Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
How does 'God's will' affect 'free will'?
Options
Comments
-
Yes there is, the halo.Mark Hamill wrote: »Well heres the problem with that. Theres no maigical big sign above their heads that says these people are writing for God
Christians should only believe people who have shiny rings floating above their heads. (like yer one from touched by an angel)0 -
-
...which wasn't a christian invention either. It seems to derive from earlier sun-cults, in which the high priest was always depicted with the sun behind his head, hence the 'ring of gold'. Constantine was a leader of one of these cults and presumably he simply saw a good thing and recycled it.Yes there is, the halo.
Weirdest religious headdress I saw was in a cathedral in Kiev -- one the sloping internal ceilings of the side-aisles, there were angelic, haloed faces painted, each one with a wavey line a few feet long, sticking out of each ear. A loitering babushka blessed me, then told me that it was to remind me that the angels could hear everything that was said. Which must have had generated unhappily ironic resonances during soviet times.Christians should only believe people who have shiny rings floating above their heads.0 -
...which wasn't a christian invention either. It seems to derive from earlier sun-cults, in which the high priest was always depicted with the sun behind his head, hence the 'ring of gold'. Constantine was a leader of one of these cults and presumably he simply saw a good thing and recycled it.
I believe the circle that is part of a celtic cross also represents a celtic sun god.0 -
I wouldn't be surprised if it does. Robin is correct too about the halo. It and a host of other heathen things were brought into an increasingly corrupt Church - Christmas, priesthood, mother goddess (veneration of Mary), etc.Depeche_Mode wrote: »I believe the circle that is part of a celtic cross also represents a celtic sun god.
For authentic Christian belief and practice, check the New Testament.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill said:
An excellent point, Mark. The solution to this 'problem' is the witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart. That is how I - and all Christians - discern whether the Bible is of God or man:Quote:
Their's was directed by God, and therefore infallible.
Well heres the problem with that. Theres no maigical big sign above their heads that says these people are writing for God, they say it themselves. So if someone came along and said they where directed by God in what they do, how can you contradict them.
Your logic for believing the bible infallible is circular and essentially improvable: you believe the bible is infallible because the people who wrote say it is, but you believe them because the bible says to.
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
Yes, that would indeed be crazy. The real way of it is this: it is God's will to permit various evils to happen, even though they are opposed to His law (His revealed will for us). Those who do these evil things will be punished for them, if they do not repent. We are allowed to condemn any such evil, but not question God's wisdom/morality in permitting it to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Correct. The apostle Paul speaks of it:
So, if, as part of the bible, Pauls quote is infallible, then any and all legal systems are anti-christian because all acts of evil are part of Gods will and we're not allowed question them? Thats crazy.0 -
An excellent point, Mark. The solution to this 'problem' is the witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart. That is how I - and all Christians - discern whether the Bible is of God or man
The "Witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart"? Can you describe this? Can you explian why most other people don't seem to get this.
But if we cant question the motivation behind a crime, then how can we justify punishing one?wolfsbanef wrote:We are allowed to condemn any such evil, but not question God's wisdom/morality in permitting it to happen.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
Yes, it is the knowledge imparted to my mind by God, confirming that this (the gospel) is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
An excellent point, Mark. The solution to this 'problem' is the witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart. That is how I - and all Christians - discern whether the Bible is of God or man
The "Witness of the Holy Spirit to my heart"? Can you describe this? Can you explian why most other people don't seem to get this.
Most people know something of an internal witness - their conscience informing them that God is real and they must give account to Him. But they ususally suppress those uncomfortable moments. Every now and then concern grips a person and they investigate further. God brings the gospel to them and they accept or reject it. Eventually, those who are of God accept; those who are not continue to reject.
It is not that they never heard His voice in their hearts, just that they don't want to acknowledge it.
The motivation behind the crime is the wicked desire of the sinner. The overuling plan that permits the crime, forcing it to accomplish ultimate good, is the sovereign and infinite wisdom of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbanef
We are allowed to condemn any such evil, but not question God's wisdom/morality in permitting it to happen.
But if we cant question the motivation behind a crime, then how can we justify punishing one?0 -
Yes, it is the knowledge imparted to my mind by God, confirming that this (the gospel) is true.
Most people know something of an internal witness - their conscience informing them that God is real and they must give account to Him. But they ususally suppress those uncomfortable moments. Every now and then concern grips a person and they investigate further. God brings the gospel to them and they accept or reject it. Eventually, those who are of God accept; those who are not continue to reject.
It is not that they never heard His voice in their hearts, just that they don't want to acknowledge it.
I don't think most people get this feeling at all. If people got this feeling then there would be no need to question the bible, no need for this forum, no need even for priests or the church becuase they would just know that its true.
I had a theoulogical/philosphical meeting last week with my work group and a priest, where he would go through matters of theology and philosophy. Just in the material he was covering himself, he went over how the bible is not meant to be taken 100% true (he said its not supposed to be a history book), and that faith without reason is what causes the problems in most religions today (eg. fundamentalism, creationists, etc)0 -
Mark Hamill said:
That would be true if people were impartial observers. But they are hostile observers - many/most acknowledge the existance of some god, but not the God of the Bible. Gods of their own liking help fill the void in their hearts - or at least make them more able to ignore it. The real God, however, is so unwelcome that they kick against acknowledging Him right to the grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, it is the knowledge imparted to my mind by God, confirming that this (the gospel) is true.
Most people know something of an internal witness - their conscience informing them that God is real and they must give account to Him. But they ususally suppress those uncomfortable moments. Every now and then concern grips a person and they investigate further. God brings the gospel to them and they accept or reject it. Eventually, those who are of God accept; those who are not continue to reject.
It is not that they never heard His voice in their hearts, just that they don't want to acknowledge it.
I don't think most people get this feeling at all. If people got this feeling then there would be no need to question the bible, no need for this forum, no need even for priests or the church becuase they would just know that its true.
Yes, theological liberals (read - religious atheists) dominate the big 'Christian' denominations. Did he believe in the virgin conception of Christ, His miracles or His resurrection? How did He view belief in them - fundamentalism?I had a theoulogical/philosphical meeting last week with my work group and a priest, where he would go through matters of theology and philosophy. Just in the material he was covering himself, he went over how the bible is not meant to be taken 100% true (he said its not supposed to be a history book), and that faith without reason is what causes the problems in most religions today (eg. fundamentalism, creationists, etc)0 -
Advertisement
-
That would be true if people were impartial observers. But they are hostile observers - many/most acknowledge the existance of some god, but not the God of the Bible. Gods of their own liking help fill the void in their hearts - or at least make them more able to ignore it. The real God, however, is so unwelcome that they kick against acknowledging Him right to the grave.
How can you claim that? How can you possibly claim to even know what people feel. You're essentially that anyone who questions the bible is just in self denial about it (this includes those of other religions too)
What, you mean sensible people who realise that much in the same way that people in ancient times where wrong in their reasons for believing in the pantheon of greek gods (or roman gods, or egyptian gods etc), they could be wrong in the things they reported in experiencing when setting up the christian religion. Faith without reason is madness. Look throughout your own posts where you rather successfully argued that God is the source of all evil (he may not be the direct motivation, but he does arrange all of the opportunity) and that, because we can't question why he does this, we can't punish the crime.Yes, theological liberals (read - religious atheists) dominate the big 'Christian' denominations.
He discussed the nature of the Trinity and Jesus as God and Man, which he believed in. His point was not that all miracles in the bible are necessarily misinterpretations of natural events, but that reason should be applied to them (and everything in the bible) so that you don't get anything wrong.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
I have 3 reasons to know what people feel:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That would be true if people were impartial observers. But they are hostile observers - many/most acknowledge the existance of some god, but not the God of the Bible. Gods of their own liking help fill the void in their hearts - or at least make them more able to ignore it. The real God, however, is so unwelcome that they kick against acknowledging Him right to the grave.
How can you claim that? How can you possibly claim to even know what people feel. You're essentially that anyone who questions the bible is just in self denial about it (this includes those of other religions too)
1. I am one of them - I too was an unbeliever. I know how deep is the well of the human heart from which our conscious thoughts are expressed.
2. I have the witness of countless others to the same effect.
3. I have God's word revealing the motivations of our hearts.
Self-denial expresses it well. Not that it is all of self:
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
Yes, if he is such a sensible person and realises the Bible is in error, he should have the honesty to stop promoting the religion that is based on it and justified by it. Let him be an honest unbeliever rather than a dishonest religionist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, theological liberals (read - religious atheists) dominate the big 'Christian' denominations.
What, you mean sensible people who realise that much in the same way that people in ancient times where wrong in their reasons for believing in the pantheon of greek gods (or roman gods, or egyptian gods etc), they could be wrong in the things they reported in experiencing when setting up the christian religion.
It is not madness to say that God is permitted to allow evil to exist. How can we say we know better? He is the One who made all things - we can hardly make a breakfast without burning the toast! If you cannot comprehend the wisdom of God, you assume He is the one lacking wit. Might it not be that you are lacking in data and reasoning power?Faith without reason is madness. Look throughout your own posts where you rather successfully argued that God is the source of all evil (he may not be the direct motivation, but he does arrange all of the opportunity) and that, because we can't question why he does this, we can't punish the crime.
Reason is fine - but what does reason tell you about, say, the few loaves and fish feeding thousands? Or the resurrection of Christ? What criteria has he for accepting one miracle over another? Sounds to me like he just accepts what he is comfortable with - hardly a reasonable critique of the Biblical record.He discussed the nature of the Trinity and Jesus as God and Man, which he believed in. His point was not that all miracles in the bible are necessarily misinterpretations of natural events, but that reason should be applied to them (and everything in the bible) so that you don't get anything wrong.0 -
Yes, if he is such a sensible person and realises the Bible is in error, he should have the honesty to stop promoting the religion that is based on it and justified by it. Let him be an honest unbeliever rather than a dishonest religionist.
That would be like someone discarding a tool because its manual is in error. Why do you think the bible is neccessary for religion?It is not madness to say that God is permitted to allow evil to exist. How can we say we know better? He is the One who made all things - we can hardly make a breakfast without burning the toast! If you cannot comprehend the wisdom of God, you assume He is the one lacking wit. Might it not be that you are lacking in data and reasoning power?
I never said anything about Gods "wit", I meant it was madness for for someone (like you) to have faith without applying any reason to it. Its people like you that get sucked into fundamntalism because of your need to have something run your life for you. You don't have the intelligence to make your own decisions on morality and spirituality, you need someone to make them for you, and its your fear of having to make your own choices by yourself that stops you from even entertaining the notion that the bible is as fallible as the people that wrote.
As for Gods wit, how intelligent is someone who, while being omnipowerful and omniscient, created a follower who turned against him and now tries to turn all of humanity from him?
You only accept what you're comfortable with, it just so happens you're comfortable with believing all the miracles happened as described, and they weren't just misinterpreted natural events, or wild exaggerations spread by the disciples (remember they did things like deny him, try to make people leave Jesus alone when he was preaching to people, and one gave hime up to the romans to be crucified, so I wouldn't put it past them)Reason is fine - but what does reason tell you about, say, the few loaves and fish feeding thousands? Or the resurrection of Christ? What criteria has he for accepting one miracle over another? Sounds to me like he just accepts what he is comfortable with - hardly a reasonable critique of the Biblical record.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
I don't think it is necessary for religion - just for Christianity. Your priest friend could with integrity adopt any other religion or none, but he cannot claim to be a Christian and deny any of the basis of Christianity. He could of course interpret bits wrongly, as we all do to some extent - but he cannot say they are erroneous.That would be like someone discarding a tool because its manual is in error. Why do you think the bible is neccessary for religion?
The only Person I want running my life is God. That's why I seek to obey all that He tells me through it.I never said anything about Gods "wit", I meant it was madness for for someone (like you) to have faith without applying any reason to it. Its people like you that get sucked into fundamntalism because of your need to have something run your life for you. You don't have the intelligence to make your own decisions on morality and spirituality, you need someone to make them for you, and its your fear of having to make your own choices by yourself that stops you from even entertaining the notion that the bible is as fallible as the people that wrote.
But follow this carefully: how sensible is it for anyone to believe the Bible is fallible and still follow bits of it? Why on earth should one pay any attention to it at all, if it cannot be relied on? Why not just go with whatever ideas one finds attractive no matter the source - our own bright ideas, bits of any religion/philosophy? To call oneself a Christian, Muslim, Hindu and in reality hold only bits that we have chosen is to be a hypocrite. The honest label would be an Eclecticist.
Yes, it seems odd to us - but what do we know? I think the idea of an almighty, all-wise, infinitely holy God doing things that we don't understand is totally credible.As for Gods wit, how intelligent is someone who, while being omnipowerful and omniscient, created a follower who turned against him and now tries to turn all of humanity from him?
Yes, one either accepts the Bible as God's word (and therefore totally reliable) or man's word. If it is the latter, then it is no more to us than any philosophical speculation. If it is of man, then how can anyone believe in the miracles or the resurrection? Or the deity of Christ, etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Reason is fine - but what does reason tell you about, say, the few loaves and fish feeding thousands? Or the resurrection of Christ? What criteria has he for accepting one miracle over another? Sounds to me like he just accepts what he is comfortable with - hardly a reasonable critique of the Biblical record.
You only accept what you're comfortable with, it just so happens you're comfortable with believing all the miracles happened as described, and they weren't just misinterpreted natural events, or wild exaggerations spread by the disciples (remember they did things like deny him, try to make people leave Jesus alone when he was preaching to people, and one gave hime up to the romans to be crucified, so I wouldn't put it past them)
What does it claim for itself? To be the Word of God. That is what every (true) Christian recognises in his heart, as the Holy Spirit reveals it to us at the time of our conversion.0 -
I don't think it is necessary for religion - just for Christianity.
Why? If all the bibles in the world suddenly popped out of existense, would everyone cease being Christian? Surely, if anything, the bible is dependent on Christianity, not the other way around.Your priest friend could with integrity adopt any other religion or none, but he cannot claim to be a Christian and deny any of the basis of Christianity. He could of course interpret bits wrongly, as we all do to some extent - but he cannot say they are erroneous.
Why? can you not be your own Christian? Can you not live you own life according to your own belifs and ideals?The only Person I want running my life is God. That's why I seek to obey all that He tells me through it.
If God runs your life, whats the point in living it? If an omnipowerful entity controls your life and directs all your interactions then whats the point in doing anything?But follow this carefully: how sensible is it for anyone to believe the Bible is fallible and still follow bits of it? Why on earth should one pay any attention to it at all, if it cannot be relied on?
Have you ever read a secondary school text book on chemistry or physics? Half of them are dumbed down so that kids can understand the basic points in them (there are some things which are plain wrong, but the reality is too complicated). All you can do is try to understand what you've got and be willing to adapt to any new information you recieve.Why not just go with whatever ideas one finds attractive no matter the source - our own bright ideas, bits of any religion/philosophy?
I don't know, but how about this: Why not go with whatever ideas one can reason through, ideas that can be backed up with logic and observation?Yes, one either accepts the Bible as God's word (and therefore totally reliable) or man's word. If it is the latter, then it is no more to us than any philosophical speculation. If it is of man, then how can anyone believe in the miracles or the resurrection? Or the deity of Christ, etc.?
Why would anyone need to? If someone came up with definitive proof that none of the miracles ever happened, would you stop believing in God? I don't see why some people need miracles to believe in God.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
Where do you think the Church originally got its teachings from? The Old Testament, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. The New Testament is simply the written record of the teaching of the Lord and His apostles and their authenticated history. Just as the OT was of the prophets back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't think it is necessary for religion - just for Christianity.
Why? If all the bibles in the world suddenly popped out of existense, would everyone cease being Christian? Surely, if anything, the bible is dependent on Christianity, not the other way around.
Members, even leaders, of the Church are not allowed to add to it or subtract from it.
No, you can't be your own Christian - or Socialist, Nazi, Mormon, etc. You either accept the basic teachings of these ideologies or you invent your own. It is dishonest to continue to use the term and no longer believe the doctrine. Tony Blair can honestly describe himself as New Labour, but can hew describe himself as Socialist?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your priest friend could with integrity adopt any other religion or none, but he cannot claim to be a Christian and deny any of the basis of Christianity. He could of course interpret bits wrongly, as we all do to some extent - but he cannot say they are erroneous.
Why? can you not be your own Christian? Can you not live you own life according to your own belifs and ideals?
Because those things are good and I am glad to please Him. It is not a human-robot relationship but a Father-son/daughter one.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The only Person I want running my life is God. That's why I seek to obey all that He tells me through it.
If God runs your life, whats the point in living it? If an omnipowerful entity controls your life and directs all your interactions then whats the point in doing anything?
So all the basic points have to be correct? Just the explanations can skip a lot of the detail, or give approximations? I've no problem with that. But if you are saying a science book can knowingly teach basic error, then I wonder how you know which bits are truth and which error?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But follow this carefully: how sensible is it for anyone to believe the Bible is fallible and still follow bits of it? Why on earth should one pay any attention to it at all, if it cannot be relied on?
Have you ever read a secondary school text book on chemistry or physics? Half of them are dumbed down so that kids can understand the basic points in them (there are some things which are plain wrong, but the reality is too complicated). All you can do is try to understand what you've got and be willing to adapt to any new information you recieve.
What does logic and observation tell you about Jesus Christ, more than Wikipedia? Why base one's life on so little? That's what I mean - if the Bible is just a book like any other, why not just make up your own story? Why persist in describing oneself as a Christian?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why not just go with whatever ideas one finds attractive no matter the source - our own bright ideas, bits of any religion/philosophy?
I don't know, but how about this: Why not go with whatever ideas one can reason through, ideas that can be backed up with logic and observation?
But what sort of god? Not the one revealed in the Bible, seeing it had been proved unreliable. Where would one find out about the god one should beleive in?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, one either accepts the Bible as God's word (and therefore totally reliable) or man's word. If it is the latter, then it is no more to us than any philosophical speculation. If it is of man, then how can anyone believe in the miracles or the resurrection? Or the deity of Christ, etc.? Why would anyone need to? If someone came up with definitive proof that none of the miracles ever happened, would you stop believing in God? I don't see why some people need miracles to believe in God.0 -
Um, the early christian church compiled the new testament bible in the first place centuries after the 'death' of Christ. They consciously added bits in and ommitted bits according to their own human interpretation.Members, even leaders, of the Church are not allowed to add to it or subtract from it.
How come there are only 4 gospels? How do you know that the early church made the right decisions?
Why didn't jesus write down his own words? That would have provided a concrete and irrefutable (or at least a lot less refutable then the record of exactly what he wanted his followers to believe and how to live their lives.0 -
Um, the early christian church compiled the new testament bible in the first place centuries after the 'death' of Christ. They consciously added bits in and ommitted bits according to their own human interpretation.
The early church did not see themselves as adding to, or removing from, the Bible. They simply tried to discern what was already Scripture and what was not. This process, rather than happening 'centuries after Christ' was happening during the first few decades of the Church. So, for example, 2 Peter 3:16 refers to Paul's epistles as 'Scripture' yet appears to speak of Paul as still being alive.
There were four Gospels that came to be generally accepted by groups of Christians as meeting the criteria of Scripture. The Councils that ratified formal canons of Scripture simply put their superfluous stamp of approval on what was already a consensus among believers.How come there are only 4 gospels? How do you know that the early church made the right decisions?
Having read some of the Gnostic gospels it is pretty clear that the early church made the right choice. The non-Canonical Gospels are of inferior character, contain doctrines incompatible with the New testament, and usually were written much later than the New Testament books.
I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had written His own words then you and others would be very quick to argue that they were forgeries and were really written by someone else.Why didn't jesus write down his own words? That would have provided a concrete and irrefutable (or at least a lot less refutable then the record of exactly what he wanted his followers to believe and how to live their lives.
I have heard it said that Jewish law and custom required anyone making an extraordinary claim to produce third parties as witnesses - their own witness to themselves would be invalid. Therefore the witness of the twelve, and other eye witnesses, would be much more persuasive than anything Jesus might have written Himself.0 -
Not necessarily, I don't claim hat any of the existing gospels are forgeries do I? I would probably still be skeptical about the truth of his claims, but never mind atheists, if Jesus had written his own gospel it would have made things much clearer for believers, There probably wouldn't have been so many competing sects then through the centuries.
I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had written His own words then you and others would be very quick to argue that they were forgeries and were really written by someone else.
He could have easily had witnesses to his extraordinary claims (miracles) and still have written down his own gospel.I have heard it said that Jewish law and custom required anyone making an extraordinary claim to produce third parties as witnesses - their own witness to themselves would be invalid. Therefore the witness of the twelve, and other eye witnesses, would be much more persuasive than anything Jesus might have written Himself.
How can anyone argue that hearsay is more persuasive than direct testimony? Luke writing down what Paul said Jesus said? How is that a better source than jesus writing down his own perfect, divine gospel?
He didn't even write any letters. Was he illiterate?0 -
No, you can't be your own Christian - or Socialist, Nazi, Mormon, etc. You either accept the basic teachings of these ideologies or you invent your own.
You're a Calvinist and you're questioning how you can be your own Christian? Its all about interpretation, and seeing as how bad the bible is in terms of interpretation (as shown by how many different types of Christian), I base my beliefs on my experiences and feelings.Because those things are good and I am glad to please Him. It is not a human-robot relationship but a Father-son/daughter one.
I don't know about you, but my father never ran my life. He raised me, tried to instil his morals into me, and for a while, when I was younger he did directly influence my life, but now as an adult, I run my own life. if God runs your own life till the day you day, then whats the point? Does he let you run it after you die?So all the basic points have to be correct? Just the explanations can skip a lot of the detail, or give approximations? I've no problem with that. But if you are saying a science book can knowingly teach basic error, then I wonder how you know which bits are truth and which error?
Its sometimes easier to understand a lie than the truth. If you progress more into a particular field of science then you can learn the truth (or at least a lie closer to the truth) NB: nothing is stopping people from learning the actual "truth" when they start, its just that it can be very hard to understand when you start out.What does logic and observation tell you about Jesus Christ, more than Wikipedia? Why base one's life on so little? That's what I mean - if the Bible is just a book like any other, why not just make up your own story? Why persist in describing oneself as a Christian?
Maybe the bible is more than the miracles it describes, maybe its the ideals it aspires to (ie: the commandments) thats really important. And maybe we shouldn't need a book with miracles, the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell to aspire to those ideals. the bible is the guidebook, but there should come a time when you no longer need it.But what sort of god? Not the one revealed in the Bible, seeing it had been proved unreliable. Where would one find out about the god one should beleive in?
If the Holy spirit can be reveiled to you when reading the bible, then surely you would have a similar feeling about God, when thinking about them.0 -
Advertisement
-
How can anyone argue that hearsay is more persuasive than direct testimony? Luke writing down what Paul said Jesus said? How is that a better source than jesus writing down his own perfect, divine gospel?
He didn't even write any letters. Was he illiterate?
I don't see how we are talking about hearsay. For example, Anthony Beevor's excellent book on the Spanish Civil War contains many quotes by Franco and other personalities from the Civil War. Beevor drew these quotes from various sources, but was himself not an eye witness. Nevertheless it would be a foolhardy person who would call Beevor's quotes as 'hearsay'.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about Luke writing down what Paul said Jesus said. Presumably something in Acts?
And no, Jesus was not illiterate. He read from the scroll in the synagogue in Luke 4:16-19.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
Words do have meanings. They can't mean anything to anyone, or they mean nothing. Yes, there are variations of understanding of secondary doctrines amongst evangelical like myself - Calvinist/Arminian, Baptist/Paedobaptist, etc. But on the crucial doctrines we agree - the deity of Christ, His atoning death, His Resurrection, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, you can't be your own Christian - or Socialist, Nazi, Mormon, etc. You either accept the basic teachings of these ideologies or you invent your own.
You're a Calvinist and you're questioning how you can be your own Christian? Its all about interpretation, and seeing as how bad the bible is in terms of interpretation (as shown by how many different types of Christian), I base my beliefs on my experiences and feelings.
There are variations within Socialism, etc. yet each can rightly claim to be socialist. It is only when one departs from fundamental issues that the claim is bogus.
If you hold to the fundamentals of Christianity, you can at least claim the name of Christian. Whether you actually are is another matter.
But if you reject any of the doctrines that define Christianity, you are just being dishonest. You might validly claim to be re-defining Christianity - but that means the former type is the bogus one.
Bottom line - Christianity already has a definition. Anything outside that is not Christianity.
That's where the human analogy breaks down. We never get to be peers of God. He is always our God, we always needing to follow His will.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because those things are good and I am glad to please Him. It is not a human-robot relationship but a Father-son/daughter one.
I don't know about you, but my father never ran my life. He raised me, tried to instil his morals into me, and for a while, when I was younger he did directly influence my life, but now as an adult, I run my own life. if God runs your own life till the day you day, then whats the point? Does he let you run it after you die?
As human adults, we decide our own will, independently of our human fathers.
Christians do run their own lives, but it is only successful in so far as it according to His will. He keeps us from totally falling away in this life, and grants us many victories over sin - but only in the afterlife will we perfectly walk worthy of our calling.
Wow. Science sounds very scary to me! :eek: Can you give me an example of a scientific lie that beginners start with and the lesser lie they progress to?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So all the basic points have to be correct? Just the explanations can skip a lot of the detail, or give approximations? I've no problem with that. But if you are saying a science book can knowingly teach basic error, then I wonder how you know which bits are truth and which error?
Its sometimes easier to understand a lie than the truth. If you progress more into a particular field of science then you can learn the truth (or at least a lie closer to the truth) NB: nothing is stopping people from learning the actual "truth" when they start, its just that it can be very hard to understand when you start out.
OK, if we can leave out the miracles and the doctrines of heaven and hell - why should we pay any attention to the commandments? As you conclude with, why not dispense with the Bible and make up our own? Why hold to bits of the Bible? Is it not just a tactic to allow one to keep a job even when one has abandoned the beliefs required of the job?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What does logic and observation tell you about Jesus Christ, more than Wikipedia? Why base one's life on so little? That's what I mean - if the Bible is just a book like any other, why not just make up your own story? Why persist in describing oneself as a Christian?
Maybe the bible is more than the miracles it describes, maybe its the ideals it aspires to (ie: the commandments) thats really important. And maybe we shouldn't need a book with miracles, the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell to aspire to those ideals. the bible is the guidebook, but there should come a time when you no longer need it.
Certainly, one could get a similar feeling about God while dismissing the Bible. But it would be similar only in that it would give one a good feeling - not give one a real knowledge of God and His will for us. Delusion is as emotionally powerful as the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But what sort of god? Not the one revealed in the Bible, seeing it had been proved unreliable. Where would one find out about the god one should beleive in?
If the Holy spirit can be reveiled to you when reading the bible, then surely you would have a similar feeling about God, when thinking about them.
God the Holy Spirit usually uses the Bible to speak to His people. And He never says anything contrary to it; indeed, He always confirms it.0 -
But if you reject any of the doctrines that define Christianity, you are just being dishonest. You might validly claim to be re-defining Christianity - but that means the former type is the bogus one.
But what are the doctrines that define Christianity? Why should it be the miracles that define it? Surely its the 10 commandments that defines Christianity, the belief in one God and the respect of other people (and how you go about showing that belief and what that respect actually means to you) that defines Christianity. If miracles where so important, then surely they would still be occuring today. Surely if God wanted miracles to define Christianity something would have happened during 9/11, or the tsunamis in 2004 or even the Burmese Cyclone thats killed at least 22,000 people.Christians do run their own lives, but it is only successful in so far as it according to His will. He keeps us from totally falling away in this life, and grants us many victories over sin - but only in the afterlife will we perfectly walk worthy of our calling.
If everything you do in your life is automatically done according to someones elses will, regardless of wether you realise it or not, then you are not in control of it at all, and to think otherwise is just fooling yourself.Wow. Science sounds very scary to me! :eek: Can you give me an example of a scientific lie that beginners start with and the lesser lie they progress to?
In secondary school the structure of an atom would be explained to you as protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (neutral particles) stuck together in a ball (called the nucleus) with electrons (negatively charged particles) floating around it in definite paths. (pic here). However, in college you are told that the electrons don't actually have definite paths, thats its more of an area round the nucleus that they're likely to be in called the electron cloud (pic here), and that the electron can technically be anywhere. (I don't actually understand it very well, and even for my purposes the first explanation is fine, but its still wrong, and if you ask high level physicists they will tell you that that the second explanation isn't actually 100% right either).OK, if we can leave out the miracles and the doctrines of heaven and hell - why should we pay any attention to the commandments?
Why shouldn't you hold on to the commandments? Its funny, its normally Atheists who call out for miracles as a proof of Gods existence and a justification of religion.Certainly, one could get a similar feeling about God while dismissing the Bible. But it would be similar only in that it would give one a good feeling - not give one a real knowledge of God and His will for us. Delusion is as emotionally powerful as the truth.
Then how do you now the difference?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »But what are the doctrines that define Christianity? Why should it be the miracles that define it? Surely its the 10 commandments that defines Christianity, the belief in one God and the respect of other people (and how you go about showing that belief and what that respect actually means to you) that defines Christianity.
I think you might be confusing Christianity with Judaism there.
Christianity is all about Jesus Christ. The name tends to be a bit of a giveaway in that regard.0 -
I think you might be confusing Christianity with Judaism there.
Christianity is all about Jesus Christ. The name tends to be a bit of a giveaway in that regard.
Not if you read wolfsbane posts, according to him Christianity is all about the bible (about 3/4s of which was written by Jews anyway).
Besides, if Christianity is just about Jesus, then whats the point of the old testament?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Not if you read wolfsbane posts, according to him Christianity is all about the bible (about 3/4s of which was written by Jews anyway).
Besides, if Christianity is just about Jesus, then whats the point of the old testament?
The point of the Old Testament is to give us a record of God's progressive revelation of Himself to man culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ. It is a basic Christian belief regarding the Bible that the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the fuller revelation of the New Testament.
The Old Testament law was a schoolmaster to bring people to faith in Christ and so many laws and commands have fulfilled their purpose and are no longer required or relevant today.But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:23-25)When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)0 -
But there are strong disagreements over what the fundamental elements of socialism are. There are stalinists and Maoists who claim to be socialists while anarchists would call them state capitalists or totalitarian regimes Different versions of socialism are fundamentally incompatible and many people have died fighting against other factions with different opinions on how a socialist society should be established and run.
There are variations within Socialism, etc. yet each can rightly claim to be socialist. It is only when one departs from fundamental issues that the claim is bogus.
The same can be said for different versions of christianity. There are conflicts about what the fundamental aspects of christianity are. Some people think its simply believing in god, others think simple belief isn't enough and its necessary to be baptised and attend church, Whose version of the fundamental aspects or christianity is correct?
Which definition? Who gets to decide? Are mormans christians? They certainly consider themselves to be, but many people reject that claim because it conflicts with their own personal version of christianity.If you hold to the fundamentals of Christianity, you can at least claim the name of Christian. Whether you actually are is another matter.
But if you reject any of the doctrines that define Christianity, you are just being dishonest. You might validly claim to be re-defining Christianity - but that means the former type is the bogus one.
Bottom line - Christianity already has a definition. Anything outside that is not Christianity.
So god gave us free will and punishes us if we use it to do anything other than exactly what he commands us to do.Christians do run their own lives, but it is only successful in so far as it according to His will.
How nice of him.
Does this mean we won't have any free will in the afterlife? Or we will technically have free will, but everyone will always 'choose' the same path 100% of the time?He keeps us from totally falling away in this life, and grants us many victories over sin - but only in the afterlife will we perfectly walk worthy of our calling.
We do make up our own rules. We 'interpret' the commandments in order to fit in with our life. 'Honour your father and your mother' goes out the window when the father or mother is sexually abusing a child. Would a child reporting the abuse constitute a breach of the commandments?OK, if we can leave out the miracles and the doctrines of heaven and hell - why should we pay any attention to the commandments? As you conclude with, why not dispense with the Bible and make up our own?
You already do hold to bits of the bible. You don't own slaves, and I presume you don't believe that people who find themselves enslaved are morally obligated to be obedient and hard working.Why hold to bits of the Bible? Is it not just a tactic to allow one to keep a job even when one has abandoned the beliefs required of the job?Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Matthew 10:24
only if you use amazing twists of logic to explain away all the contradictory bitsGod the Holy Spirit usually uses the Bible to speak to His people. And He never says anything contrary to it; indeed, He always confirms it.0 -
I don't see how we are talking about hearsay. For example, Anthony Beevor's excellent book on the Spanish Civil War contains many quotes by Franco and other personalities from the Civil War. Beevor drew these quotes from various sources, but was himself not an eye witness. Nevertheless it would be a foolhardy person who would call Beevor's quotes as 'hearsay'.
You are right that a lot of history is technically hearsay. But most people can understand these account and quotes as they sound perfectly reasonable and there would be other evidence and literature from unrelated and impartial sources to support most of them.
However if Mr Beevor said he heard that Franco had raised the dead, fed thousands with a few scraps of food etc. then I have no doubt that his work would be looked upon differently.
I'm not a reader of religious history but I assume there were many accounts of various people who performed miracles and claimed to be god etc
They probably had as many followers as Jesus would have had initially - why do you think did Jesus got the nod over others, or more to the point why didn't one of others.0 -
You are right that a lot of history is technically hearsay. But most people can understand these account and quotes as they sound perfectly reasonable and there would be other evidence and literature from unrelated and impartial sources to support most of them.
However if Mr Beevor said he heard that Franco had raised the dead, fed thousands with a few scraps of food etc. then I have no doubt that his work would be looked upon differently.
If Beevor was writing about something that occurred centuries before his book, then I have no doubt that such extravagant claims would be mocked, that his reputation as a historian would be destroyed, and his book would only be remembered for its comedy value.
However, remember that Beevor was writing about events where there were still living eye witnesses. At the time of publication people had the opportunity to interview such witnesses and either expose Beevor as a fantasist and a credulous fool, or indeed to confirm his history. If his extravagant claims could not be backed up then I think it unlikely that anyone would give his book any credence at all. However, if an abundant number of eye witnesses confirmed his account, then Beevor's book would probably become the best selling book in history with numerous copies surviving the ravages of time for at least the next 2000 years.
The early Christian documents were written and distributed when eyewitnesses could be called upon to either confirm or deny the miraculous records. First Corinthians, for example, written within 25 years of the events in question, speaks of 500 eye witnesses to Christ's Resurrection, many of whom were still alive. Anyone wanting to check it out had a specific geographical location (Jerusalem - a popular point of travel for any Jew in Corinth) and could easily expose Paul as a liar by travelling to Jerusalem and finding that the supposed witnesses did not exist.I'm not a reader of religious history but I assume there were many accounts of various people who performed miracles and claimed to be god etc
They probably had as many followers as Jesus would have had initially - why do you think did Jesus got the nod over others, or more to the point why didn't one of others.
This is what sets Jesus apart from other so-called miracle workers. The presence of eye witnesses who not only confirmed the early Christian documents, but were prepared to cling to their testimony even when tortured and threatened with execution. That explains why Jesus "got the nod over others".0 -
Advertisement
-
But did anyone do that?If Beevor was writing about something that occurred centuries before his book, then I have no doubt that such extravagant claims would be mocked, that his reputation as a historian would be destroyed, and his book would only be remembered for its comedy value.
However, remember that Beevor was writing about events where there were still living eye witnesses. At the time of publication people had the opportunity to interview such witnesses and either expose Beevor as a fantasist and a credulous fool, or indeed to confirm his history. If his extravagant claims could not be backed up then I think it unlikely that anyone would give his book any credence at all. However, if an abundant number of eye witnesses confirmed his account, then Beevor's book would probably become the best selling book in history with numerous copies surviving the ravages of time for at least the next 2000 years.
The early Christian documents were written and distributed when eyewitnesses could be called upon to either confirm or deny the miraculous records. First Corinthians, for example, written within 25 years of the events in question, speaks of 500 eye witnesses to Christ's Resurrection, many of whom were still alive. Anyone wanting to check it out had a specific geographical location (Jerusalem - a popular point of travel for any Jew in Corinth) and could easily expose Paul as a liar by travelling to Jerusalem and finding that the supposed witnesses did not exist.
All anyone has for that 500 witnesses claim is the word of Paul who was an ex pharisee (so he was well used to preaching nonsense as though it was the truth)
There are cults of people who are prepared to die to defend the name of their cult leader (who they believe are a messiah too)This is what sets Jesus apart from other so-called miracle workers. The presence of eye witnesses who not only confirmed the early Christian documents, but were prepared to cling to their testimony even when tortured and threatened with execution. That explains why Jesus "got the nod over others".
(waco) There are millions of witnesses to 'miracles' at tele-evangelist events in America. People genuinely believe that there are miracle cures performed live on stage. Does that make it true?0
Advertisement