User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 97

  1. #51
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think this is part of my issue with discussions of particular passages.

    There are various levels of nuance with which a text can be read. What was the level of detail within the author's mind when he wrote this? We don't know the answer to that.

    I remember when I was younger in the faith and ended up tearing apart verses as a Bible study leader and even analyzing the use of the word "the" rather than the word "a" in a particular verse and trying to read meaning into that... as if the writer had some special meaning for doing that. Later I realized that was a dreadful mistake. I was hinging more importance than warranted on a particular word choice or perceived "logical balance" in a particular passage.

    But that balance, that particular need for that level of detail, was a requirement I (the reader) was foisting on the text. It was not necessarily inherent in the writer's mind at the time... even if such a reading might seem more pleasing to ME.

    So you seem to fail to recognize how your perceived interpretation is really just a product of your own particular requirements for the text and not necessarily inherent to the text in question.

    This reality of communication is what creates a lot of ambiguity at times over what the author intended in a passage, and why we have to be careful about noting our own assumptions when we view a passage.
    I literally brought up that example about "Christ is not burning in hell for eternity, therefore I can't see how our punishment would be eternity in hell..." to a pastor who has studied in theology at a graduate level (i cant say how much credibility this gives him)

    He gave me a weak argument in return: "God can't be in the presence of imperfection, because his standard and he in turn, IS perfect. therefore there must be bloodshed. This is how sacrifice worked out in the OT and how Christs bloodshed was good enough in the NT....but yes there is a heaven, there must be a hell...a suitable dichotomy."

    My confusion lies then on: why wouldn't our own bloodshed be enough then? sure, our bloodshed can't be enough for all mankind like Christ's was, but why not our own bloodshed for our own sins? There are plenty of passages in the bible that claim we will not pay for the sins of our fathers. If the bloodshed of an animal were enough for the Jews not to go to Hell, then why isn't our own bloodshed?


    Part of my critisism of the Bible is exactly what you talk about Jennifer: its so hard to read it correctly! If this is God's all important message couldn't he have communicated it better? Why would he limit himself to a 2000 year old book?!

  2. #52
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    True. God could do whatever he wanted. And if all structure / justice is descended from him (as the "source" of all), then it's probably a matter of us not being aligned with him, since he would be our source as well, rather than him not being "just."
    does Might make right? (im honestly not sure either way)

    It always left me wondering how people truly change, if they believe one thing. Can they ever truly believe anything else, without some sort of divine intervention to break the mindset?

    We like to consider ourselves autonomous and able to choose freely between alternatives, but so often it seems that we are fated to believe one thing because of our natures and personalities and history and culture... unless something inexplicable changes us. Odd.
    this leads me to this:

    its one thing to believe in a God...
    ...quite another to then make the jump to a personable God
    ...and then ANOTHER jump to WHICH personable God...which one you end up believing in seems to have more to do with your personality, culture, and history as you point out.

  3. #53
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    does Might make right? (im honestly not sure either way)
    I am not discussing "might" (in the sense of "might" begin a conscious application of power/potency). I am simply noting that if God is the source of all, if everything is derived from him, then his creation will reflect his essence.

    (Just like a parent's nature reflects how they parent.)

    If God defines ALL of reality, then whatever is "right" is whatever reflects God truthfully.

    So if you're not aligned with God, you'd be "wrong."
    (unless of course God defined you to be someone not aligned with him. Then you'd be "right" in your "wrongness." )


    this leads me to this:

    its one thing to believe in a God...
    ...quite another to then make the jump to a personable God
    Do you mean "personal"?

    ...and then ANOTHER jump to WHICH personable God...which one you end up believing in seems to have more to do with your personality, culture, and history as you point out.
    I think we should remain acutely aware of how our understanding and perspective to things depends on what information has been accessible to us in our lives.

    This is a foundational point of my belief structure. If God is universal, he must be discernable even without the conventional means.

    Holy text, a published manuscript, is great... but if God is not going to be elitist, he's going to have to be just as accessible by people in any culture, over any time, of any literacy or intelligence, of any mental ability.

    It can't be based on "what we know," since what we know is never ensured. Somehow our participation in any kingdom of God has to transcend/bypass specialized or localized knowledge.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #54
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I am not discussing "might" (in the sense of "might" begin a conscious application of power/potency). I am simply noting that if God is the source of all, if everything is derived from him, then his creation will reflect his essence.

    (Just like a parent's nature reflects how they parent.)

    If God defines ALL of reality, then whatever is "right" is whatever reflects God truthfully.

    So if you're not aligned with God, you'd be "wrong."
    (unless of course God defined you to be someone not aligned with him. Then you'd be "right" in your "wrongness." )




    Do you mean "personal"?



    I think we should remain acutely aware of how our understanding and perspective to things depends on what information has been accessible to us in our lives.

    This is a foundational point of my belief structure. If God is universal, he must be discernable even without the conventional means.

    Holy text, a published manuscript, is great... but if God is not going to be elitist, he's going to have to be just as accessible by people in any culture, over any time, of any literacy or intelligence, of any mental ability.

    It can't be based on "what we know," since what we know is never ensured. Somehow our participation in any kingdom of God has to transcend/bypass specialized or localized knowledge.
    1. I did mean a relational God...personable might of been the wrong word....sorry

    2. "If God is universal he must be discernible even without conventional..."-- this is my main criticism: why would God limit himself to a 2000 year old book...just because someone might be able to discern there is a God from i guess Nature...how does that person make the leap that the Bible is the correct version of his communication?

    what about the people who lived before the printing press? before the bible was translated into their language? is retarded by medical standards, yet sill somehow sins? what about people who are illiterate but still sin?



    3.
    So if you're not aligned with God, you'd be "wrong."
    (unless of course God defined you to be someone not aligned with him. Then you'd be "right" in your "wrongness." )
    This goes along with my "how is it someone fault to simply be what God created them to be? He created them knowing they would sen, so in effect he created that person to sin! The fundies respond that "its God, he can do what he wants to demonstrate his justice". To me that IS a "Might equals Right argument"..."he who has the power makes the ethics"...to those of us who find ethics as objective and independent of observation, creation etc. That is uncomfortable...






    totally random, by my latest conjecture is that proving or understanding the Bible actually lies in Judaism. Seriously, Pastors shouldn't be convincing me of the veracity of Jesus, but the truth of Judaism! They never try to, I guess because they know the exodus is as shaky as they claim evolution is, because no modern Jews still sacrifice animals or refuse to wear certain clothing as in Leviticus.

    I mean seriously, if they can't completely prove the OT. then whats the point in even bothering with Jesus?!???? The idea that 99% of fundies focus on Jesus and not the OT is highly disturbing to me... My search for truth will focus on the OT until i can come to some conclusions on it.

    Ponder this: many ancient cultures were egocentric in believing that "their God" was the God who had chosen their leader and blessed them. Egypt to China...The Jewish story is NO DIFFERENT! All of these old cultures wanted to make their origins supernatural. Christianity has essentially hijacked Judiasm. I say hijacked because they really aren't that many practicing everything orthodox jews left....if THEY dont believe in literal OT...then how or why do the Christians???

  5. #55
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    1. I did mean a relational God...personable might of been the wrong word....sorry
    'kay.

    2. "If God is universal he must be discernible even without conventional..."-- this is my main criticism: why would God limit himself to a 2000 year old book...just because someone might be able to discern there is a God from i guess Nature...how does that person make the leap that the Bible is the correct version of his communication?
    I don't know. That's one of the apparent fallacies. You can't say there's a God just from looking at nature and conclude it must be the Christian JUST because there must be a God due to nature.

    3. This goes along with my "how is it someone fault to simply be what God created them to be? He created them knowing they would sen, so in effect he created that person to sin! The fundies respond that "its God, he can do what he wants to demonstrate his justice".
    Well, that particular argument is unsatisfying and pathetic, it seems to be arguing "after the fact" to support a prior conclusion.

    How much choice do we have? (We are drifting back into determinism versus free will here.)

    I think the fundies would be very unhappy if they found out they had been created as targets for God's justice, to make it plain and simple. They would change their argument quickly, I am sure.

    To me that IS a "Might equals Right argument"..."he who has the power makes the ethics"...to those of us who find ethics as objective and independent of observation, creation etc. That is uncomfortable...
    For the fundies, it's a "might makes right" argument. I was speaking from a broader perspective, where it's not might makes right -- what is right simply is whatever God is, and he doesn't really determine that. It just flows from him and is a given.

    I have to run, so I will look at the rest later.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #56
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkPiranha View Post
    God is holy in ways we are not. I believe He's benevolent and kind, but there's another aspect of Him that makes Hell necessary? I grapple with this.
    I too grapple with this concept. What confuses me and is the crux of my doubt on the topic of "God" is that if he is indeed a loving, benevolent force and has us, his creation in his best interest, how can he expect us in our limited knowledge and ability to understand the complexities of this universe, to understand this issue? We have the ability to think, analyze and doubt and I find myself doing this a lot. God encourages/forces/prods us to "live by faith" and just accept that there's a way we can't understand but to be ok with that.

    How can I be expected to blindly accept that or be damned if I don't? For me, it's not a choice, it's an inability to understand. From what I've always been told and from all I can gather is that that isn't good enough and hell still awaits me and my heresy. If there is a god, I'm angry at him for that. That "system", if you will, isn't one of a humane beholder of justice.

  7. #57
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    To know that the God of The Holy Bible exists is easy. The sentence 'the God of The holy Bible exists' is true, if and only if, the God of The Holy Bible exists. That is, if someone thinks that the sentence 'the God of The Holy Bible exists' is true and it actually corresponds to the facts (or accurately describes reality), then that someone knows that the God of The Holy Bible exists. Nothing else matters.

    The traditional definitions of 'knowledge' have surprisingly little to do with the facts or the truth, and can be safely ommitted without important consequence. There is no practical difference between conjecturing, "knowing", or even pretending that an idea is true. A person who "knows" that a sentence is true is not going to be any more successful than a person who conjectures the same, and so even if such "knowledge" is attainable, it doesn't do anything.

    In some cases, where "knowledge" does not gaurantee truth, a true conjecture is superior to false knowledge i.e. you would rather not know and be right, than know and be wrong.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  8. #58
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    So you're saying it doesn't matter what we know or think we know.

    How does that work? Then how are we saved? It has to be a choice of our own volition, meaning what we are willing to accept and what we choose to "know." No?

  9. #59
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    I too grapple with this concept. What confuses me and is the crux of my doubt on the topic of "God" is that if he is indeed a loving, benevolent force and has us, his creation in his best interest, how can he expect us in our limited knowledge and ability to understand the complexities of this universe, to understand this issue? We have the ability to think, analyze and doubt and I find myself doing this a lot. God encourages/forces/prods us to "live by faith" and just accept that there's a way we can't understand but to be ok with that.

    How can I be expected to blindly accept that or be damned if I don't? For me, it's not a choice, it's an inability to understand. From what I've always been told and from all I can gather is that that isn't good enough and hell still awaits me and my heresy. If there is a god, I'm angry at him for that. That "system", if you will, isn't one of a humane beholder of justice.
    I can really relate to your thoughts here, Beat. Now, I'm a Sunday-School-Teaching, Former-Worship-Leading Christian... but that certainly doesn't mean I'm comfortable with what I read in the Bible or what I'm told to believe by so many well-intentioned but unnerving Christians I interact with.
    I used to believe things on the basis of rationalization then acceptance (I didn't take the Bible to be correct until I could understand what God's POV was and identify a logical reason for any command/biblical assertion). That is a slow, labourious, disconcerting and time-consuming process. It alienated me from Christians who were puzzled by my inability to see God's word as literal (or close to) and it alienated me from some atheist friends who didn't understand how I could search for someone intangible.
    I've learned just these past few years, even this past year, that it's more of a win-win all around if I take a different approach.
    Now, I recognize that my time is a precious commodity. It doesn't do the world much good if I spend it in my bedroom deeply analyzing profound theological material for the sake of my inner contentment. I've learned to live in a world of Holding Things In Tension: I put my faith out there that God knows what's going on, that He is primarily a God of relationships and love, and that He's got my best interests in mind. Now, I want to clearly assert that this doesn't mean i learn to live with things uncomfortably and just deal--my favourite gift that God has given me is the gift of a brain that is capable of at least some level of cognition and searching and understanding.
    I think any Christian who isn't attempting to further their knowledge and wisdom is not being very God-honouring at all. It means I spend more time in prayer, asking for wisdom and understanding, it means I spend more time interacting with people who see the world in different ways than I do, and it means I pray for more soul-understanding and faith from God.
    I ask for these things in prayer because they don't come naturally to me. And every once in a while, I am gifted with a profoundly new understanding of one of his teachings in a way that settles nicely with my insides--well thought out and reasoned theology that I can identify as coming from a God who loves me and cares for me, but also that makes logical sense.

    I think unsettling Biblical things are partly unsettling for the sole purpose of us searching for deeper understanding--to go deeper means to attempt to build a more real relationship with God. Where you ask the hard questions and demand answers because you're so frazzled and stuck with something... it fosters real relationship. Just like our interpersonal relationships: the more you deal with the bumps and walls, the stronger your bond becomes. You understand someone better when you're been through hard times with them--I'm sure you know this just as well, if not better, than I do due to your military commitment.
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  10. #60
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think this is part of my issue with discussions of particular passages.

    There are various levels of nuance with which a text can be read. What was the level of detail within the author's mind when he wrote this? We don't know the answer to that.

    I remember when I was younger in the faith and ended up tearing apart verses as a Bible study leader and even analyzing the use of the word "the" rather than the word "a" in a particular verse and trying to read meaning into that... as if the writer had some special meaning for doing that. Later I realized that was a dreadful mistake. I was hinging more importance than warranted on a particular word choice or perceived "logical balance" in a particular passage.

    But that balance, that particular need for that level of detail, was a requirement I (the reader) was foisting on the text. It was not necessarily inherent in the writer's mind at the time... even if such a reading might seem more pleasing to ME.

    So you seem to fail to recognize how your perceived interpretation is really just a product of your own particular requirements for the text and not necessarily inherent to the text in question.

    This reality of communication is what creates a lot of ambiguity at times over what the author intended in a passage, and why we have to be careful about noting our own assumptions when we view a passage.
    This is a valid point, but to go to the level of detail and rigor required for a careful interpretation is beyond the discussion of an online forum.

    For example John's Gospel uses the term "eternal life" or simply "life" many times, and if you read the passages carefully you will detect layers of meanings to this word, i.e. multiple meanings at once. To see this clearly one needs to study the whole Gospel and identify the main themes, and then study in detail the relevant passages in John. Instead of overanalyzing one passage, the context of the whole writing should be taken into account.

    And furthermore John is much easier on the ears than Paul is. People often find John enjoyable to read just for aesthetic of the poetry. This is not true of Paul. Paul can be difficult to grasp in a variety of passages.

    So for someone who isn't familiar with the text, it's usually easier and more effective to give a person a single verse. The main message of the new testament is essentially summed up in John 3:16. So instead of having people understand every part of the new testament they say, "here memorize John 3:16". It's a simplification, but it's effective and not meant to be misleading. (The bad part is when other people come in using the same tactic and they are trying to be misleading. )
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. How do we kick countries out of NATO for the offence of the European Army?
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 244
    Last Post: 01-05-2017, 03:57 PM
  2. [Fe] How is Fe a feeling function for the Fe user?
    By Dreamer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 11:05 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 05:24 PM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 08:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO