Question For The Christians

[bornagainathiest]

Raykisdude to Ouroboros, 11:51 pm, Nov 19.

 

"Anyone who holds to the fundamentals of historic orthodox Christianity is fine. Most Baptists (SBC, GARB, independents, etc), Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterians, most Anglicans outside the USA, the Sovereign Grace Fellowship, many southern Methodists, most independents, most Reformed churches, most Wesleyan churches, Lutheran - Missouri & Wisconsin synods, - all these preach the Gospel. And many Pentecostal churches do, as well.

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As we head into the holiday season - I would invite any and all to our church in the Chicago area. We're independent."

 

Rayskidude to Antlerman, 05:07 am, Nov 25.

 

"How do I measure faithfulness - dogma? Yes, but dogma by itself is insufficient. There are certain non-negotiable truths in Christianity, which if one does not hold to such, they cannot make an honest claim to be a Christian. About 100 years ago, Christians of several denominations set forth some 'fundamentals' > inspiration of the Bible, virgin birth/Deity of Christ (which implies the Triune Godhead), vicarious death of Jesus Christ to pay for sin, physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the physical return of Jesus Christ to Earth to render judgement are notable."

 

 

"Anyone who holds to the fundamentals of historic orthodox Christianity is fine."

And if the 100 year old 'fundamentals' are wrong about the physical resurrection of the Christian dead?

And if the 100 year old 'fundamentals' disagree with scripture?

And if the 100 year old 'fundamentals' don't line up with OT and NT beliefs about when the dead will be raised?

Then Rayskidude does not hold to historic orthodox Christianity, as he calls it. Instead, he holds to these new-fangled, 100 year old 'fundamentals' which are masquerading as 'true' Christian beliefs.

 

 

"There are certain non-negotiable truths in Christianity, which if one does not hold to such, they cannot make an honest claim to be a Christian."

Like those who deny the physical resurrection of the Christian dead on the Day of Judgement? That would be you, Ray. An honest claim to be a Christian? Not if you hold this modern heresy!

 

 

"...physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead..."

But not the physical resurrection of the Christian dead, after the manner of Jesus - the firstfruits of those raised from the dead, eh Ray? Nope. Ray's of the "Beam me up, Gabriel!" school of heresy.

 

 

So why is it, from Abraham (Genesis) to the Apostle John (Revelation), true believers expected to go to Sheol/Hades and then be raised up from death, only when Jesus physically returns?

If you deny this you are in direct and open contradiction with scripture and in conflict with God's clearly-stated plan for the raising up of His people on the Last Day.

 

 

"We're independent."

...and wrong. Now Ray, why not prove that you've got an honest claim to call yourself a Christian and settle the matter, once and for all?

 

 

No more blather. Answer the questions put to you.

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

p.s.

Going to deflect this thread away from your overdue response by talking about 'the fundamentals' or about various 'acceptably' Christian churches or about something else?

 

Tut! Tut! That won't do, Ray. (I've got another, "Told you so!" ready, for when you do that.)

 

Answer my challenge.

 

Make that the very next thing that you write in this forum.

 

I'm waiting.

[rayskidude]

Rayskidude to BAA, 10:25 am, Nov 19.

"Seriously - where did you learn this wacky theology? Is this from Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copelend, Kenneth Hagin, & Jim Bakker?" No, Ray. Answer the challenges put to you.

 

Rayskidude to BAA, 7:41 pm, Nov 19.

"Again I ask a simple question - what is the Christian school which promotes such poor hermeneutics and who are the Christian authorities/theologians who teach these wrong-headed notions?" No, Ray. Answer the challenges put to you.

 

BAA to Rayskidude, 06:57 am, Nov 20.

I may not be a Christian any more, but one thing I will do is to protect these people from ravening wolves like yourself. Don't ask again.

 

BAA to Rayskidude, 10:27 am. Nov 22.

I won't be bullied, pushed around, sidetracked or shouted down by you. I have answered your questions and refuted your points. Now it's time for you to answer the questions put to you - all of them.

 

BAA to Rayskidude, 06:27 am, Nov 23.

Please answer and refute what I've written here Ray. Also the other stuff, in previous messages. I'll have some more for you soon, so hurry up!

 

Rayskidude to BAA, 05:25 am, Nov 25.

"Again - and plz don't chicken out on me this time - what Christian seminary, and which recognized Biblical authorities, champion this theology you consider orthodox?" No, Ray. Answer the challenges put to you.

 

 

Looks like Ray's 'ducking' out again, so perhaps Antlerman is right in his duck imagery!

 

BAA.

 

There you have it - the theological position of that lone wolf, PeeWee Herman.

[rayskidude]

Answer the questions put to you. Show the logic of your arguments. Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Refute my criticisms. Cite chapter and verse and explain how these support you.

You have a lot of work to do and any further requests about where my theology comes from will be met with the same answer as before. No!

No more evasions, delays or dodges, please.

 

BAA.[/color]

 

I've already done so - from Luke 16, Philippians 1, II Cor 5 & 12, the thief on the cross, etc.

 

And what's this nonsense that I don't believe in the physical resurrection of the dead at the final judgement, because I most certainly do. The discussion was re: soul sleep after death. Which is bogus, proven from Scripture and by your cowardice to list its proponents, whom you must know to be untrustworthy. Are you protecting them from 'lil ol' me?"

 

Are they whiny little children who cannot defend their own firmly held beliefs?

 

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

[Ouroboros]

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

What is this discussion about the Martian canyon? I have to admit, I have not followed that particular thread of discussion.

 

My understanding is that Valles Marineris was formed by either (or a combination of) floods of water, floods of lava, or perhaps even a collision with a large celestial body.

[rayskidude]

I fully believe that there was no one single Christianity in the beginning, but many variations that became woven and stitched together by the winning political parties. I accept that as truth that the evidence supports.

 

What data proves that politics won out - as opposed to the providence of God?

 

The problem is for you, you now think you have the answer and refuse to look further. That assures you being stuck in a religion, and not growing beyond into more. That what is that "something wrong" in you approach I just mentioned, and the fact grace can't shine and see beyond your worship of dogma is proof of that.

 

The growth of any Christian continues throughout all of life as we seek to be more & more like the Lord Jesus is His character and love. Are you saying that if you were presented with convincing evidence that Jesus the Messiah is the Way, the Truth, and the Life - that you would embrace Christ and eschew your current belief system?

 

I believe that authenticity produces the standard. Not the other way around... You say truth comes from the right system. I say truth emerges, and systems are about sustaining the current order, and less about emerging truth. That said however, in authentic religion, that truth can emerge and it always surpasses the system itself. Surpassing it ultimately to the point the system no longer supports. Hence, why I left your system.

 

I agree that authenticity generates standards; plz forgive my shorthand notation. But I say truth comes from the Triune God of the universe, who has revealed truth to Man in a person-to-person manner. There is much more that we will learn about God, truth, true spirituality & life, etc when w're in heaven > in a sinless state, able to comprehend the mysteries which now present difficulties. However, even today, we can learn truth as we explore the Creation, humanity, human relationships, etc >> we continue to learn truth. But the truth learned and insights gained do not 'surpass' the system (which is designed by God), rather they add further support and credence, further building the faith of the faithful.

 

So yes, you consider being faithful to the system to be the measure of faith in God. That is actually believing in the structure as God. That is actually, idolatry in the true sense of the word. Your religion, defines God and is the measure of you faith. You would be unwilling to hear any voice that doesn't fit your system. That is not Faith, that is religion.

 

God has revealed Himself throughout history - but most specifically in the Scriptures and the person of Jesus the Messiah. God has laid out various means by which we can worship Him, means by which we demonstrate our love for Him and others. If you want to call this a system - fine. A more accurate term would be 'lifestyle' or 'worldview' or 'philosophy of real life' > which impact all of life. Thus our conduct reveals our convictions about God and a life pleasing to Him.

 

Is this a system? Well, we do like to organize thoughts, instructions, and expected behaviors >> but this is a convenience for this present life, in which we are hampered by sin.

 

And these agreements of man's committees defines God for you and your experience of God. What a shame. You are confirming every single criticism I have of why what you preach is a snare of man's religion, and not liberation of Spirit; not salvation.

 

No, these synopses of what God has revealed about Himself, Creation, man, sin, salvation, etc. As these truths are presented throughout Scripture, and with progressive revelation being acknowledged - some have studied thoroughly and served us by organizing the teachings of various spiritual topics in a systematized manner.

 

But this brings up an interesting question; for you, what is the final arbiter of Truth?

[rayskidude]

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

What is this discussion about the Martian canyon? I have to admit, I have not followed that particular thread of discussion.

 

My understanding is that Valles Marineris was formed by either (or a combination of) floods of water, floods of lava, or perhaps even a collision with a large celestial body.

 

OB > BAA had asked about my thots on the formation of a particular Martian canyon - which supposedly has impact on the formation of our Grand Canyon, which...???

 

I provided 2 or 3 lengthy posts on flood geology, but I ended up by saying that I do not know how that specific Martian Canyon was formed - how could I know?

 

But, I went to the link he provided - and like you, I found that a Martian canyon [Chasma Boreale(?)] had evidence of being formed by a huge flood of water. However, BAA was interested in a different Martian canyon, also listed on that site.

 

But for the life of me - I can't figure out the big deal. But since I had agreed to answer his question - well, I did some reading and provided my thots.

 

Trust you're having a good Thanksgiving weekend.

[Ouroboros]

Trust you're having a good Thanksgiving weekend.

I do, and thanks for asking. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend as well.

 

The only obstacle I have to overcome this weekend is to write three different essays. Urgh.

[rayskidude]

You don't see the dangers of prescribing conduct in the name of your God to create a system supporting false righteousness? The truth of the matter is, love is the measure, not doctrines or subjective, cultural notions. "Love works no ill". It appears you define your righteousness as "correct doctrine, and following the church's bylaws on proper conduct." About sum it up?

No, and I think you know that's an over-simplification. Any church by-laws are based in Scripture, God's revealed will. And God has revealed how we demonstrate love - and many of these ways are intuitive, as they should be since we're created in His image & likeness. As we act as God would have us, in righteous ways of loving, serving, caring, admonishing, etc > that is true righteousness.

 

How do I define it? Love. Being, and becoming Love. And that requires moving beyond these structures you have joined to define truth for you. Moving beyond into Truth which transcends all systems, and can not be held or prescribed through any. It is through direct access as the Source and Fulfillment of All.

 

So how do you define love? And what is the source of Truth?

 

rayskidude > Our salvation - since its basis is the grace of God - mainly displays God's glory. That He can take wicked, rebellious, selfish sinners and make them trophies of grace for all eternity - WOW! But additionally, our salvation achieves our own eternal good, as well. God's glory and Man's good - both are realized by salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

This is pure anthropomorphizing within mythological structural doctrines. Man's sin and God's grace. Doctrinal materials. I have already demonstrated man's nature as possessing the Divine (when you made up some "imprint" theory which I shot down and you never replied to). Is it "God's Glory" that its all about? Not in the sense you would frame it in your anthropomorphic deity sort of way, but I would say that Divine Light is in all as Source and Summit, from and to.

 

Who or what is Divine Light? How does Divine Light communicate? How do you know your life is inspired and in-line with Divine Light? I'm really curious about and fascinated by this. IS there anything beyond impressions on your mind that you can point to?

 

"Let your light so shine before men." Is it to show God, to draw men to God? I believe all of creation reaches and moves toward that Fulfillment. I believe it's what drives all emergent matter, life, and mind. It is that Omega point, that attraction that everything moves towards. And as those who have higher mind, they can in fact display higher degrees of that light. But you just take it to mean, you low and God high. All things seek to become God. That drawing to is also a drawing down into

.

 

How is it that our light shines before men?

 

And when you look at all mankind, all nature, the destruction and incessant cruelty of survival that we see in abundance > with an historical increase, not a decrease in such phenomena - how do you translate this data to say "all is moving towards that Fulfillment, that Omega point? 'Cuz I don't want to be anywhere around that kind of Omega point!

 

You cannot deny that in the past 100 years over 150,000,000 people have been killed by despots and war > how's that leading to some ethereal Omega Fulfillment?

[rayskidude]

Trust you're having a good Thanksgiving weekend.

I do, and thanks for asking. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend as well.

 

The only obstacle I have to overcome this weekend is to write three different essays. Urgh.

 

Ouch! I once took a T-giving weekend to write a graduate term paper in biochemistry on Intermediate Metabolism. The movie would be called "Lost Weekend."

 

Take a break.

[bdp]

 

 

God has revealed Himself

 

no it hasn't.

[bdp]

what is the final arbiter of Truth?

 

I am.

[Ouroboros]

Ouch! I once took a T-giving weekend to write a graduate term paper in biochemistry on Intermediate Metabolism. The movie would be called "Lost Weekend."

That's a very fitting title.

 

Take a break.

I do. I can't make myself sit for too long, so I take breaks with my family several times during the day.

[Antlerman]

I fully believe that there was no one single Christianity in the beginning, but many variations that became woven and stitched together by the winning political parties. I accept that as truth that the evidence supports.

 

What data proves that politics won out - as opposed to the providence of God?

Since there is zero date that could be constructed to show this as an act of God in any sense of evidential truth (you don't even have any logic to support this assumption beyond some doctrinal placeholder you would wish to be true - suspended in mid-air as it were), then the exact same hermeneutics that we apply to any historical question applies equally here as well. You have zero trump card over this, and as such, the criticism of scholarship apply here as well as anywhere in literary and historical criticism. You have zero to say otherwise.

 

I therefore accept the data as presented and understood using rational criticism. Do you offer anything which throws a wrench into this to suggest I should approach it otherwise?

 

The problem is for you, you now think you have the answer and refuse to look further. That assures you being stuck in a religion, and not growing beyond into more. That what is that "something wrong" in you approach I just mentioned, and the fact grace can't shine and see beyond your worship of dogma is proof of that.

 

The growth of any Christian continues throughout all of life as we seek to be more & more like the Lord Jesus is His character and love. Are you saying that if you were presented with convincing evidence that Jesus the Messiah is the Way, the Truth, and the Life - that you would embrace Christ and eschew your current belief system?

My understandings of Jesus would escape you, actually. And as far as belief systems, I have none. I embrace Spirit.

 

I may touch on this later...... (Deva via a private discussion would understand this )

 

I believe that authenticity produces the standard. Not the other way around... You say truth comes from the right system. I say truth emerges, and systems are about sustaining the current order, and less about emerging truth. That said however, in authentic religion, that truth can emerge and it always surpasses the system itself. Surpassing it ultimately to the point the system no longer supports. Hence, why I left your system.

 

I agree that authenticity generates standards; plz forgive my shorthand notation. But I say truth comes from the Triune God of the universe, who has revealed truth to Man in a person-to-person manner.

I just wish to take a pause to say, despite my presenting a harsh edge for you to brush against, I actually appreciate a tone of sincerity I hear in you behind the thick layers of veneer you lacquer over that existential self in religious garments, (I sincerely wonder if you ever hear my voice).

 

There is much more that we will learn about God, truth, true spirituality & life, etc when w're in heaven > in a sinless state, able to comprehend the mysteries which now present difficulties.

I can say with great assurance, those mysteries can be explored and known now and here. After all, now is eternity. There is only now. You, in your inherited Institutional religious interpretation of truth tells you it is not accessible until beyond death. I deny this. It is accessible now.

 

Please understand, that as we talk about systems, this Institutional dogma is a lowest common-denominator, mass control device that says "come to us" and we will make it available to you after you complete your life of faitfulness to us." You Ray, are very much part of that system. The hood is pulled over your eyes.

 

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

However, even today, we can learn truth as we explore the Creation, humanity, human relationships, etc >> we continue to learn truth.

I question this deeply Ray, since you fight against facts such as cosmology, evolution, etc. You don't seem to be capable of embracing new understandings, and as such you deny the very power of Spirit itself.

 

Consider that please.

 

But the truth learned and insights gained do not 'surpass' the system (which is designed by God), rather they add further support and credence, further building the faith of the faithful.

Oh, yes they do! Put on your smart helmet here Ray, I'm going to take you deep sea diving.

 

Deep structures, versus surface structures. Humans have evolved mentally to use certain structures of symbolism to relate to the world they live in, which includes not just the physical, but mental worlds as well. These developed "languages", or frameworks, are culturally and socially independent, as the evidence of cultural anthropology has exposed. Surface structures on the other hand, are a translation of the immediate environment using all the immediate specific symbols developed in the area to speak about transcendent truths. Deep structure=the system of languages; Surface structure=cultural specific symbols.

 

Systems are surface structures. They are temporary, and specific to developmental stages, in the context of a given culture. Your Christianity, is frankly as surface structure operating within deep structures that transcend you specific system of signs, symbols, and myths. So everything you say, in fact does not transcend anything, although I will be generous to say that there are certain general truths that do surpass the system itself, but those like you in pursuit of dogma as God itself, fail to grasp those and reduce God to your own image of self. You want everything to look like you, and reduce God to you.

 

I wonder how much you hear in this. But frankly, I say this for others who might understand.

 

So yes, you consider being faithful to the system to be the measure of faith in God. That is actually believing in the structure as God. That is actually, idolatry in the true sense of the word. Your religion, defines God and is the measure of you faith. You would be unwilling to hear any voice that doesn't fit your system. That is not Faith, that is religion.

 

God has revealed Himself throughout history - but most specifically in the Scriptures and the person of Jesus the Messiah. God has laid out various means by which we can worship Him, means by which we demonstrate our love for Him and others.

You externalize all of this. You have failed to comprehend the meaning of any of it.

 

If you want to call this a system - fine. A more accurate term would be 'lifestyle' or 'worldview' or 'philosophy of real life' > which impact all of life. Thus our conduct reveals our convictions about God and a life pleasing to Him.

Please let me be completely honest with you Ray. I don't hear this at all which you say. I hear your religion in pretty much everything you say, even though buried deep beneath it is that soul that in fact does live. You aren't free. This is all a tower of monuments built to mask you.

 

Love.

 

Know it and be free Ray.

[Antlerman]

But this brings up an interesting question; for you, what is the final arbiter of Truth?

God within.

[LNC]

So who was Lazarus? Are you saying that Jesus resurrected him AFTER his own resurrection? How about Tabita (spelling, or was that her name, don't remember), wasn't she dead and resurrected by Jesus? Or the people the prophets resurrected from the dead in the Old Testament?

 

So they basically didn't believe their own holy scriptures or the events they just had experienced?

 

Or perhaps you are saying that those stories never happened, and only Jesus's resurrection is historical. Well, congratulations, you have now decided that a big chunk of the Bible is just a story without historical backing.

 

 

Lazarus was Martha and Mary's brother. Jesus brought Lazarus back to life before his (Jesus') crucifixion. Tabitha was brought back to life by Peter (Acts 9). Yes, people were restored to life by the prophets Elijah (1 Kings 17) and Elisha (2 Kings 8). In those cases, the person wasn't dead as long as Lazarus was, so Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus was considered a greater miracle.

 

Except that they are all written from the same story.

 

There are multiple versions of Romeo and Juliette. There are modern adaptations as movies, set in New York and who knows what. That means that Romeo and Juliette were real individuals and the story is true. How else can so many "eyewitnesses" testify about the same story and just get a few details different?

 

Can you show evidence that they were all written from the same story? I don't think that there is any scholarly support for that assertion. Yes, Matthew and Luke are believed to have relied on the source Q (which is speculation, not confirmed evidentially, although it is sound speculation), but Mark and John are not believed to have relied on that source and their sources are independent of Q and each other.

 

Who, besides you, believes that Romeo and Juliette were actual people? You logic doesn't follow in this case, nor your historical analysis.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

 

Excuse me, LNC but really how the hell would you know that?? I can't mind read someone in the same room with me, much less 2,000 years ago in a different country, different customs, different influences... I could go on but I see that common sense has flown the coop here.

 

I'm betting is cause you heard Habermas say it. YOU really have no idea what people thought in that day and age.

 

If you are referring to the fact that the apostles did have a category for resurrection prior to the final resurrection, it is throughout the OT. Example, when Jesus told Mary that her brother would rise again, she replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:24) She had no category for resurrection prior to that time. For an extensive analysis of what the OT taught on this subject and what expectations the disciples (who were Jewish) would have believed on this topic, let me refer you to N.T. Wrights' book, The Resurrection of the Sin of God, part 1, chapters 3-4 (pages 85-203). Wright provides an extensive analysis of the OT and what was taught on this subject. It is not a matter of mind reading, it is simply a matter of understanding what a person in that time and culture would have built their categories of belief upon.

 

LNC

 

 

 

[LNC]

Hey, you're not a bot after all! Whaddya know.

 

And thanks for the website links, I've never visited them before, I think I will check them out.

 

Since I've got your attention, how come you are always affecting an air of intellectual superiority, explaining to us how we can't really understand these theological concepts unless we know the meaning of the root Greek words, or aren't putting it together right like your favourite theologians do?

 

If this is the most important message ever from God to man, what's the dealio? Why all the misunderstanding? Why all the confusion explaining THE TRUTH which apparently can only be understood through approved theologians who are paid by donations from the faithful?

 

 

Glad I could point those sites out to you. I think in a fair exchange of ideas, we should be reading what both sides have to say and evaluating the claims of both sides. You may also want to check out reasonablefaith.org, and reasons.org for some counterpoints to Dawkins and Infidels.

 

I'm not trying to put on any airs, just tying to make sure that we are all interpreting the Bible the way that the authors intended it to be interpreted. Since it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and since the meaning of those words don't always translate in a one-for-one manner to English, it is sometimes helpful to get a fuller understanding of the original word. That's the reason that I point these things out. It is not to look intellectual, just to make sure we are being fair with the text. It was written very clearly to the initial audience, but it was also written in a language that can be translated into all other languages as well. In other words, it is not a lost or unknown language as, say, that in which the Book of Mormon was claimed to have been written.

 

LNC

[LNC]

How does mankind's ability to reason, or the existence of what you call objective morality, "PROVE" anything other than the fact that humans have the ability to reason and that morality is objective? I don't necessarily agree with your position on the objectivity of morals, but that's beside the point. I am simply curious as to how these two examples stand as proof of your deity.

 

First, consciousness is an aspect of our being that cannot be explained from a materialist worldview. Consciousness involves intentionality, or the fact that we have thoughts of or about objects, ideas, and concepts in this world (the last two being immaterial features of this world). Intentionality is something that doesn't exist in physical stuff. For example, no matter how complex you could make a computer, it would not have the ability to think of or about anything. For example, Data from Star Trek is sitting at a computer

is a nice idea for a fictional TV show, but it is not a realizable reality. There is no self inside of Data, only circuitry. If there is no self, there is no morality with androids either. There is nothing to have intentional thoughts, nothing to make intentional decisions, no one to offend or who can offend. There is no enduring self with machines, just parts. We, on the other hand, are enduring selves, with intentional thoughts, and consciousness. These are features that are not made of matter, as is the case with our thoughts as well. These are not epiphenomenal properties either, as epiphenomenal properties cannot explain all of the phenomena that we experience and are not causal in nature. So, the fact that we can reason points to the fact that we have an immaterial aspect to us called consciousness and the self. Because we have this aspect to our natures, we can be moral creatures as well.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Jesus made statements such as "No man comes to the father but by me", but I was speaking more about how modern evangelical Christians generally behave towards "the other". It's most often very much an "us vs them" mentality that is very concerned about being "right". The reason is understandable in a way: if you're wrong, it has eternal consequences for your soul. Often though there is an air of smugness and superciliousness about it. In the IFCA milieu that I grew up in, at least, that sensibility was pretty pervasive and I recognized it in myself as well. We looked down our noses even at other Christian denominations, and were patronizing towards them as less enlightened brothers. We were damned proud of ourselves for being "right" or at least closer to right than anyone else.

 

 

We all want to be right don't we? I don't mean that we just want to believe we are right, we want to be right, to know and follow truth. I'm not sure that that is a negative trait to have. Christians are willing, for the most part, to put our beliefs on the line and to test them to find out if they hold up. I do it here on this site. I don't believe that any of us, whether Christian, atheist, or otherwise, should be smug, but Christians least of all. A person is not a true Christian because they deserve to be or have done anything to earn it, it is because we recognize that we are sinners deserving hell and that Jesus is the only hope of salvation. I know that there are some denominations that have this smug attitude, but I wonder how they will fare in the judgment. I'm not saying that they aren't Christians or won't be saved in the end, but if they are relying on themselves in any way, I think it will be trouble.

 

 

I am speaking of enlightenment as freedom from desire and suffering and ego investment. Actually rising above the default human condition and exhibiting authentic love, humility, and equanimity. This is of course somewhat subjective, but I think we resonate with and recognize genuine enlightenment when we're in its presence. I don't know anyone who is fully enlightened but I have certainly known people (believers and unbelievers alike, there doesn't appear to be any relationship to religion) who exhibit enlightened behaviors and attitudes. The fact that I've seen the marks of enlightenment evolve naturally out of all kinds of settings (different religions, socioeconomic conditions, etc) tells me that it is not a matter of getting a doctrine right so much as aligning ones inner being in harmony with a much more universal principle at work in the universe than the dualistic sort of god who divides people into heaven and hell based on outward behaviors.

 

I will risk stepping on some of my fellow ex-Christian's toes and give Richard Dawkins as an example of unenlightened attitudes and behavior in the world of unbelief. Dawkins is very obsessed with proving the "rightness" of his position and the "wrongness" of belief in ways that pat himself on the back for his great insight and insult and demean people who haven't seen it his way -- in other words as bad or worse than many Christians are with respect to advocating for their position. And I recognize in him the same smugness I am ashamed to admit I once had as a Christian.

 

Compare that to Einstein, who was also an unbeliever whose only god was nature. I would consider Einstein relatively enlightened. I would consider Albert Schweitzer relatively enlightened even though I can't agree with his take on interpreting Bach or the best design for pipe organs ;-)

 

You speak of authentic love, which is the opposite of inauthentic or counterfeit love. On what do you base your standard of authentic love? I mean, who decides what is or isn't authentic love? You say it is somewhat subjective, so do we all just decide for ourselves who is or isn't enlightened and demonstrating authentic love? It seems that we must have some objective standard, but on what do we base that? For example, you cite Einstein and Schweitzer as examples of enlightened ones, how do you come to that assessment? What is it about them that makes them enlightened and Dawkins not? Is it selfishness? Other traits? I'm curious.

 

My point was not about the validity of Hawking's premise, but that Hawking has a lot more flexibility in considering all evidence involving origins without preconception. That is true whether or not you accept his premise. Put another way, Hawking would be much more open and dispassionate in considering evidence that (for example) appears to contradict a young, created universe. Of course Hawking has his own biases, but I am just saying he has a belief system / ethic that does not preconstrain him to a limited set of options. That's all. It's probably not an accident that there are (to my knowledge) no prominent evangelical Christian astrophysicists pushing that field forward.

 

I don't think I can agree with you. Hawking has a bias that the universe is not the creation of an agent, so his interpretation of the evidence is always going to push him toward that conclusion, not matter now much it strays out of science into metaphysics (as is the case with his latest book). He is not the dispassionate observer that you imply, just read his book and look at some of the outlandish claims he makes. Declaring that "philosophy is dead" is not only foolish, but fool hearty. Does he not realize that without philosophy, science is dead? So much for the dispassionate observer. His book is being shot at by both scientists colleagues of his, as well as philosophers.

 

No. Quite the opposite.

 

 

The opposite would be, we can have objective truth even if we can't have exhaustive truth. In that, I would agree with you.

 

And I think you are confusing the fact that we can have very wide and deep agreement about the morality of some things (torturing babies for fun) means that we can have equal moral clarity about all things. Right and wrong, good and evil are dualistic concepts that do not allow for paradox or edge cases or for the complex interaction of factors. If I put a bullet through someone's head that is generally murder and worthy of our severest penalties. Put me in a uniform and order me to put a bullet through someone's head and it's an act of valor potentially worthy of our highest honors. Put me in certain scenarios such as a home invasion and putting a bullet through someone's head is justifiable self defense. So we cannot make an unqualified black and white statement about even murder being good, bad or indifferent.

 

Even by the Bible's standards we cannot make simplistic statements about things like genocide. God ordered genocide at times.

 

Jesus cursed a fig tree for no other reason than that it inconvenienced him. Apparently we can't make absolute moral judgments about irritability either.

 

All of which is to say that it's a fool's errand to imagine that morality is all about absoultes.

 

 

Here, you are confusing ontology (does something exist) with epistemology (how we know). To say that somethings are objectively wrong, doesn't imply that we can know morality exhaustively, which was my earlier point. So, I assume from your reply that you would agree that some things are objectively wrong (e.g., torturing babies for fun), which means that ontologically, objective morality is a fact. However, given that fact, we don't then have to jump to saying that we know exhaustively all things that are and aren't moral. That is a different discussion. Your example of putting the bullet through another person's head is not an argument against objective morality, as it is always considered murder to take an innocent life; however, acts of war have not been considered taking the life of an innocent person. So, the standard stands unchanged in this example. However, suppose that in war, an opposing soldier surrendered and dropped his arms, but the soldier on the other side shot him dead anyway, that would then, in that case, be considered a degree of murder since the dead soldier would have been considered an innocent party having surrendered according to the rules of war.

 

God's pronouncement of judgment is not considered genocide, anymore than a judge condemning a man to the death penalty is considered to be murder. In both cases, judgment followed the commission of an offense and the judgment was just given the offense.

 

In the case of Jesus, since when is the cursing of a plant considered immoral? I cut my lawn every week during the summer, am I guilty of herbacide? Some do think that cutting plants is equivalent to committing some type of crime, but I'm not one of them. BTW, Jesus cursing of the fig tree was an indictment against the Jews who were fruitless in their ministries, it wasn't some type of temper tantrum as you imply.

 

There is a difference between absolute and objective morality. I do believe that there are some absolutes (don't murder, don't rape, don't torture children for fun, etc.), but they are true because morality is objective in nature.

 

I made the point very well here and elsewhere that grace does not invalidate, but fulfills and satisfies and completes the law. The point is that grace is a more evolved level of understanding which renders the law irrelevant even as it does not technically invalidate it. Grace simply removes the need for law. If you really believe this then you should have no problem saying that acting based on a higher principle like grace can guide us in whether or not to fire a bullet through someone's head in particular situations.

 

 

Where do you get the concept that grace makes the law irrelevant? Grace doesn't remove the need for the law. Without the law, man would not know his need for grace and mercy (See Gal. 3) Nowhere in the Bible is your claim validated.

 

Absolute rules and laws are blunt instruments at best. A rule frozen in a document cannot anticipate all circumstances and considerations that may arise. A heart of love and peace that is alive and aware and responsive and selfless, however, can.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus upheld and even strengthened the Law (Matt. 5), but he also had a heart of love and peace. He was the embodiment of grace and the law.

 

From the standpoint of a legalist, grace is moral relativism. From the standpoint of someone who has subscribed to a prefabricated, given set of beliefs about origins and eternal destiny, openness to anything else is moral relativism. For someone who desires certitude about things it is not given to us to be certain about, uncertainty is moral relativism.

 

Moral absolutes are the lazy way out IMO. It's easier to say that pre/extramarital sex is always bad than to say that it is generally not the best thing, because if you "just say no" than you never have to even consider paying for sex education and condoms and you never have to allow other people to be responsible for their own actions, thus making you uncomfortable and threatened about never having thought through or been honest about your own sexuality.

 

The moral absolutist assumes in his heart and implies to my face that if am not willing to believe certain things that are considered divine revelation in the absence of sufficient evidence or even in the face of evidence to the contrary, I am ultimately in danger of being okay with torturing babies for fun. Whatever. Like I said, it's a slippery slope concern. The slope is feared to lead to debauchery; in fact, it just leads to the real world where you have to make tough calls sometimes.

 

I don't know of any legalists who consider grace to be moral relativism, but then, I don't hang out with legalists. Uncertainty does not equal moral relativism either. There are plenty of things about which I am uncertain, but that doesn't make me a moral relativist, that is simply a confusion of the concept.

 

So, is it lazy to consider torturing children for fun, murder, and rape to be absolutely wrong? Are we supposed to agonize and figure out on every occurrence whether these things are still wrong? Wouldn't it be better to understand that they are wrong and then to look at each case to find out whether it meets the standard of proof for that occurrence? It seems that this is what our courts do. I see no reason to see why your statement is valid. Do you really live your life this way? If someone stole your car and didn't believe it was wrong, would you go along with the person or try to have the person arrested for grand theft? It's easy to say these platitudes, but I have yet to see one person actually live them out.

 

If you are willing to say that morals are not objective in nature, then you have to say that torturing babies for fun could be OK to do if a person wants to and sees nothing wrong with it. You can't have it both ways. Either there are objective morals or there are not. If there are not, then you have no grounds to say anything is objectively wrong, only to state your preference. That is not a slippery slope argument, that is simply the fact of the matter according to logic.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

So who was Lazarus? Are you saying that Jesus resurrected him AFTER his own resurrection? How about Tabita (spelling, or was that her name, don't remember), wasn't she dead and resurrected by Jesus? Or the people the prophets resurrected from the dead in the Old Testament?

 

So they basically didn't believe their own holy scriptures or the events they just had experienced?

 

Or perhaps you are saying that those stories never happened, and only Jesus's resurrection is historical. Well, congratulations, you have now decided that a big chunk of the Bible is just a story without historical backing.

 

 

Lazarus was Martha and Mary's brother. Jesus brought Lazarus back to life before his (Jesus') crucifixion. Tabitha was brought back to life by Peter (Acts 9). Yes, people were restored to life by the prophets Elijah (1 Kings 17) and Elisha (2 Kings 8). In those cases, the person wasn't dead as long as Lazarus was, so Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus was considered a greater miracle.

EPIC FAIL!!!

 

You didn't even think about what it was that I was posting about? You didn't even care for reading or remembering your own post that I responded to?

 

This is what you said in the post I responded to:

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

 

You basically said that the disciples had no belief in resurrection because they had no belief in resurrections prior to the resurrection of Jesus. So when Jesus was resurrected they had no belief in resurrection because they had no experience of resurrection before Jesus's resurrection.

 

So my question was simply what about Lazarus? You're saying that the disciples had no belief in resurrection, yet, as you point out, the resurrection was a big miracle, and it was before the resurrection of Jesus.

 

Either they were, or they were not. They can't both have never seen a resurrection and still have seen a great miracle of resurrection at the same time!

 

Big fucking

[DesertBob]

You speak of authentic love, which is the opposite of inauthentic or counterfeit love. On what do you base your standard of authentic love? I mean, who decides what is or isn't authentic love? You say it is somewhat subjective, so do we all just decide for ourselves who is or isn't enlightened and demonstrating authentic love? It seems that we must have some objective standard, but on what do we base that? For example, you cite Einstein and Schweitzer as examples of enlightened ones, how do you come to that assessment? What is it about them that makes them enlightened and Dawkins not? Is it selfishness? Other traits? I'm curious.

One could say that all three men had a concern for their fellow man, were passionate about their beliefs, and worked hard to make a difference in the world. Where Dawkins fails, in my view, is that he seems to have a lot of ego invested in his convictions, and seems not to have compassion or respect for people who disagree with him, such that he finds it irresistible to denigrate them. I see Einstein and Schweitzer as seeing their unity with all men, and Dawkins as mired in an "us vs them" mentality not unlike the religion that he decries. I see Einstein and Schweitzer as humble, Dawkins as arrogant.

I assume from your reply that you would agree that some things are objectively wrong (e.g., torturing babies for fun), which means that ontologically, objective morality is a fact.

Something isn't right or wrong based on its conformity to a divine rule book; our concepts of justice, goodness, rightness and the like arise out of an awareness and consensus that has evolved in human society over what behaviors are maladaptive or not regarding the health of society as a whole -- what rules make the most people as free, safe, content and prosperous as possible. There is widespread consensus about some things, not so much about others. The fact that almost everyone considers torturing babies to be morally repugnant doesn't point to a lawgiver, any more than the fact that many people think a street in my neighborhood has under-posted speed limits points to an anarchy-giver.

I do believe that there are some absolutes (don't murder, don't rape, don't torture children for fun, etc.), but they are true because morality is objective in nature.

I would say that these acts are held in virtually universal contempt (apart from well defined exceptional cases, e.g., killing in self-defense) because they are particularly bad for our individual and collective well being -- it's fair to say that it's objectively true that they are extremely maladaptive and counterproductive. I don't think it's warranted to say anything more than that.

Where do you get the concept that grace makes the law irrelevant? Grace doesn't remove the need for the law. Without the law, man would not know his need for grace and mercy (See Gal. 3) Nowhere in the Bible is your claim validated.

If, as Paul says, all things are lawful under grace (albeit, not necessarily expedient) then in that sense the law becomes irrelevant. On the other hand, we still need law as a "teacher" that leads us to the higher principle of grace, and in that sense, it's still relevant.

Absolute rules and laws are blunt instruments at best. A rule frozen in a document cannot anticipate all circumstances and considerations that may arise. A heart of love and peace that is alive and aware and responsive and selfless, however, can.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, they ultimately are. It all comes down to motivation. It is better to refrain from murder because you genuinely love someone who hates you, rather than because you are acquiescing to an externally imposed rule. If you do the former, you don't need the latter.

Are we supposed to agonize and figure out on every occurrence whether these things are still wrong?

You are basically suggesting via this question that it's easier to look up situations in a book and compare them to a rule that's predetermined, than to have to take context into account. And I'd agree. As I said, rules are the lazy way out. I'd prefer not to have to think, too -- even though, in all honesty, thinking isn't generally agony to me. But we have a brain and it seems a waste not to use it.

Do you really live your life this way? If someone stole your car and didn't believe it was wrong, would you go along with the person or try to have the person arrested for grand theft? It's easy to say these platitudes, but I have yet to see one person actually live them out.

Now it is you who are conflating things. To say that there is more of a basis for mercy and forbearance with some situations and persons than with others or to say that one must consider context and motivation is not to give people license to unilaterally make things up as they go.

If you are willing to say that morals are not objective in nature, then you have to say that torturing babies for fun could be OK to do if a person wants to and sees nothing wrong with it.

False choice. If objective law does not constrain us it does not mean that love does not constrain us.

[agnosticator]

First, consciousness is an aspect of our being that cannot be explained from a materialist worldview. <SNIP> These are features that are not made of matter, as is the case with our thoughts as well. These are not epiphenomenal properties either, as epiphenomenal properties cannot explain all of the phenomena that we experience and are not causal in nature. So, the fact that we can reason points to the fact that we have an immaterial aspect to us called consciousness and the self.

 

Your false dichotomy-naturalism can't explain consciousness, so it is an immaterial personality that stands alone, created by God-excludes a third option: there isn't enough investigation, and a naturalistic explanation of consciousness hasn't been proven to be true or false. You just have "impatience with ambiguity" (Carl Sagan). You need a higher tolerance for ambiguity and a lower tolerance for absurdity.

[Legion]

But this brings up an interesting question; for you, what is the final arbiter of Truth?

Maybe time.

 

A guy once told me that he saw a house that had burned down and the only thing which remained standing was the chimney. He said, "The chimney is the truth."

 

Cogitumus ergo sumus. Lingua est a secui nostrum.

[DesertBob]

You need a higher tolerance for ambiguity and a lower tolerance for absurdity.

+1