyone be punished for living exactly as He meant them to?? Seriously dude, it's totally ok to not be Christian. You may not be suited for it, since you seem to find problems and inconsistencies everywhere. Unbelievers are no better or worse off than believers, we're all in the same boat. But this is a pretty good thread, with lots of good posts to read (unlike kyrie's, which is funnier, but has like, a only a handful of good posts), so thanks for that! It's certainly made me thankful to live in the cold frozen north; all that wretched exclusivity and punishment fetish of dixieland, yikes. Could really mess a person up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No, Christians I've talked to are making a whole lot of mistakes. Almost certainly. So is everyone else. quote:According to them, the laws prescribed even in the epistles of Paul are the Word of God, meant to be taken as universal rules as if from God Himself. I trust every single one of them keeps Kosher? And doesn't mix their fibers in the garments they wear. quote:At least, until you get to the untenable stuff about women in church. I think this meant to read "until you get to the untenable stuff about 'slaves, obey your masters'". A lot of the history of American Christianity comes from the history of slavery; the largest Protestant denomination in America (the Southern Baptist Convention) was founded explicitly to be pro-slavery, and possibly the single most important leader of the First Great Awakening (George Whitefield) was not just a slaveowner but an advocate for slavery whose successful lobbying lead to the introduction of slavery in Georgia. Which basically means that any theology that's passed through the hands of the Southern Baptists or the First Great Awakening is a theology that is compatible with allowing one person to enslave another. If the true religion is one which can advocate slavery, I can only advocate that decent people follow Huck Finn's fictional example and say "All right then, I'll go to hell". quote:See, this is one of the most exhausting problems of Christianity as a whole. Everyone plays by a different set of rules. Agreed. I sometimes think "Christianity" has no real meaning. It certainly isn't unified. quote:I bet it's Mormons. Wouldn't it just figure? Them or the Scientologists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
neonchameleon posted:lead to the introduction of slavery in Georgia. These things also still matter, too. There are cities in Georgia with multiple "First" Baptist churches. Often they are really close to each other, too. You'll pass one then around the corner bam another City X First Baptist church. The first time one sees it it doesn't make sense. Then you look at the dates on the churches. Then you look at the people. Then the particulars of the denominations. Then it's Oh!, ohhhhh  , oh.....
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:20
|
|