How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Eponymic]

It seems to me that you see this verse as referring to atheism, which has been a popular interpretation. Does just because it is 'popular' make it true? It reveals to me to be the evaluation of the religous right because of their perpetual condemnation of everyone but themselves. Don't they claim to honor God but do not give thanks in their futile speculations? Does atheism claim to know God? Once a man of the religous right asked Jesus how he could eat with the publicans and the sinners. Jesus answered that the harlots and the sinners shall see the kingdom of God before they will. Condemnation is ungodly, and isn't that why most people here are disgusted with the religous right?

 

I gotta go with CERISE on this one:

You mean, of course, that you wish us to salad-bar pick over the bible and then interpret them to our own preconcieved ideas and thoughts like every other Christian I have ever known has done.

 

But if we're already doing that, why not just discard the bible as a manuel completely and make up our own religion? T'isn't much different.

 

You are picking & choosing your own interpretation. Which, isn't a bad thing really. As long as it yields good, then brilliant! You're doing the right thing. More power to you for that.

 

Our standpoint is, if all you're doing is picking the good & forgetting the rest, then how can you claim the book as gospel? Or why do you want to proclaim the book as gospel for that matter?

[Mythra]

A copy of the verse you referred to in the forum is:

 

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

 

Don't they claim to honor God but do not give thanks in their futile speculations? Does atheism claim to know God? Once a man of the religous right asked Jesus how he could eat with the publicans and the sinners. Jesus answered that the harlots and the sinners shall see the kingdom of God before they will. Condemnation is ungodly, and isn't that why most people here are disgusted with the religous right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, Amanda. You're completely whacked. The verse doesn't say that they claimed to honor God. It says that "even though they knew God". This is the follow up to the beginnings of Romans 1 that says that everyone knows God, because his invisible attributes are evident throught his creation.

 

Christians give thanks to God all the time.

 

Atheists don't.

 

This is about atheists.

[Mythra]

Three years of seminary?

[Zach]

It seems to me that you see this verse as referring to atheism, which has been a popular interpretation. Does just because it is 'popular' make it true?

This is not how I interpret Romans 1. This is how some Presuppositionalists interpret it, for the purpose of shifting the burden of proof in an argument. Your interpretation may or may not be the correct one- I don't know or care. The Presuppositionalist interpretation was brought up by Neil to address an apparent paradox in their worldview.

[Amanda]

I gotta go with CERISE on this one:

You are picking & choosing your own interpretation. Which, isn't a bad thing really. As long as it yields good, then brilliant! You're doing the right thing. More power to you for that.

 

Our standpoint is, if all you're doing is picking the good & forgetting the rest, then how can you claim the book as gospel? Or why do you want to proclaim the book as gospel for that matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eponymic, with all due respect, and there is lots of repect due to those here, it could be said that many, as well as some here are basically doing the same thing... only picking and choosing interpretations that suit their purposes. Having said that, I have found some here wise enough to see that the God of popular beliefs and popular interpretation is not the God they want.

 

My beliefs are not popular... have received condemnation from the religous right.... and perhaps to a far lesser degree here too. Perhaps the "original text" interpreted in its totality, revealing an uncontradicted truth complimentary and harmonious to all its parts, is the gospel.

[Ouroboros]

My beliefs are not popular... have received condemnation from the religous right.... and perhaps to a far lesser degree here too.    Perhaps the "original text" interpreted in its totality, revealing an uncontradicted truth complimentary and harmonious to all its parts, is the gospel.

 

Your challenge is to find the original and unaltered gospel. So far there is none to be found. Maybe the Gospel of Thomas is the one closes to Q, and that one gives you a very Gnostic view of religion, almost Pantheistic is its description of God. Maybe you belong to the small minority of Christians that take the Bible more as guide for religious and transcendent experience that being an actual, literal account of historical events? Then maybe you even can discard Jesus as a real person, and only see him as a spiritual image of the perfect person you are supposed to become.

 

I’m not degrading your belief, but maybe just pointing you to where your faith is currently taking you.

[Mythra]

Amanda:

 

Speaking of your beliefs, why don't you lay em out here so we can lay em bare nekked and chop em to pieces?

 

Just kidding.

 

Obviously you are new age. Church of Religious Science, perhaps.

[Amanda]

Your challenge is to find the original and unaltered gospel. So far there is none to be found. Maybe the Gospel of Thomas is the one closes to Q, and that one gives you a very Gnostic view of religion, almost Pantheistic is its description of God. Maybe you belong to the small minority of Christians that take the Bible more as guide for religious and transcendent experience that being an actual, literal account of historical events? Then maybe you even can discard Jesus as a real person, and only see him as a spiritual image of the perfect person you are supposed to become.

 

I’m not degrading your belief, but maybe just pointing you to where your faith is currently taking you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HanSolo, I'm not well read on "religions" as you and many others here.... and after hearing the many remarks about them on this site... maybe that's a good thing. I don't know what my label is... do I need one? Perhaps just Kingdom Principles will do. (I can just hear you wonderful people now on that one gotta love ya')

 

Accessing the original text from which most Bibles were translated can be done by using the KJV and the Strong Concordance (there are other versions now with reciprocal concordances too, but I am not familiar with them). These tools are online at www.crosswalk.com... as if you care my friend ... just letting you know how I got there. Crucial to enhance understanding, research EACH word all the way back to its prime root meaning and examine how the word evolved as well as the context it is used. No easy task as each word commonly has several meanings and aspects, and certainly not as an articulate language as english is today.

 

Didn't study historical views so much as principles for resolving issues, honing an internal locus of control, and a peace and acceptance of all... no matter what is going on around me. Jesus is real... many popular viewsand interpretations of him are not. HanSolo, where you think I'm going... is that a bad thing?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, I'm not well read on "religions" as you and many others here.... and after hearing the many remarks about them on this site... maybe that's a good thing.     I don't know what my label is... do I need one? Perhaps just Kingdom Principles will do. (I can just hear you wonderful people now on that one gotta love ya')

 

Accessing the original text from which most Bibles were translated can be done by using the KJV and the Strong Concordance (there are other versions now with reciprocal concordances too, but I am not familiar with them). These tools are online at www.crosswalk.com... as if you care my friend ... just letting you know how I got there.  Crucial to enhance understanding, research EACH word all the way back to its prime root meaning and examine how the word evolved as well as the context it is used. No easy task as each word commonly has several meanings and aspects, and certainly not as an articulate language as english is today.

 

Didn't study historical views so much as principles for resolving issues, honing an internal locus of control, and a peace and acceptance of all... no matter what is going on around me. Jesus is real... many popular viewsand interpretations of him are not. HanSolo, where you think I'm going... is that a bad thing?

 

First off, I like your attitude Amanda. Even when you’ve been attacked and pushed down the last days you maintain a positive and good attitude. You get bonus points for that.

 

Actually, you don’t need a label, but from the way you speak and argue, most of us here get the feeling you are not a regular conservative or hardcore Christian. Which is fine, no problem. The label on the left side sometimes can be misleading, and people might respond to your messages based on the expectation of where you probably come from. And this of course can cause mistakes and unnecessary disputes over nothings.

 

About “if I care about websites with Bible studies and stuff”, sure, I go to sites like that too. You see, when I was Christian, and I was hardcore, most of the time I was scared to read or hear anything that would rock my boat. If a book, even by another Christian, would criticize my particular denomination, it would frighten me to read it. Now when I’m free of the bondage of fear, I can read anything I want, without feeling that my belief or opinions being threatened. The only reason why I can get upset sometimes, is because of the association I feel with the person making arguments, the same arguments I used to do, and I’m really just upset with myself for have been so stupid (excuse my expression) to believe those things.

 

My personal opinion, which I don’t think everyone agrees too, is that religion is not only bad, but has good sides too. Of some reason, evolution developed a need for belief in us for higher powers, and I have discussed this in some threads. We have a need to have explanations to the unknown. There is a center in the brain that can be stimulated with drugs to create the same emotional high that you would get when you “feel” God is near.

 

Most people have this need to get this stimulation. Besides most people have a hard time understanding infinity, and they can’t accept a life without meaning or reason, and science cannot answer that question, so they have to look somewhere else.

 

So I really don’t think you’re doing the wrong thing to try to argue and find the path you have to walk. You have to have the belief from your inside. This site is a good place to discuss and break down the arguments, and many people here have really strong talents in science, theology and philosophy, and don’t expect silk gloves. You do know that you’re in the pit of lions, like Daniel, and now you have to trust God or yourself to survive.

 

In this site you will find people with many different faiths. Some even have their own philosophy. You will find Christians, Theists, Deists, Naturalist, Humanists, Agnostic, Atheists, Wicca, Pagan and many more, and some even have combinations of several. As long as you keep an open mind, and forgive when someone bursts their harsh words at you, you will find lots of knowledge and you will, with time, modify your faith to something you feel comfortable with.

 

Sorry for the long message, but I hope you will read it.

[Amanda]

Sorry, Amanda.  You're completely whacked.  The verse doesn't say that they claimed to honor God.  It says that "even though they knew God".  This is the follow up to the beginnings of Romans 1 that says that everyone knows God, because his invisible attributes are evident throught his creation. 

 

Christians give thanks to God all the time.

 

Atheists don't.

 

This is about atheists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra, my apologies... I was in a hurry and got a little sloppy. Thank you for calling me on that one. Perhaps if I stay on my toes a little better, I can avoid getting "whacked" as much?

 

A copy of the verse referred to in the forum is:

 

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

 

My opinion is that everyone knows God, but perhaps not by that "name"... true. Additionally, could it be that this verse IS talking about the 'religous right' who know God but how can they honor him when using him to perpetuate their OWN agenda? What a way to say thanks! Hasn't many of the 'religous right' become futile in their speculations with many, including most on this site? ...and me!!! Light is love, compassion, mercy... hence, could the heart of the religous right be darkened? Considering all this, when they profess to be wise... does it make them look like fools? I'm just wondering.... as I don't know any atheist that fit this discription, do you?

[Amanda]

Three years of seminary?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, and of a wonderful teacher that taught me nothing but how to go on my own journey to come as close as I could to a truth that did not contradict itself, that was unique to me and my interests, challenging me every step of the way... and that was after he tore down everything I had previously believed. The mere statement that I was in seminary means nothing except that I did spend 'some' time in spiritual studies... so what? But my teacher, who has since passed away, would of loved you guys!!! Really!

[Amanda]

The passage in question is Romans 1:18-22, with a special emphasis on verse 20.

 

This is interpreted by some Presuppositionalists to mean that all men know of God, but some through self-deception profess atheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Zach, quite thought provoking... and I have stepped back and thought about it, although I didn't see atheist as self-decieved... perhaps decieved by popular beliefs that professes to be accurate interpretations of the scriptures as BEING accurate interpretations... yet they are wise enough to avoid swallowing it as truth. Further evaluation still leaves me of the opinion that it is of the 'religous right'.

 

Here's the verse in reference:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."

 

Righteousness is humble integrity, and that seems to be pervasive amongst the nice folks here and other atheist/agnostics (and even many Christians ) I know. Condemnation implies elitism, is unrighteous, and common practice of most 'religous right'. The truth seems to be evident to atheist, compassion and mercy, and they don't suppress it. Responding to the rest of the verse would be repeating myself from a reply I made just a few moments ago. Seems it refers more and more to the 'religous right' to me. Zach, how does anyone see this referring to atheist again?

[Eponymic]

Eponymic, with all due respect, and there is lots of repect due to those here, it could be said that many, as well as some here are basically doing the same thing... only picking and choosing interpretations that suit their purposes. Having said that, I have found some here wise enough to see that the God of popular beliefs and popular interpretation is not the God they want.

 

Everyone can interpret the Bible in their own way. Which is why I've done so much research concerning the origins of the the Bible & finding out how mythical it truly is in origin. It was because of the fallibility of open interpretation that I sought extra, verifiable historical research & facts to try & find out why the Bible has so many divergent & redundant passages.

 

My beliefs are not popular... have received condemnation from the religous right.... and perhaps to a far lesser degree here too.    Perhaps the "original text" interpreted in its totality, revealing an uncontradicted truth complimentary and harmonious to all its parts, is the gospel.

 

The fact that your beliefs have been condemned goes back to the open interpretation flaw.

 

From what I've found out of the origins of the Bible, there is no true gospel, it's a hodge podge of canons put together to further the cause of the church, not humanity. Hence the reason there are so many loop holes & interpretations, they leave things open enough that they can twist it to their own means, and keep the masses fueling their wealth & power.

 

This is in no way a harp on you, it's merely a discourse of a few of the facts I've learned. Take it for what you will. I'm just happy you're a cool gal.

[Mythra]

Hi Amanda -

 

I guess sometimes I use words that not everyone fully comprehends. Apologies. When I say, you're whacked, I don't mean I'm smacking you over the head with a baseball bat. I just mean that you're thought is, you know, off the charts goofy.

 

When the bible says "even though they knew God" it's saying that EVERYONE - regardless of what they say - believes in God.

 

Just another passage that I have to call bullshit on.

 

Anyway, I know I'm kinda crass. Glad you didn't take huge offense.

[Mythra]

Maybe I should use wacked instead so it doesn't sound like an assault.

 

So anyway, Amanda. Those are my thoughts on this particular passage of scripture. If you think that I am wacked, then I am open to hear your arguments and try and understand your reasoning.

 

If however, your reasoning includes the dissection of the greek mandibular, we're completely screwed.

[Cerise]

Amanda,

 

can you tell me how making up my own religion differs from what you are doing with "interpretation"? And if it does not differ, is one option better or more truthful then the other?

 

Should I just interpret however I think best (which will, of course, always turn out in my favour...people rarely interpret so as to detriment themselves) using the bible and call myself "liberal christian" or should I invent a new religion called Cerism and just work with that?

[Amanda]

Hi Amanda -

 

I guess sometimes I use words that not everyone fully comprehends.  Apologies.  When I say, you're whacked, I don't mean I'm smacking you over the head with a baseball bat.  I just mean that you're thought is, you know, off the charts goofy.

 

When the bible says "even though they knew God" it's saying that EVERYONE - regardless of what they say - believes in God.

 

Just another passage that I have to call bullshit on.

 

Anyway, I know I'm kinda crass.  Glad you didn't take huge offense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Mythra, you are a delightful sensation of original vibes... a true individual... perhaps a little wacked yourself... but that is probably what makes you a contributional free thinker? My respects... dear friend.

 

Another area within this forum, you said you are willing to consider my reasoning to discern my acceptance of this statement "Everyone believes in God". No worries mate... we will not go to boring interpretations of the original text. So, everyone knows God? You question that!?

 

What is God? God is TRUTH. I believe there is a core to who we are that is able to discern what is truth... especially spiritually, the ultimate truth! Could it be that truthfully the way to regard each other is in a humble, compassionate manner... without emphasis of MY EGO superiority? If we are all ONE, and I believe so, then how can any part of ourself be better than ourself? Hello? Hence, a deeper core of us knows God, the Truth... and the elitism is a manifestation created by a lie that I am better than another part of myself... go figure!

 

Unfortunately, many of the religous right (and others) want to feel special. It is hard for them to comprehend that there is MORE joy in that we are ALL special together... therefore they crave more recognition for their 'works' and not their heart. It seems to me that YOU know the TRUTH, as do all of us.... even those that hide behind a mask know the truth in their callused core.

[Amanda]

Amanda,

 

can you tell me how making up my own religion differs from what you are doing with "interpretation"?  And if it does not differ, is one option better or more truthful then the other?

 

Should I just interpret however I think best (which will, of course, always turn out in my favour...people rarely interpret so as to detriment themselves) using the bible and call myself "liberal christian" or should I invent a new religion called Cerism and just work with that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dear, dear Cerise... thank you for that challenge... and with further consideration... is that not what you have done? Could that not be said of everyone, but eventually they have to work out the bugs?

 

My dear teacher said to me, "I don't want to be right, I just want to know the Truth." Cerise, is not what is best for you, best for you? It is said that if we are not growing, we are dying. Perhaps all grow to the Light in their own life at the time and where they are? I do believe that we all are wonderful just the way we are and our misgivings are not held against us.... although responsible for them. Additionally, maybe no man is an island unto himself? That's something to deal with! Boy Cerise, maybe life can be complicated... I guess... and perhaps what does seem to be right is a unique and personal journey?

[invictus1967]

Presupposition means to takes something as true without proof.

 

Romans 1 is basically saying presupposition is not an issue in regards to God.

 

It is saying that we should be able to look at creation and know that there is a Creator. It then goes on to say that even with this proof of the Creator’s existence, many have chosen to turn away from God.

 

There is mounting scientific proof that the universe was created, thus a Creator. Romans chapter 1 is not about presupposition, it is about opening your eyes to all that is around you. Whether you believe in the Holy Bible’s God or not, you eventually must acknowledge something had to create all of this.

[Mr. Neil]

There is mounting scientific proof that the universe was created, thus a Creator.

Don't just assert. Please share.

 

 

Romans chapter 1 is not about presupposition, it is about opening your eyes to all that is around you.

Tell that to Paul. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

Whether you believe in the Holy Bible’s God or not, you eventually must acknowledge something had to create all of this.

Why? How does a creator account for the existence of existence?

 

You can't just use a creator to account for the existence of things but not account for the creator. I fail to see how God is necessary, because his own existence would be just as much a paradox, if not more, than the existence of just matter itself. You might as well just say that the universe is eternal and skip a whole step. Why do we have to have this fifth wheel called God?

[Reach]

I believe there is a core to who we are that is able to discern what is truth... especially spiritually, the ultimate truth! Could it be that truthfully the way to regard each other is in a humble, compassionate manner... without emphasis of MY EGO superiority? If we are all ONE, and I believe so, then how can any part of ourself be better than ourself? Hello?    Hence, a deeper core of us knows God, the Truth... and the elitism is a manifestation created by a lie that I am better than another part of myself... go figure!

 

Unfortunately, many of the religous right (and others) want to feel special. It is hard for them to comprehend that there is MORE joy in that we are ALL special together... therefore they crave more recognition for their 'works' and not their heart. It seems to me that YOU know the TRUTH, as do all of us.... even those that hide behind a mask know the truth in their callused core. 

Amanda, there also seems to be at our core a self-preservation mechanism which allows us to deceive ourselves and to blind ourselves to the less palatable things we wish to not see. The human animal is a master at self-deception. My most honest self has served me better and more faithfully, for my holistic good health, than my deceitful self and so I try to give it preference as it is trustworthy. I consider it my higher self, if you will.

 

We hide from things or try to cover up the things that we are not yet ready to deal with or have exposed. We put on masks because we do not want others to see who we really are. By living an opaque kind of life (often in the name of privacy), rather than an open and transparent one, we fool ourselves into thinking we do not have to be held accountable. The ostrich with his head in the sand comes to mind.

 

The truth we know today may be inadequate to meet our needs tomorrow so even the truth we know today oftens needs to evolve or be discarded. Elitism is rooted in insecurity. Fear often makes people inflexible.

[Reach]

An agnostic christian, would be to most christians, a 'false christian'.  They would consider that person to be a heretic or to be one of the wolves among the sheep, put there to decieve people.

An agnostic Christian is a contradiction in terms.

[Ouroboros]

An agnostic christian, would be to most christians, a 'false christian'.  They would consider that person to be a heretic or to be one of the wolves among the sheep, put there to decieve people.

 

 

An agnostic Christian is a contradiction in terms.

 

I read somewhere in my philosophy books, that there used to be agnostic christian philosophers, centuries ago. If I can find it in the book, and see if they have any references, I let you know.

[invictus1967]

Most science has abandoned the idea of an eternal universe.

 

The “Big Bang” theory is the dominant accepted theory for the origin of the universe.

 

If the universe had a beginning, it seems logical to conclude a Beginner.

 

Atheists like to say that given enough time (billions and billions of years) anything is possible. However, at some point something had to initiate things and it is not logical that pure “chance” is the reason we are here.

 

Why is “chance” not logical?????

 

Because “chance” is nothing. It is not a force nor is it a material substance. We say there is a 50-50 “chance” the coin will land on heads when flipped, but chance is not what causes the coin to land on one side or the other. Someone has to actually apply force to the coin to cause it to flip. This force combined with the way the coin lands on a surface and how it bounces on the surface are the factors that determine heads or tails, not “chance”. We use the word “chance” to express the possible outcomes, but it does NOT cause the outcome. As far as being a substance or a force, “chance” is neither. In reality, it is nothing.

 

Therefore, if you say there is no God and we are here because of “chance” then it concludes your formula for the universe is as follows:

 

NOBODY plus NOTHING equals EVERYTHING

 

Does that seem logical?

 

That what Romans 1 is all about. Apply logic when you look at the universe and simply ask yourself is it reasonable to conclude that the universe was generated from nothing by nothing?

[Reach]

I read somewhere in my philosophy books, that there used to be agnostic christian philosophers, centuries ago. If I can find it in the book, and see if they have any references, I let you know.

Good luck. Since I see the "agnostic Christian" as a contradiction in terms, I see the term "Christian philosopher" as problematic also. "Agnostic Christian philosophers" would be (and usually were) considered heretics.