Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bazz99

Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Which poses a good question.....why is everything dynamic and unique.

 

Good question. I dont think everything has a fixed meaning, nor do I think everything is open to interpretation either.

 

Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholics all glean something different from the bible, yet if a car repair manual tells them to turn the bolt clockwise to tighten it, they all have to turn the bolt the same way. 

 

Barbara and Walter can disagree on some point in the bible without any real consequence. Thank goodness for that. They both better turn their bolts the same way though. (haha)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Good question. I dont think everything has a fixed meaning, nor do I think everything is open to interpretation either.

 

Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholics all glean something different from the bible, yet if a car repair manual tells them to turn the bolt clockwise to tighten it, they all have to turn the bolt the same way. 

 

Barbara and Walter can disagree on some point in the bible without any real consequence. Thank goodness for that. They both better turn their bolts the same way though. (haha)

 

 

But it appears you are assigning meaning to the objective nature of bolt turning.....especially since we are not guaranteed the next microsecond...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantheory said:

Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

 

As we all know everyone is different to a certain extent. The answer to the above question might be answered by the realization that maybe up to half the members of this X-Christ forum were once evangelicals or devout Christians of some kind.  Of course most devout Christians will not argue religion at all, but many passively listen to arguments whether they want to or not.

None of us were True christians, though.  🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that most christians learn to be christians by imitating those who are, presumably, imitating christ: parents, pastors, Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, etc.  Doesn't need to be as difficult as what Barbara was making it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

But it appears you are assigning meaning to the objective nature of bolt turning.....especially since we are not guaranteed the next microsecond...

 

What does time have to do with meaning and objectivity?  They're three very different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It seems to me that most christians learn to be christians by imitating those who are, presumably, imitating christ: parents, pastors, Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, etc.  Doesn't need to be as difficult as what Barbara was making it.

 

Yeah, really. 

 

Looks like she was blasphemy shy. But if the point of "christ" was to recognize a relationship between divinity and yourself, a human, then the jesus story was one such example of trying to relay that. Paul then falls in behind carrying on the example. I do wonder if it was ever interpreted in those terms and then lost to time with the dominance of orthodoxy or gnosticism. The orthodoxy way, it reads sort of wacky. A gnostic way, it may make more sense. But orthodoxy thinkers are not going to consider such a thing. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

What does time have to do with meaning and objectivity?  They're three very different things.

For me, meaning is tied to time because I am unsure what happens upon death outside of biology.  That our objectivity has any value, time is critical to forging value.  Righty tighty lefty loosey seem irrelevant outside of some service to life...perhaps turning on a faucet for someone to drink, or turning it off so they don't drown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

But it appears you are assigning meaning to the objective nature of bolt turning.....especially since we are not guaranteed the next microsecond...

 

 

Do you own a refrigerator? If so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Do you own a refrigerator? If so, why?

Yes, to hope for cold beer after I get home...provided I get home each day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

An analogy that may or may not succeed here:  If two people.....doesn't matter if religion is involved, don't accept some standard as mutual, then they have to rely on personal experience.  Suppose the color blue is accepted as some objective and legal standard to one.  And also suppose blue is simply accepted as "the color of the sky" to another, the parties must endeavor to understand each other enough such that they find some commonality in "blue".....perhaps that they visit enough and listen, that they garner/discover/understand a potential correlation between the objective/legal standard and the "color of the sky" standard.  It's more probable in my mind that those that share the same standard will more readily find agreement.  BUT, within that group sharing the same standard, there are unique components to each observer making it sometimes difficult....like Barbara.

 

 

 

 

 

Edgarcito.

 

That transcript was an example of two devout Christians finding it impossible to reason with each over just one verse. 

When you read the transcript you arrived at a different understanding to theirs.   "I'm gathering Paul considered himself one with Christ as Jesus was one with the Father?"

Then you said that you didn't actually hold with your initial assumption. "I personally don't agree with that because Paul also mentions doing things he doesn't wish to do on occasion." 

So, that's three different Christians, arriving at four different understandings of just one verse.

 

There are over 31,000 verses in the whole Bible and billions of Christians in thousands of different denominations, sects and cults, within which there are different shades of opinion, different interpretations and different personal positions on various issues of translation, authenticity and exegesis.  

 

Do you really think that billions of Christians can successfully reason with each other over the billions of possible interpretations they all have of scripture?

 

When two Christians fail to do so over one just one verse?

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito.

 

That transcript was an example of two devout Christians finding it impossible to reason with each over just one verse. 

When you read the transcript you arrived at a different understanding to theirs.   "I'm gathering Paul considered himself one with Christ as Jesus was one with the Father?"

Then you said that you didn't actually hold with your initial assumption. "I personally don't agree with that because Paul also mentions doing things he doesn't wish to do on occasion." 

So, that's three different Christians, arriving at four different understandings of just one verse.

 

There are over 31,000 verses in the whole Bible and billions of Christians in thousands of different denominations, sects and cults, within which there are different shades of opinion, different interpretations and different personal positions on various issues of translation, authenticity and exegesis.  

 

Do you really think that billions of Christians can successfully reason with each other over the billions of possible interpretations they all have of scripture?

 

When two Christians fail to do so over one just one verse?

 

?

I guess my question is, is it expected that the same input should yield the same output?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I guess my question is, is it expected that the same input should yield the same output?

Assuming that the "input" was an omniscient and omnipotent  god,  yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand we have Christians in other threads telling us we were never true Christians (whatever that is they wont tell me), then we have other Christians talking about exegesis and hermeneutics, interpreting it how you like. 

 

I guess anything goes. Believe what you want. It's all correct. I'm good with that. Why have a bible at all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Assuming that the "input" was an omniscient and omnipotent  god,  yes.

I agree that God would have the ability but am uncertain that there is that necessity.  Can you tell me why we should all have the same discernment at the same time and what this would accomplish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pantheory said:

Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

 

As we all know everyone is different to a certain extent. The answer to the above question might be answered by the realization that maybe up to half the members of this X-Christ forum were once evangelicals or devout Christians of some kind.  Of course most devout Christians will not argue religion at all, but many passively listen to arguments whether they want to or not.

 

Good point.

 

I think it is possible to reason with a devout person of any persuasion. (Be that in politics, social, justice, worldview etc)

 

The person who it is not possible to reason with is a person who is not open to having their minds changed and will not... 'reason' with you. People such as Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, Sye Ten Bruggencate etc spring to mind. To reason must mean you are willing to admit you are wrong. However, for many Christians the very notion of doubt and admitting you might be wrong automatically puts you in the 'not true Christian' camp. If you have the slightest doubt (As I was taught) you will not go to heaven. (Incidentally a very troubling and mentally abusive situation for a kid to be in that tended to doubt and question things)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Christians rely on faith given the particular standard, the Bible.  How are you going to argue with someone's interpretation when they have a different standard than the one you use.  The two must correlate I gather to find some common ground.

 

That's a fair point. If we don't agree on the facts, there's no basis upon which to proceed with any further discussion. What I would therefore ask is if the Bible is really your axiomatic standard? The New Testament itself says that if Jesus Christ is not truly raised from the dead then your faith is in vain. So clearly recorded history is a greater standard that exists outside the Bible. Would you therefore not agree that there is a common set of facts to which we, as Christian and non-Christian, can both agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

For me, meaning is tied to time because I am unsure what happens upon death outside of biology.  That our objectivity has any value, time is critical to forging value.  Righty tighty lefty loosey seem irrelevant outside of some service to life...perhaps turning on a faucet for someone to drink, or turning it off so they don't drown. 

 

My view tends to the opposite -- I believe that meaning can only be experienced in the here-and-now, so a high level of engagement and awareness in the current moment is my ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I agree that God would have the ability but am uncertain that there is that necessity.  Can you tell me why we should all have the same discernment at the same time and what this would accomplish?

I have no idea why you should all have the same discernment at the same time, nor what it would accomplish.  That was not the point I was making.  

 

It seems to me, though, that there should be more consistency in interpretation, if an omniscient god were making a genuine effort to reveal himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I guess my question is, is it expected that the same input should yield the same output?

 

Yes.

 

Otherwise, why would the number of books of the Bible need to be agreed upon in the council of Nicaea?  Why would the creeds needs to be agreed upon?  Etc. Etc.

 

The standardization of the Biblical canon requires that there be one gospel of Matthew, of Mark of Luke and of John, but not of Thomas.

 

Nor that there be such books as the Didache, the Sherpherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelion of James or the Holocaust of Peter.

 

Edgarcito, if you agree that the Bible must consist only of 66 books and only 66 books, then you are saying that there is only one input - the standard Bible.

 

But if you are saying that the output of those 66 books need not be in accordance with the content of those 66 books, then why bother standardizing?

 

A limited input does not logically yield an unlimited output.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

That's a fair point. If we don't agree on the facts, there's no basis upon which to proceed with any further discussion. What I would therefore ask is if the Bible is really your axiomatic standard? The New Testament itself says that if Jesus Christ is not truly raised from the dead then your faith is in vain. So clearly recorded history is a greater standard that exists outside the Bible. Would you therefore not agree that there is a common set of facts to which we, as Christian and non-Christian, can both agree?

To answer your question, yes, I believe there are facts on which to find common ground....good facts....facts that don't agree with religion, but still yield understanding.  But here's what I think please.  I believe my objective future is less important than my future of faith.  One, we know regardless of effort, our stuff and our bodies will pass away.  Also, our objective future is an illusion basically....in that we are not guaranteed one second to the next.  People rely/place faith, on their objective future....and I think that is prudent and wise, but it doesn't hold a candle to the time spent NOW, in the moment, dedicated to a spot in the space time continuum that we could mark down as love.  I want a lot of those data points in my plot.  And I realize that there are lives dedicated to objective discovery that will play a part in that mechanism.  I just don't want to people sell out to the objective side.  None of my business really, it's their life, just my opinion.  Thx for the response Bhim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Yes.

 

Otherwise, why would the number of books of the Bible need to be agreed upon in the council of Nicaea?  Why would the creeds needs to be agreed upon?  Etc. Etc.

 

The standardization of the Biblical canon requires that there be one gospel of Matthew, of Mark of Luke and of John, but not of Thomas.

 

Nor that there be such books as the Didache, the Sherpherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelion of James or the Holocaust of Peter.

 

Edgarcito, if you agree that the Bible must consist only of 66 books and only 66 books, then you are saying that there is only one input - the standard Bible.

 

But if you are saying that the output of those 66 books need not be in accordance with the content of those 66 books, then why bother standardizing?

 

A limited input does not logically yield an unlimited output.

 

Walter.

The Professor just spoke to the ability of God.....that if God wished 47 people think the same thing, then 47 people would likely think the same thing.  I agree with that.  There are also the parts of the Bible that speak to each of us being unique, running a race.  I do not expect everyone to start the race the same nor finish the race the same, nor breathe, nor function, nor run the same, even if they are given the same fuel, the same Input.  Why we are created like this, I don't think I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I have no idea why you should all have the same discernment at the same time, nor what it would accomplish.  That was not the point I was making.  

 

It seems to me, though, that there should be more consistency in interpretation, if an omniscient god were making a genuine effort to reveal himself.

That's an assumption apparently that consistency in interpretation is vital to the goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

My view tends to the opposite -- I believe that meaning can only be experienced in the here-and-now, so a high level of engagement and awareness in the current moment is my ideal.

What movement please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

That's an assumption apparently that consistency in interpretation is vital to the goal. 

If the goal of an omniscient god is to genuinely make himself understood, then consistency is the goal, specifically to prevent multiple (mis)interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

What movement please?

 

Movement?  No 'movement.'  (It might be a mis-reading of the word 'moment.')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.