|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
When someone points there are two places to look. At the direction of the moving hand, or at whatever the finger is pointing at. And there is a fundamental split between the two approaches in most cases - and more or less never the twain shall meet. (The exception being the Roman Catholic Church that has the bible as the pointing finger and frequently the Catechism as the hand you're meant to watch). This split is particularly strong in America, as I mentioned, due to slavery. If you look at the hand of the bible rather than the direction the finger is pointing in then slavery is an open and shut case. It happens in the bible therefore it's good. Advocates of slavery (such as George Whitefield) and churches that advocated slavery (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) and their allies (such as anything coming out of the First Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards/Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) all look at the hand. It's simple, it's clear, and it supported their side in the great moral debate in early America. And this same logic being massively emphasized in Christianity in defense of slavery is the logic used in the religious arguments against inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage (amongst other things). Also correlated with this is the idea that we shouldn't rebel in any way - after all this is the world that is being written to. This approach does, of course, encourage acts of charity (although there's more than one definition of charity - giving to your church is effectively giving to your social club) and various other good things. If you look at the direction most of the bible is trying to point in then it's a confusing document codified almost 2000 years ago. (Or by Martin Luther who threw some of the books he didn't like out, but I digress). What was relevant then may or may not be relevant now (much is because people are still people). And we should be trying to change the world into a better shape, closer to that indicated. It's a political movement, one that leads to radical change. And probably the strongest denomination in this respect is the Religious Society of Friends (better known as the Quakers). And their great 18th century preacher wasn't George Whitefield but John Woolman who was a strong abolitionist, amongst other things preaching on how the institution of slavery isn't just bad for the slaves. And effectively converted the entire denomination to radical abolitionism. These days the Quakers are a shadow of their former selves, but the (UK) Quakers have their own holy book (in addition to the bible) and a holy book that's updated every ten years. Because the principles don't change but the application does. As does understanding. Of course whether Quakerism is still a form of Christianity is an open question (and one the Quakers categorically refuse to answer, refusing to have creeds). Anyway, I hope some of that rambling (and proto-blog-post) helps.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
On where the bible claims to be infallible:nucleicmaxid posted:2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Translation: Timothy, stop trying to throw parts of the bible out. Everything is something someone will find useful. (Including this letter to you). quote:1 Thessalonians 2:13 I'm going to take this from verse 10 to 14. Context matters. 10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:" As is blatantly obvious, this is not actually a passage about the bible. It's about what is being taught by missionaries. quote:2 Peter 1:20-21 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And this is, I think, about early gnosticism. There are no secret prophecies or scriptures. And everything is useful - but the book was still written by people. quote:Psalm 19:7-9 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." Isn't actually talking about the Bible. quote:John 17:17 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Again isn't actually about the bible. It's a much better basis for Holy Tradition and preaching. quote:Hebrews 6:17-19 Again, I'm going to add more verses for context: 13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Once again this isn't actually about the bible. That the bible claims that God is perfect is not in dispute. That God is claimed to have inspired the writing of the bible isn't in dispute. But this doesn't mean that the bible, written by people, is perfect unless those people are without sin. quote:Matthew 4:4 4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Seriously? You're saying that that is proof that the bible claims to be infallible. And that there's no junk food in there? Riiiight quote:Don't try to be flippant and disdainful if you don't even know the book. And don't try a Gish Gallop, assuming no one is going to check your sources and find none of them say what you claim. Half-assed bombardment with sources simply doesn't work on the internet. Not one of your sources clearly claims what you say it does. quote:edit: Not only that buy both the Catholic Church and Protestant beliefs overwhelmingly claim that the Bible is infallible and completely true. While the Catholic Church has sort of backed down from this, notably in the Second Vatican Council, it still carries weight with plenty of Christians, and is direct from the text. And when you're talking about "protestant beliefs" you're in a minefield. A lot of protestants, especially those denominations that were strongly influenced by The First Great Awakening do and there are reasons for that (and very bad ones at that). Educated Roman Catholic sources knew the bible wasn't literally true since before Galileo (who had the pope as one of his sponsors until he was too much of a git and his enemies found an excuse to take revenge). The Catholic claim is that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can not be false over a long period of time in matters of faith and morals. (Which is how they painted themselves into a corner over contraception with Humanae Vitae, but I digress).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:Yep. Don't throw out parts of the Bible, all scripture is divinely inspired. Seems to be the point that Biblical Literalists make. I know you're trying to wiggle here and make it about how something might be useful to someone, but that's not supported by the text, only your own attempts at justification. That's because so-called Biblical Literalists don't read what the bible is actually saying. Context matters. And you're spinning like crazy here. You said that the bible claims to be infallible. It doesn't. It claims that scripture is useful. A much lower standard. The problem here is that so-called biblical literalists claim that the bible claims things that it doesn't. And you were claiming that the bible made these false claims. quote:Missionaries are teaching _________? Fill in the blank here. (Answer: The Bible) Bzzt. Wrong. Their version of Christianity . quote:You can state that it isn't all you want, but according to Biblical Literalists, the Bible is the law of the Lord. You can try to nitpick and make spurious claims, but they don't actually pan out. Nor are they relevant to this discussion. Biblical Literalists should be little more credible on the subject of the bible than Creationists are about science. That none of their sources actually claim that the bible itself is more than useful is just one of their spurious claims that you appear to have swallowed. quote:It also does not dismiss the idea that the scripture was inspired in a way so as to make it perfect. Oh, indeed. It does not dismiss the claim. It doesn't make it either. There are very few passages that dismiss the idea that scripture is perfect. So you could open the bible to a verse at random and it would be just as relevant as the one you posted for demonstrating that the bible claims to be infallible. I.e. not at all. quote:You seem to think these are my arguments - they're not, I merely linked them because that one guy had apparently never read the Bible, or was unaware of how the text could be shown to support Biblical Literalism. I seem to think that you were replying to someone asking "Where, pray tell, does the Bible claim [to be infallible]?" Simple answer: it doesn't. And not one single one of your verses was a counter-example. People who want to claim the bible is infallible can then misuse bible verses to claim it supports this mistake (2 Timothy being a particular favourite of theirs). But the core claim does not come from the Bible itself. It comes from the reader. quote:Yeah, every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God is what man needs - once again, these are not really my arguments, just arguments that I have seen used to promote Biblical Literalism. And I've seen an idiot claim John 1:1-3 also used to promote Biblical Literalism, claiming that the Word was God and was the Bible. That doesn't make it what the Bible says. It makes it what some idiot claims. quote:Thanks for mockingly linking Gish Gallop, I am somehow completely unaware of it, despite having been arguing in a thread based on Theology, and also participating in both the Conservapedia and Freep threads. No problem. quote:Absolutely, I agree. However, for the discussion in this thread (a thing you seem to be unable to comprehend?) we were discussing Biblical Literacy as the source for the OP's dismissal of all other faiths, and his reversion to Pascal's Wager as his fallback plan to avoid Hell. The OP decided to somewhat recant from a Literalist perspective after my post with sources that are, have been, and will continue to be used to promote Biblical Literalism. You're not arguing with a Christian, you're just making yourself look poorly educated on this topic. I'm not the one claiming context-less prooftexts actually support Biblical Literalism. You didn't make the claim that the verses were misapplied. You made the claim that they actually said the Bible was infallible. You made a post presenting nonsense uncritically and then saying "Don't try to be flippant and disdainful if you don't even know the book." And given that none of the sources says what you said it does, you're now claiming that I'm making myself look poorly educated? You might want to look in a mirror. quote:We're sort of all debating through various puppets here, because this topic is so ridiculous in the first place. And here we can agree.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
"About Theopedia Theopedia is a growing online evangelical encyclopedia of biblical Christianity, a network of interconnected pages, constantly being refined and updated." Once more you are using Evangelical sources to talk about Roman Catholic understandings. What next? Citing Jack Chick? Seriously, it isn't hard to find out what Roman Catholics believe. Unlike most denominations they have a pretty detailed catechism, making it easy to find out what the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are. (And most things outside the Catechism? Aren't official teachings, merely opinions that Catholics don't have to take seriously even officially). Edit: You'd do better using either Catholic sources or a source that at least tries to be neutral. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Let's go to the dictionary and Wikipedia Hair splitting in Theology? Surely not. Next you'll be saying the Pope is Catholic. But let's look at your link to Wikipedia and what it actually says. There are two pull quotes. quote:The Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" quote:It added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." In both cases it only claims that the Bible is correct in "what God wanted to put into sacred writings" or "what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." This does not mean (as the Evangelical definition would have us believe) that the earth actually was created in six days. It means that there is a reason that the six day creation narrative is there. Roman Catholicism no more claims that the Bible is literally true than it does that any given parable is referring to historical events. Jesus had reasons for telling each of his parables. This doesn't mean that every single detail of them can be treated as accurate in every way. Merely that there is a point to each of them. That is all the Roman Catholic Church claims (although some Roman Catholics claim more).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html An actually useful, although non-authoritative source. (As mentioned, the Catechism is authoritative). Some Roman Catholics take the Bible literally. Others merely take it as useful and there is no requirement within Catholicism to take is as more than useful on matters of Faith and Morals. The Catechism (and therefore Catholic beliefs) merely state that "The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures." But this allows enough wiggle room that if science disproves something then clearly that understanding is not part of the Scripture that is necessary for the sake of salvation. Any more than the idea that the Good Samaritan (or the Prodigal Son) had to be a real person. Therefore Roman Catholics are entirely free to believe the earth goes round the sun, the universe started with the Big Bang, and a lot of other things. quote:And the definition stands, its splitting hairs to try to make one organization look more progressive than the other. Every time I read an article on the Roman Catholic sites about it, it reads like Libertarianism: Lots of words to cover make it look well read and intellectual. Well, yeah. That's Roman Catholic theology all over. There's also a reason educated Roman Catholics often become lawyers (hence the current Supreme Court).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I'd like to bring this back up: it seems like you are contending that the way to sort out genuine revelation from false is to assess the person who gives it. However, I feel that even this would fall quickly into absurdity. First of all, what do you define as a "fruitful" person? Let's say it's something like how much they pray and how charitable they are. Are you arguing that the most pious person is also the most correct? And that if there is a "tie" - that is, if there is a group of extremely pious and charitable people, but no most pious and charitable - are you arguing that they would all agree on everything theological 100%? I mean, maybe that's the case, but it seems like a stretch. If the most fruitful people disagree on something, then what? How do we figure out the truth in that case? Also, if an extremely pious person told you that women are unfit to teach in church or that gay people are unfit for the kingdom of god or something, would you by default adopt their views? First public piety is not a positive good. Indeed Jesus warned against it (Matthew 6:1-8). And secondly you can't know one specific person well enough to tell enough about them. When I was growing up, Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris were popular childrens' entertainers. No person is an island, and there is no philosophy however good that doesn't have a few scumbags - or however bad that doesn't have a few good people following it. You need to look at the groups of believers. What they try to accomplish, and what they accomplish. Of course I've the belief that the Golden Rule transcends individual religions (and other such philosophies) and can be used as such a measure. That most systems of morality are trying to guide towards a mix of benevolence and largely positive reciprocity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So by fruits of their labor, you speak of accomplishing goals successfully? Okay, I didn't consider that reading of it. So whichever church does what they set out to do most consistently also has correct doctrinal interpretation? By fruits of their labour I consider what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish - and you judge what they set out to do by the Golden Rule. A lot of what churches have set out to do isn't good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Okay! That's an interesting take, and it narrows the problem considerably, assuming one can make an accurate assessment of what many many groups are both attempting and succeeding at (though that is a big assumption, and I'm not sure gathering that kind of data is indeed feasible). The first answer is that both are incorrect. Humans being imperfect (call it Original Sin if you like) means that no such organisation will be entirely correct about so complex a matter. And any entity that declares itself infallible on matters of faith and morals demonstrates that it has been overtaken with the sin of pride and however erudite it may be with its reasoning its moral reasoning is at best that of a child (and it shouldn't be trusted round children unsupervised). quote:Or are you suggesting that this is impossible? That no two churches who attempt good deeds and succeed equally in them would ever differ on theological matters, or conversely, that churches who differ could never have the same level of success or the same goodness of deeds? I'm suggesting that no two organisations are ever precisely equal although an exact rating scale is impractical. Where they succeed better you have more to learn from them and how they make their decisions. quote:What IS the best church? One that has no humans involved -but that's also the worst church. Perfection is inhuman. Failing that, and from my own personal observation, I'm going to say that the best Church I know of is the one that will quite happily admit it and revises its holy book every ten years at its equivalent of a Synod. And recognises that Creeds are traps based on a set human understanding. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So really we're back to subjectivity. I have to rely on my own interpretive powers to judge churches and eventually come to a conclusion about who God is and what he wants. Is there a point? Or do you think that, whatever God is, he doesn't care what version of which religion I follow as long as I endeavor to know him? Starting with the second half, if there is a God then they clearly don't want certainty about their existence. The Universe is something where every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic. If God is such that they will smite all non true believers and at the same time hides then God is the Platonic embodiment of evil - and the moral course of action if you are brave enough is to spit in their eye. If God wanted to ensure you had answers they could do better than The Bible and whichever church there is. And yes, yes you do. Objectivity is ... rare. (IMO there are few places it is used practically outside mathematics and arguably engineering, and even then "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wehrner von Braun".) What God wants is an interesting question of course.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Well, that kind of leads me back to "I won't pick a religion because none seem accurate and God, by definition, seems unknowable". I guess I don't understand how you can claim that God hides and obscures his wants (if there are any) and that it is impossible to truly know him, yet claim Christianity to be more viable than the other religions. Depends on the day of the week and a number of other factors, some of which I haven't worked out yet. Anywhere between agnostic with strong Quaker leanings (and a liking for Latin Mass although no love at all for a lot of Catholic doctrines) and Dawkins-is-a-moderate atheist. I also have a strong grounding in theology and broad religious experience across the Christian spectrum and some in a range of other traditions, which means I often step in with positions not my own
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 17:15
|
|