Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 121 of 331 (398739)
05-02-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
05-01-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
NJ wrote:
...those intimate and precious few moments with God where he is in communion with God. That's the kind of meeting that erases all doubt.
Erases all doubt in what? That a god of some kind exists? That Brahma exists? That the KJV is correct and the NIV is the spawn of bob? That the correct canon contains exactly 72 books because the Apocalypse of John isn't canonical? Really, have you written down what God said to you? Maybe you are misremembering it if you haven't. I know I have clearly remembered doing something, only to realize years later that it never happened and that I must be remembering something that I drempt one night.
I raised this question (post #77) in response to Phat when he brought up his experiences with God - millions of people have had encounters with God, including myself. They generally confirm the God that the person was raised with, or has been exposed to. Seems unsurprising to me. I think that Phat just missed post #77 in the flurry of posts, but it's a question that faces all of us who have encountered a transcendant experience.
Have a fun day-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2007 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 6:17 PM Equinox has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 331 (398742)
05-02-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
05-01-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Logical fallacies
It is impossible for the passages to refer to the Bible, the Bible did not exist at the time of their writing, no Bible existed for several hundreds of years AFTER those passages were written, and even today there is no single identifiable "Bible", rather there are several canons each containing different collections of writings.
Rabbinical scholars have been pouring over various books of the Tanakh for thousands of years. We aren't merely talking about the Pentateuch, but also the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. From the time of Jesus, these were all very well known to the common Jew and were identified as God-given Scripture. About the only thing different is that it wasn't called "the Bible." So, really, what exactly are we quibbling about?
Where did I say inspired writing can't exist?
You've made it clear that you believe that God is unknowable. If God is unknowable then you couldn't possibly know, by your own admission, that some text could be inspired. How can you know what is inspired of God, and yet, have God be unknowable? That's logically unsound.
See, that is part of the problem in the Christian Cult of Ignorance. It appears that the members are unable to read what is actually written.
You simply aren't making sense. The problem in this instance is not my ability to read what you wrote, but rather, your inability to recall things you've said in the previous conversations that contradict the new statements you are now making. The problem is with your inconsistency to relay a cogent/coherent/consistent theme. Instead of dealing with that, you presumably find it more comfortable to lash out with invectives, like, the much touted Cult of Ignorance, when somebody calls you out on it.
You even do that to Phat, somebody who has been kind to you, and defends you, even in the midst of you heaping insults on him! And he turns the other cheek. God bless him.
There is a difference between "knowing" and "believing". I can believe in GOD while acknowledging that the most I can ever know of GOD while living is the Map that I create. I can also believe but must in honesty acknowledge that it is but a belief and I might well be wrong.
The problem is how have you even come to believe in God when you reject the authority of Scripture, and there is no personal revelation, nor can (S)He/It be detected by design in nature?
Some say that you can see God in what was created by looking at the design. You obviously don't believe that. You seem to be more inclined to believe something along the lines of RAZD's philosophy-- a god who lets the chips fall where they may. So you can't find God there.
Then you say that a personal relationship with God is unknowable. Can't find Him there either.
And finally, you reject the notion that Scripture has any authority, or if it does, it is no more grand than a comic book. Can't determine whether it was God or man.
Where then can God be found?
That inevitably leads me wonder why you believe in God at all. There is no avenue in which to even formulate a belief in God. What exactly has lead you to believe then? It appears to me that we have yet another Mr. Potato Head God that someone has fashioned from their mind, taking pieces of some philosophical notion, and another piece from some other theological notion, and jumbling it up into some idol.
While I believe that Jesus actually existed and the stories told of him have some basis in truth, it is unimportant whether in fact they are true.
If its unimportant, then why go out of your way to correct those that do believe what is spoken of Him in the gospels, the writings of the prophets, or the epistles? Its obvious that it is of some consequence to you. Without personal revelation or the authority of the Scriptures, what basis do you have to even believe in Jesus? Aren't your notions of Jesus directly attributed to the Scriptures themselves?
Further, I have never said that there was not some lessons to be learned from Scripture, what I said is the the passages quoted do not refer to the Bible. I believe that all Scripture is inspired, including Alice through the Looking Glass, Archy and Mehitabel, Mysterious Stranger and particularly, Pogo.
You are certainly welcome to believe whatever thought crosses your mind. But I'd be interested in hearing why.
BUT, the fact is still that the passages do not refer to "The Bible" which does not even exist today.
What is commonly know as, the "Bible," is merely a collection of holy scripture. The term "Bible" is of the least importance. The life of it is in the message in direct relation to our own lives. Its just a name given as an identifier so there is no confusion that we are referring to Scripture.
I have tried to be quite clear as in this response to outline why I use the term Christian Cult of Ignorance. I speak out to Phat in the hope of saving his immortal soul, in hope that I can get him to actually think about the quotes such as he used to support his position.
You can't save a thing, least of all, yourself. So if Phat places his trust in God more highly than you, so let it be. The problem seems to be that you derisively brand anyone as being part of the Cult of Ignorance that doesn't loosely conform to your beliefs. You seem to reserve that only for those who maintain a fundamentally doctrinal belief in Christianity.
The irony is that you are a part of the Episcopal Church. And while they are becoming increasingly liberal in their theological interpretations, they still pay heed to Scripture, not Archy. So why not flame them too as being part of the disease, not the cure? Isn't that duplicitous?

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 05-01-2007 3:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 05-02-2007 1:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 126 by Equinox, posted 05-02-2007 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 123 of 331 (398750)
05-02-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 12:44 PM


Re: Logical fallacies
From your post it seems I have once again failed to make my position clear.
Rabbinical scholars have been pouring over various books of the Tanakh for thousands of years. We aren't merely talking about the Pentateuch, but also the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. From the time of Jesus, these were all very well known to the common Jew and were identified as God-given Scripture. About the only thing different is that it wasn't called "the Bible." So, really, what exactly are we quibbling about?
Again, the statment Phat quoted said that the term Scripture specifically referred to the "Bible".
That is just false.
Scripture is far broader than that and many books now included in the Bible (whichever canon you go by) had not even been written when Timothy and Corinthians were written.
I happen to accept that All Scripture is valuable for learning, including Pogo and Alice Through the Looking Glass.
You've made it clear that you believe that God is unknowable. If God is unknowable then you couldn't possibly know, by your own admission, that some text could be inspired. How can you know what is inspired of God, and yet, have God be unknowable? That's logically unsound.
And once again I will repeat what I have said in the past.
The only way I can make such judgments is by testing it against the world I live in.
And finally, you reject the notion that Scripture has any authority, or if it does, it is no more grand than a comic book. Can't determine whether it was God or man.
No, I do not reject scripture, I reject your small definition of what scripture is.
That inevitably leads me wonder why you believe in God at all. There is no avenue in which to even formulate a belief in God. What exactly has lead you to believe then? It appears to me that we have yet another Mr. Potato Head God that someone has fashioned from their mind, taking pieces of some philosophical notion, and another piece from some other theological notion, and jumbling it up into some idol.
All we can ever know are those gods we create, at least while we are alive.
If its unimportant, then why go out of your way to correct those that do believe what is spoken of Him in the gospels, the writings of the prophets, or the epistles? Its obvious that it is of some consequence to you. Without personal revelation or the authority of the Scriptures, what basis do you have to even believe in Jesus? Aren't your notions of Jesus directly attributed to the Scriptures themselves?
Yes, all Scripture, including Pogo and Alice and archy and mehitabel.
Edited by jar, : apallin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 12:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 124 of 331 (398754)
05-02-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by truthlover
05-01-2007 10:52 PM


TL wrote:
I should point out in this thread what I've pointed out before, which is that for all practical purposes, there is really very little significant differences in the canons of the churches that care a lot about canons.
Hmmm. . Well, that depends on what you mean by “very little significant differences”. The canons have some differences (as discussed) and we can see how these differences arose over time - I”ve pasted a table of canons at the end of this post - we’ll see it if comes through ok. I see at least three ways that come to mind where the differences are significant.
First, remember that some Christians believe that people could end up in eternal punishment if they hear ideas that seem silly to them and thus reject the whole Jesus thing. If you have a minorly wrong or minorly less convincing belief, that could effect someone who is on the borderline between being saved or not, and may cause them to roast forever. The eternal writhing torture of even one person seems pretty significant to me, and we all know how large numbers work. A small difference in correctnesss multiplied by 8 billion humans seems to have a high probability that it’ll matter in at least dozens of cases.
A second reason is that the differences effect doctrine- the Orthodox canon has 7 more whole books, and also other changes here and there. These contain or at least are used to support differences in doctrine, such are petitioning to saints, etc. That’s not even getting into the big differences the KJV onlyists claim between the KJV and modern translations. The differences will thus effect what people do, how they think and all that, in addition to how they will affect people as per #1 above.
Thirdly, people who say that the differences are small and that the Bibles are pretty good at being the same are often also those who say that God directed and orchestrates the process of getting the scriptures from the distant past to our hands today. If God’s in control of this process, and the result is pretty good, then that seems to say that God is a pretty good God. Is your God just a pretty good god? Or is God perfect, omnipotent, and infallible? Pretty good may be pretty good, but it’s a far cry from perfect. I know this all too well, I work where we make a material that is 99.999999% pure. We test it every day, and if a batch is 99.99999% pure, then that cruddy batch of dirty junk is thrown in the garbage. I hope God is at least as good as or better than us belly-scratchers here at my company. It seems that attributing the pretty good status of the agreement between our bibles to God is saying that God is pretty good, which is fine if one worships a pretty good god. Do we really mean it when we say god is perfect, or is that just a euphemism for “pretty good”?
Yes, the differences are small compared to, say, the differences between Baptists and Gnostics, but are significant enough for millions of people to have killed each other over, and for the reasons above, seem to me to be too big too gloss over and ignore.
All the best-
Equinox
******************************************8
Notes on Canons used:
OT Canon Approx. year NT Canon
Septuagint = Current Catholic OT 2nd BCE
DSS- Uncertain, but appears somewhat similar to Catholic Bible, -Esther and + Enoch and other writings 1st BCE (Note- we mostly don’t have other Christianities’ Canons - they would probably be very different.)
Josephus - 22 books in OT, unknown which are missing. 1st CE
Esdras - 24, again not known which ones. 2nd CE
150 CE Marcion = Luke + Pauline letters (not including 1 &2Tm, Ti)
Jamnia - Some Scholars think that a council was held then to establish Jewish Canon ~2nd CE
Bryennios - 27 book OT, seems similar but details unknown.
2nd CE Tatian = Proto Orthodox Church father, rejected Acts and all Pauline letters
3rd CE Muratorian Canon = +Rev Pt, - Jm, -1 &2Pt, -Hb, -2Jn
3rd CE Origen = doubted Heb, James, II Peter, II & III John, and Rev
OT includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-2,4 Maccabees 3rd CE Claromontanus = +3rd Cr, Acts of Paul, Ap of Peter, Br, &Hr, -Ph, 1-2 Th, & Hb
4th CE Eusebius accepts 20, disputed include Jm, Jd, IIPet, acts of Paul, Hermas, Rev Peter, Rev John, 2 & 3 John, Barnabas, Gos Heb.
4th CE Addai = 17 book = Dia + Acts + 15 Pauline (incl. Hb & 3 Cr), - Pt, -Jn, -Rev, -Jm, -Jd
4th CE Cheltanham = rejects Hb, Jd, Jm, questions 2 & 3 Jhn, 2Pet.
>363 CE Synod of Laodicea = Lacks Rev.
- Es, + Baruch, otherwise roughly = Prot
367 CE Athanasius = NT
380 CE Apostolic Constitutions = NT + Clement, + Apostlic Constitutions, - Acts, -Rev
394 CE Bishop Amphilocus =NT - 2Pet, - 2&3Jn, - Jd, -Rev
Catholic OT -Baruch 397 CE
3rd of Carthage = NT
Jerome appears to favor Prot OT, but Pope argues for Catholic OT (??) 400 Vulgate = Current NT
Catholic OT + Ps 151-155, +2 Baruch 5th CE Peshitta = NT- 2Pet, - 2&3Jn, - Jd, -Rev, those added in 1800s.
540s CE V. Fuldensis = NT + Paul’s E to Laodiceans
~ Prot OT - Es 7th CE “60” Canon = NT- Rev
8th CE John of Damascus = NT + Didache, + Ap const.
Prot. OT 1511 KJV=NT
Prot. OT 16th CE Luther = kept Hb, Jm, Jd & Rev, but moved them to the back of the NT
= Catholic OT (by vote of 24 yes, 15 no, 16 abstain) 1546 Trent = NT
=Catholic OT, + Ps 151, 1 Es,, 3Mc, 4 Mcs, and PMsh
1673 Greek Orthodox Canon = NT
=Prot. OT 1830 Mormon Canon = NT + 3rd Testament
1870 Vatican I approves additions to Gospels that were added ~ between 150 CE & 1000 CE (?).
1927 Vatican states that 1Jn 5:7 open to dispute
Catholic OT +En, 1&2 Es, Jub, new 3Mc Origin ? Ethiopian Canon = NT
Those show the disagreements over the large question of the canon. There is significant disagreement on a verse by verse level too. Some verses have been removed wholesale, and many more are subject to differences (variants) between our manuscripts. Here are some problems on a verse by verse level:
Top 10 Doctrines the KJV-Onlyists say are attacked by modern translations (from Wiki article):
1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked often in the modern versions (see Gn 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tm 3:16, Hb 1:8)
2. The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7.
3. The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14 in some versions.
4. The doctrine of a literal fiery hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc.
5. The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
6. The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
7. The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14
8. Salvation as a one time, permanently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;;
9. The ascension of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2
10. Salvation as a requirement for heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24
KJV Onlyists say that a total of more text than the whole books of 1 & 2 Peter is removed by modern translations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by truthlover, posted 05-01-2007 10:52 PM truthlover has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17909
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 125 of 331 (398756)
05-02-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Phat
05-02-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
quote:
Knowledge is always evolving. The conclusions that many scholars make are by no means the final word on a subject
So applying that to my actual examples what you are saying is that it's anybody's guess what the Bible actually says - the texts we have are too corrupt to be useful. But then we have the problem that in one example - a quote provided by you - the author falsely asserted that the Bible "unquestionably" made certain claims. Clearly he was not relying on the text being so questionable that it might say anything !
And I have to say that I have never seen a fundamentalsit claim that the Bible text is unreliable. They are far more likely to say that it was miraculously preserved - and indeed to argue that God would have to miraculously preserve it .
quote:
MB, Jesus is alive today, always has existed, is Gods character, and according to the Bible called Himself truth.
Yo may say that my belief is based on cultural indoctrination and dogma, but you can't declare with any absolute certainty that I am wrong.
However I have said no such thing in this thread and it really has nothing to do with the points I've been making.
The central point is that evangelicals routinely misrepresent the Bible - whcih they claim to be the Word of God - to prop up their beliefs. Are you going to discuss that or continue to bring up irrelevancies ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 8:55 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 126 of 331 (398761)
05-02-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 12:44 PM


Re: Logical fallacies
NJ wrote:
Rabbinical scholars have been pouring over various books of the Tanakh for thousands of years. We aren't merely talking about the Pentateuch, but also the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. From the time of Jesus, these were all very well known to the common Jew and were identified as God-given Scripture.
That was mostly true, but somewhat misleading. It’s true that various jewish sects (there wasn’t just one Judaism in Jesus’s day any more than there is one Christianity today) did accept more than just the Pentateuch as scripture. Some like the Sadduccees accepted more books, while others like the Pharisees accepted fewer books. Books that were more widely accepted were the Pentateuch, proverbs, psalms, etc. Books that were less widely accepted were Esther, Enoch, Micah, Obadiah, Daniel, Maccabbees, etc. While it’s safe to say that Jesus did mean at least the widely accepted books, it’s unclear which of the others Jesus would have considered scripture. (The Essenes were know to have rejected Esther, for instance).
Since most of the less accepted books did end up in the protestant OT, and even more in the Catholic OT, it seems likely that Jesus would have considered the current bible to contain some heretical books in the OT, not to mention what he would have thought of the NT (let’s leave that to another thread!).
The Jewish Canon does not appear to have been established until the end of the first century or so. The Septuagint was written well before that, of course, but it contains the Orthodox OT, which the protestant reformers apparently didn’t consider correct, so the Septuagint doesn’t help anyone claim that the Jewish canon was established earlier.
To claim that Jesus’ reference to “Holy Scripture” establishes the OT canon is just as erroneous as saying that the verse in 2 Tm establishes the NT canon.
Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 12:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 331 (398764)
05-02-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by iano
05-02-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Hostility and judgementalism
I know the elements of your works based 'gospel' already Jar. I was just pointing out what Faith and me actually have said regarding your relationship. Not what you would have it that we said.
Simply asserting such nonsense is hardly refutation.
I have tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to outline the reasoning behind my beliefs.
I do NOT have a works based belief system in my humble opinion.
And as to salvation?
In the words of a Priest and very good friend, "Hell? Oh hell, fugitaboutit!"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by iano, posted 05-02-2007 11:59 AM iano has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 128 of 331 (398768)
05-02-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
05-01-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
NJ writes:
God's Word... The only real issue is not what Scripture is, but rather, what constitutes scripture. And anyone asking how and why the biblical canon should be more important than, say, the Vedas or Qur'an is asking a legitimate question.
Is that what you are really asking?
Yes. Thanks for clarifying.
iceage writes:
I have always found it humorous that many people will swear on the Bible and proclaim it to be "Inspired Word of God" yet few will spend any effort understanding the origin and history of the "Holy Bible".
NJ writes:
That's very understandable. There are a lot of people who make assumptions about the Bible, simply because they've heard over the years the Bible is the Word of God, rather than investigating it for themselves.
And if these people were raised in an Islamic cultures and "heard over the years the Koran is the Word of God" they would believe that. Therefore these very folks would or would not suffer eternal hell just as a result of geography.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2007 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 129 of 331 (398774)
05-02-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
05-01-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
iceage writes:
The concept of Canon is purely a human inspired concept and process!
NJ writes:
Which you can only believe if you don't believe that God imparts wisdom to those who search for Him in sincerity.
That response is not logical. One can certainly believe that the written Canon is purely humanly inspired and still believe that God imparts wisdom.
I can even make the opposite case. If "God imparts wisdom to those who search" why is a physical book necessary. Written language is human-to-humans transfer of knowledge.
iceage writes:
if God modified several laws of physics to create a rainbow and make the Sun go backwards as a sign, why not some sign on the very critical issue of a Canon?
NJ writes:
"Because a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign. But none will be given." -Matthew 12:39
Cop out. You failed to explain why signs were given for other much more minor circumstances. Where these signs (including miracles) to a wicked and adulterous generation?
NJ writes:
Phat knows what I'm talking about. And throughout this thread he has been referring to those intimate and precious few moments with God where he is in communion with God. That's the kind of meeting that erases all doubt.
Equinox provided a good rebuttal to this. There are valid religious experience of all strips. Muslims make the very same claim, with the same sincerity, and the same certitude.
iceage writes:
First I ask why would God require worship or oblation? Really. One of the more detestable aspects of human rulers, leaders and celebrities is the craving and need for worship and oblation.
NJ writes:
Yes, human rulers. Because of corruption. God is the only real thing worthy of any true worship. But how can you ask me why God would seek a relationship, worship, and reverence? How am I supposed to answer that? Its as cryptic as asking why He chose to make man in the flesh at all, rather than in Spirit as He and angelic beings are. That is a question I am simply not equipped to answer.
From your framework I realize you can't answer that.
However I thought I had good answer with support...
iceage writes:
To attribute this base human behavior to God is clearly a sign of the anthropomorphizing of God. This is simply archaic and is a common feature of most primitive religions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2007 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 05-02-2007 3:58 PM iceage has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 130 of 331 (398794)
05-02-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by iceage
05-02-2007 2:41 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
iceage writes:
First I ask why would God require worship or oblation? Really. One of the more detestable aspects of human rulers, leaders and celebrities is the craving and need for worship and oblation.
I contend that the primary message of Christianity is that we are to move from love of self to love of God, (as represented by things like love, justice and truth), and of love of our neighbour, (as represented by everyone else).
I agree that God has no need of our worship other than it is a means given to us, that with the aid of the Holy Spirit will help us take the focus off of ourselves and hopefully help put that focus where it belongs.
I think that we are called to worship the Lord in similar way that a young child worships a loving parent.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by iceage, posted 05-02-2007 2:41 PM iceage has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18633
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 131 of 331 (398795)
05-02-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
05-02-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
PaulK writes:
The central point is that evangelicals routinely misrepresent the Bible - which they claim to be the Word of God - to prop up their beliefs. Are you going to discuss that or continue to bring up irrelevancies ?
How can the Bible be misrepresented? What standard is used to represent it?
if one has a room full of books, how do humans determine the ones they trust?
can't a belief be based on a consensus?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2007 1:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2007 2:27 AM Phat has replied
 Message 137 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 8:54 AM Phat has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 331 (398807)
05-02-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Equinox
05-02-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
Erases all doubt in what? That a god of some kind exists?
Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.
That the KJV is correct and the NIV is the spawn of bob?
The differences between the NIV and the KJV do not change the textual meaning any more than Olde English does to modern English.
What is the difference between:
"Thou hast found sin in my heart"
Compared to:
"You have found sin in my heart"
That the correct canon contains exactly 72 books because the Apocalypse of John isn't canonical?
66 books in the modern canon, 72 if you add apocryphal texts.
Really, have you written down what God said to you?
God does not speak to me audibly. But out of a well spring in my heart come torrents of His words.
Maybe you are misremembering it if you haven't.
Maybe flying pink elephants live in the 6th dimension. Maybe flugersnorts swim in the 7th.
I know I have clearly remembered doing something, only to realize years later that it never happened and that I must be remembering something that I drempt one night.
How would you know if you weren't sure in the first place?
I raised this question (post #77) in response to Phat when he brought up his experiences with God - millions of people have had encounters with God, including myself. They generally confirm the God that the person was raised with, or has been exposed to.
And what do you have to say for those that weren't raised with God, but some other notion of god? There are innumerable converts from other religions that have met HaShem. What about them? Ravi Zacharias grew up in India, heir to a caste of Hindu priests. And yet on a bed of suicide, knowing nothing of Christ, did he come to meet him.
But really, there is only one of three things to choose from. Either I have met God whereas others haven't, I have not met God, but others have and I am deluding myself, or no one has met God because He is a figment of the imaginations of millions upon millions of people over centuries of human history.
"You know, Lord, everywhere I go people tell me that prayer is a monologue-- that you're not really listening and that I'm talking into the air and that no voice is returning to me-- that every time I talk it sort of evaporates into something and there is an auto-suggestional process where I assume you are listening and you are answering back. Lord, I don't know how to respond to them. They keep saying there is only one voice and that you're not there-- that I'm dreaming. They say the whole thing is absurd. Maybe, Lord, they're right. Maybe there is only one voice that is heard. If they are right, that only one voice is heard, then where they are wrong is that it is not my voice. It's yours. And I'm not dreaming. You are the Dreamer and I am your dream." -C.S. Lewis
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add link

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Equinox, posted 05-02-2007 12:41 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by iceage, posted 05-02-2007 8:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 134 by Phat, posted 05-03-2007 1:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 139 by Equinox, posted 05-03-2007 2:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 133 of 331 (398824)
05-02-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
NJ writes:
And what do you have to say for those that weren't raised with God, but some other notion of god? There are innumerable converts from other religions that have met HaShem. There are innumerable converts from other religions that have met HaShem.
And what do you have to say for those who were ardent born again, spirit filled, Christians that converted to another religion or became agnostic. Those exist in probably equal numbers. That question goes both ways.
The data shows overwhelming that there is a large correlation between adopted religion to surrounding culture (this incidentally implies that residency in hell depends significantly on geography).
There are converts from one to another, sure, but this only proves that perhaps they have the ability to delude themselves in more than one way.
Then there are those in all religions, including leading evangelical leaders, that abandoned their religion because they felt that intellectual honesty is more important than loyalty to a false system of beliefs.
NJ writes:
But really, there is only one of three things to choose from. Either I have met God whereas others haven't, I have not met God, but others have and I am deluding myself, or no one has met God because He is a figment of the imaginations of millions upon millions of people over centuries of human history.
My fallacy detector always goes - ding ding ding - when I hear someone say "there are only one of [insert number] things to choose from".
I am not sure what you mean by "met" God, but let me take a shot at it and suggest some others possibilities....
  • Maybe many people have "met" God, but he is not quite as exclusive as some "scriptures" suggest and God interacts with people however they envision them.
  • Maybe no one has "met" God, not because God doesn't exist, but because God has chosen not to reveal Gods true reality for whatever reason.
  • Maybe many people have a real experience of "meeting" God but the are really meeting with a deceiving evil spirit whose intent is to mislead.
  • Maybe "meeting" God has a physical neurological basis.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 156 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-04-2007 1:25 PM iceage has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18633
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 4.1


    Message 134 of 331 (398889)
    05-03-2007 1:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
    05-02-2007 6:17 PM


    Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
    C.S.Lewis sums up my belief as well! I could almost see myself praying something similar! Perhaps I try too hard to get people to see it my way, when they were meant to see it another way. I dunno....
    What I do believe is that God hears my prayers.
    He is more than willing to share communion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17909
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 6.8


    Message 135 of 331 (398930)
    05-03-2007 2:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
    05-02-2007 4:03 PM


    Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
    quote:
    How can the Bible be misrepresented? What standard is used to represent it?
    The same way that any other written work may be misrepresented. See the two examples I took from your post earlier in the thread.
    quote:
    if one has a room full of books, how do humans determine the ones they trust?
    I have no idea how this is supposed to be relevant.
    quote:
    can't a belief be based on a consensus?
    And which belief are you referring to here ?
    (Some beliefs - those that are necessarily intersubjective e.g. word defnitions must be based on a consensus. Others which refer to objecive claims obviously should not be - e.g. if there was a time when a majority of humans - or even all living humans - believed that the Earth was flat it would still be false).
    You said that you were going to stop evading the issue. Clearly you are not living up to your words.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 4:03 PM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 136 by Phat, posted 05-03-2007 3:40 AM PaulK has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024