|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Question to Protestants
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
The endeavour must begin and end with the text of Scripture, because the text of Scripture is what we have been given by the Apostles.
Is it? What if the Apostles passed on authoritative teachings which were not written down? What if they did write authoritative texts which were not read in church services? What if the Holy Spirit revealed authoritative teachings, entirely consistent with Scripture, but not explicitly mentioned in it?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Issac David, then we just gotta trust that the Holy Spirit has more time on the prepaid calling card and can give the dropped revelation to a new generation.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
ISTM it is this fractal relationship between reason and revelation that bothers you, El Greco. Some Christians veer more toward revelation as authoritative, some toward reason, but it is never as neat a dividing line as might be wished. Yes, it is an awkward line, which is why Christians argue all the time about where it should be. But why should it be absolutist and binary - either one totally believes in revelation or utterly rejects it in favour of reason?
And as was pointed out above, some traditions believe reason and revelation only make up a part of the picture, along with tradition and in some parts of the spectrum, personal experience.
Faith isn't a pre-built kit, after all, no matter how hard you try to swallow the whole of the Teachings of the Insert Name Here Church. It's more of a build-your-own taco stand. The base layer is always Christ, and the rest is just condiments.
[ 11. February 2010, 15:59: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
The endeavour must begin and end with the text of Scripture, because the text of Scripture is what we have been given by the Apostles.
Is it? What if the Apostles passed on authoritative teachings which were not written down? What if they did write authoritative texts which were not read in church services? What if the Holy Spirit revealed authoritative teachings, entirely consistent with Scripture, but not explicitly mentioned in it?
I don't think God deals in what ifs; he deals in truth and Scripture is the means by which he makes that truth known.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Faith isn't a pre-built kit, after all, no matter how hard you try to swallow the whole of the Teachings of the Insert Name Here Church. It's more of a build-your-own taco stand. The base layer is always Christ, and the rest is just condiments.
Here endeth the Teaching from the Church of Spiffy ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I don't think God deals in what ifs; he deals in truth and Scripture is the means by which he makes that truth known.
God deals in truth and Orthodox Tradition is the means by which he makes that truth known. See, I proved you wrong. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Faith isn't a pre-built kit, after all, no matter how hard you try to swallow the whole of the Teachings of the Insert Name Here Church. It's more of a build-your-own taco stand. The base layer is always Christ, and the rest is just condiments.
Here endeth the Teaching from the Church of Spiffy
I am working on the Mary Sue Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
It's got translations such as "Then Nathan said to David, 'Dude, I was talking about you, and God sent me to say, "That was really a dick move, David. I'm most seriously pissed off."'". (2Sam 12:7-10)
[ 11. February 2010, 16:12: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wm Duncan
Buoy tender
# 3021
|
Posted
Amazing what a flurry a straw-man OP can set in motion. Let him (her?) who cast the first stone now define his (her?) own "theories" rather than defining other's faith with caricature.
--------------------
I have overcome a fiercely anti-Catholic upbringing in order to attend Mass simply and solely to escape Protestant guitars. Why am I here? Who gave these nice Catholics guitars?
-- Annie Dillard
Posts: 1193 | From: about 30 km above the Juan de Fuca plate | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
El Greco, apart from the fact that you seem to have quite an odd view of 'Protestants' (it might help to know something about 'protestants' before you assume what they think), but you also seem to be looking for a singular truth yourself. I very much doubt that you will find anyone here who can convince you of a singular truth, but maybe you just want an argument rather than to be convinced by someone (?). But there are also a number of problems in looking for a singular truth which 'Protestantism' doesn't actually have. I don't even think that science has it either, so I'm inclined to think that your quest is looking for an unattainable 'holy grail' that no one on this planet will be able to hand to you in the neat little package you seem to want.
This is all nice and good. Except for one thing. That while you portray this image of intrinsic uncertainty, you go on and hold your own opinions about what God's existence means, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God.
If you stopped there, I would have nothing to say to that. But you are not stopping there, and my question is why you don't.
From what I can see, it seems to boil down to "because we say so" or "because we want to believe so". Is this all there is?
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The use of the term "made up" is not helpful. Rather, the point is that one is saying "that is the best understanding we had then, but now we have reason to think differently." Or maybe (as in the case of 7 days creation "this was never intended to be taken literally."
Yet you go on explaining how certain views are mistaken. So, there are views you accept as mistaken. Why choose your views over them, though? Or, even better, why choose any of the various Christian theologies at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So Andrew, the people who believe the whole bible are arrogant and the people who don't believe it all are imagining things.
It's not polite to put things in people's mouths.
What I said is that in my view people of good faith, people sincere, who want to follow God, ended up making things up, which today many Christians rightly reject as erroneous. Are today's Christians making things up as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
I don't.
So what?
This astonishes me. To me it's better to put aside made-up stuff rather than accept them as God's Truth for how to live one's life.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
But it's worth remembering that I'm talking about a hermeneutic principle and not necessarily making a claim to have reached the correct interpretation in every respect.
Noted. My question remains. If all those people made things up, why aren't you making things up as well?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
This is all nice and good. Except for one thing. That while you portray this image of intrinsic uncertainty, you go on and hold your own opinions about what God's existence means, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God.
If you stopped there, I would have nothing to say to that. But you are not stopping there, and my question is why you don't.
From what I can see, it seems to boil down to "because we say so" or "because we want to believe so". Is this all there is?
I'm not sure I can see this in what I wrote to be honest, and I can't see where you might have reflected on it or answered it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And as was pointed out above, some traditions believe reason and revelation only make up a part of the picture, along with tradition and in some parts of the spectrum, personal experience.
True. And all of these can be conflated into revelation - "the Holy Spirit revealing through various means", including reason, tradition, and personal experience.
I was trying to get at the issue which I think (I may be wrong) is plaguing El Greco. If he sees Protestantism as having 'introduced' reason to faith - a questionable view, but anyway - then why not go all the way and overthrow revelation in favour of reason? It seems to have worked for him ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
El Greco: What you persistently refer to as "making stuff up" is what I would call "life". I live on the basis of many assumptions which are unproveable yet important. The love of my spouse, for example - I cannot prove it exists, but it is important for me to believe that it does. Reason plays a certain role in this; I could point to examples which reasonable people might agree indicate love. But no one can prove it. So it is with faith.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
This is why I think the OP - if not being deliberately provocative and disingenuous about that - is really asking a question that goes far beyond the issue of why one believes the doctrines of one's own church to be true, valid and/or authentic.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Yes, LSK; hence why I phrased my answer in the terms I did earlier, but El Greco brought it back to the same idea of searching for a singular truth, so I'm not actually sure what he's trying to figure out
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The use of the term "made up" is not helpful. Rather, the point is that one is saying "that is the best understanding we had then, but now we have reason to think differently." Or maybe (as in the case of 7 days creation "this was never intended to be taken literally."
Yet you go on explaining how certain views are mistaken. So, there are views you accept as mistaken. Why choose your views over them, though? Or, even better, why choose any of the various Christian theologies at all?
I don't think I choose my views, really. You can't choose what you can or cannot believe. However, I 'chose' Quakerism' because when I heard that their witness is based on the faith that there is "that of God" in everyone, I knew that that formula of words expressed exactly a belief I had arrived at in my student days when I reflected on my experience working with people with severe and multiple learning difficulties. I know it's true.
Life doesn't offer the kind of certainty you seek (or that you appear to be seeking). There isn't any point in your asking people what they believe - it's time for you to answer George Fox: quote:
...Christ saith this and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say?
...because, in the end, what you can say is the only certainty you have.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Qlib, Leaf, et al:
I don't find that satisfactory.
Here's an example. I see the pain and suffering in the world, the cruelty of nature, and the indifference of the skies, and I come to the conclusion that there is no personal almighty deity that cares for us.
Then someone pops up and says: ah, but God exists, and he has a Son, and he was crucified for us, and all things will be made right in the end, and I have faith in him.
And then I ask, are you making these things up? I mean, others made stuff up, and painted many metaphysical canvases that had little relation with reality, are you doing the same thing? And the answers I get, they are, well, astonishing! Perhaps I should leave it at that. This discussion has been a real eye-opener.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
El Greco
Rationality was seen as the ideal within my tradition at the end of 19th century, it went along with a belief in the superior rationality of Western man and that evolution would eventually lead us a newer perfect human being, who would naturally arrive in Western civilisation if they had not done so already. Rationality was seen to go with moral superiority.
It fell, not by logical argument but by the experience of two world wars. We certainly could not after both of them really claim moral superiority for Western civilisation. They demonstrated rather effectively the dark side of western civilisation and where such reasoning could lead one.
What I put in the first paragraph looks egocentric but not particular yucky until you faced with the way it was used by Hitler.
Since then we have faced the slow realisation that our "rationality" was often no more than a cover for our own biases. That technological superiority is not the same a moral superiority or religious superiority. We have become post-colonial, listened to the feminist stances and allowed voice to be heard that would never have been heard in the late nineteenth century when Old man Europe knew best.
Now let me tell you the cruel twist from your perspective. Just at the end of 19th Century, Durkheim wrote a book on Religion. It bought into the western myth of rationality leading to superior man, with Protestant Christianity as the least superstitious, except for one important point. Durkheim was an Atheist Jew, he put above Protestant Christianity, rational atheism. The rest of the development cycle was left intact. He assumed that primitive technological societies had primitive religions as well. This is not the case. His evidence for his beliefs of this development pattern just don't add up.
The snag is that rational atheism bought in a lot to this, even more than Protestant Christianity. The assumption that rationalism brings only light is false, it brings darkness as well, the ability to cause more hurt, the ability to justify hurting others in more ways.
If reason is your custodian of truth who guards reason?
Jengie
p.s. If you are wondering why you have not heard major outcry over this, then go back to SPK's post and think how that minimizes the damage done by this.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
Origionally posted by El Greco
quote:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject? quote:
Firstly I believe in a God who forgives theological error. I also assume that I personally, the church tradition to which I belong, and every other branch of Christ's church believes & teaches theological errors. Furthermore I am not convinced that it is possible to fully understand an omniscient God. Nor do I think it is the prime duty of a Christian to believe the correct thing. Rather I think it is to follow Christ: For instance, I don't think we are primarily called to understand the reasons for pain, suffering and evil - but to be Christ's people on earth who are working towards redeeming the pain, suffering and evil that they encounter.
I think you will find people who are trying to do this in every tradition
As for tradition changing with time - I think that is right & proper. Surely all real relationships change with time as you get to know one another. As a relationships develops, you show more of yourself to another and relate differently. Even if God is not changing, how I relate to him may well do so with time. Similarly with the community of believers that Christ will call to himself: the people, times, science and a whole lot of other things will change - This allows us to relate to his unchanging nature differently
Or to sum it up - I think we are primarily called to a relationship not a body of knowledge.
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Jengie Jon says quote:
It fell, not by logical argument but by the experience of two world wars. We certainly could not after both of them really claim moral superiority for Western civilisation. They demonstrated rather effectively the dark side of western civilisation and where such reasoning could lead one.
Thanks for that. In my opinion, to say that reasoning is bad because it led to two wars is a sophistic argument.
Yes, reasoning can lead to wars, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with the reasoning process itself. It could just as easily be that the starting premises were wrong.
I would agree with you that rationality does not confer moral superiority on a person - but that's not a reason to abandon reason. Indeed, can there be such a thing as a "reason to abandon reason"?
I still see rationality as the ideal. However, I don't believe that atheists are inherently more rational than Christians. Most atheists, when asked why they don't believe in God, tend to use straw man arguments; they define "God" and "god" very narrowly, and they fail to take into account any of the ancient Jewish, Greek, Roman or Christian literature that might shed some light on how the concept of "god" may have developed in the first place, or the spectrum of thought on what "god" might mean, or on what things, phenomena or concepts may be rightfully or wrongfully called "god".
Then again, if Christians dogmatically insist that there's only one correct way of understanding what "God" means, then perhaps you can't blame the atheists for being equally dogmatic about their own straw men.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Browsing the book pile at Costco, I happened upon the title "Why is God Laughing?" (Deepak Chopra, I think)
My comment to my browsing companion: "Because He has heard all the stuff we talk about Him".
I'll second the "relationship not a body of knowledge" statement.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This is all nice and good. Except for one thing. That while you portray this image of intrinsic uncertainty, you go on and hold your own opinions about what God's existence means, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God.
So are you saying that no-one should hold an opinion unless they are certain?
AIUI your objection is that Protestants - especially liberal Protestants - simultaneously believe that a.) God is of a certain nature and b.) any statement about God may be wrong.
How is that different from believing (for example) a.) certain behaviour is morally wrong and b.) any statement about morality may be wrong?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This is why I think the OP - if not being deliberately provocative and disingenuous about that - is really asking a question that goes far beyond the issue of why one believes the doctrines of one's own church to be true, valid and/or authentic.
I agree. And to be honest, El Greco, right now I'm a bit worried for your sanity if you start doubting all the things that you only know about because someone thought about it, passed it on to someone else, who passed it on... all the way down to you sitting in the classroom or being told it by your parents.
We rely on assumptions when we get out of bed in the morning and don't hold on for dear life in case gravity isn't working or the house hasn't rearranged itself while we were sleeping.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying. The issue is not whether my wife really loves me, or whether rationality means morality, or whether we should only have opinions about things we know for sure, but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth.
Such ideas affect many people's lives (and not necessarily only those that believe them) which makes these concerns even more important.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Jengie Jon says quote:
It fell, not by logical argument but by the experience of two world wars. We certainly could not after both of them really claim moral superiority for Western civilisation. They demonstrated rather effectively the dark side of western civilisation and where such reasoning could lead one.
Thanks for that. In my opinion, to say that reasoning is bad because it led to two wars is a sophistic argument.
That is to misread, I am saying that reason is not the guarantee of moral goodness that the enlightenment thought it was.
Even in a modern society supposedly governed by rationality we can still make a big mess of it.
Jengie
[ 11. February 2010, 20:35: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Qlib, Leaf, et al:
I don't find that satisfactory.
Who said life gets to be satisfactory? Where's it promised you'll ever get the chance to understand everything before you die? Who promised you life is like a bowl of cherries? 'Cause they lied, yo.
Sit down, hang on, and enjoy the ride of this wild and wonderful thing called life, and stop looking for the Secret Rulebook That Explains Everything Perfectly and Seamlessly.
[ 11. February 2010, 20:37: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying.
I don't see it. There are attempts to try to figure out what you're saying. I don't see anybody trying to shift your meaning. You're talking like somebody with a persecution complex here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying.
I'm trying to work out what you are saying. So far you haven't presented an objection to Protestant epistemology that can't also be presented against, among other things, humanist ethics. quote:
The issue is not whether my wife really loves me, or whether rationality means morality, or whether we should only have opinions about things we know for sure, but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth.
You are failing to distinguish between "This is God's truth" and "We think this is God's truth but we may be wrong". Most Protestants on this thread are saying the latter.
[ 11. February 2010, 20:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Sit down, hang on, and enjoy the ride of this wild and wonderful thing called life, and stop looking for the Secret Rulebook That Explains Everything Perfectly and Seamlessly.
I don't have a problem with life. It's certain beliefs I'm challenging. And those beliefs are not to be confused for Life, Reality, or whatever!
quote:
You are failing to distinguish between "This is God's truth" and "We think this is God's truth but we may be wrong". Most Protestants on this thread are saying the latter.
Well, from what I have experienced, people would say "we believe this is God's Truth" rather than "we speculate, and this is our speculation, and it comes from us, and not from God, whose mind we don't really know". And my question is "how do you know you are not making things up, just like other people did, whose views you won't even consider for that very fact".
If the line was neatly drawn between reality and human speculation, I would have raised no concerns about it!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
El Greco says
quote:
but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth
I suppose that depends how you define God.
It also depends how you define "Truth". Some would say that to make a distinction between "God's Truth" and any other sort of "truth" is meaningless. In binary logic, the only distinction is between "truth" and "falsehood". A proposition which is not true is false, and a proposition which is not false is true.
However, if you were to say that "God's Truth" is different to ordinary "truth", then it looks like a form of ternary logic - however, ternary logic usually means "true", "false" and "unknown". So if we add "God's Truth" to this set of truth values, we end up with a type of four-state logic. And you have to think up new rules for what "AND", "OR" and "NOT" might mean when applied to such logic.
quote:
Such ideas affect many people's lives (and not necessarily only those that believe them) which makes these concerns even more important.
Well sure they do. But it's not just ideas that affect people's lives. Governments often affect people's lives too. But that's not a reason for not having them.
Personally, I think there's a danger in being too perfectionist about getting your ideas right. Good enough is good enough; it doesn't have to be absolutely spot on.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Well, from what I have experienced, people would say "we believe this is God's Truth" rather than "we speculate, and this is our speculation, and it comes from us, and not from God, whose mind we don't really know".
...and do you have a problem with that?
Why?
'We believe' pretty much sums it up nicely.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just to say I've opened a thread which may have some bearing on this discussion, albeit tangentially.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Sit down, hang on, and enjoy the ride of this wild and wonderful thing called life, and stop looking for the Secret Rulebook That Explains Everything Perfectly and Seamlessly.
I don't have a problem with life. It's certain beliefs I'm challenging. And those beliefs are not to be confused for Life, Reality, or whatever!
I believe things about reality. You believe things about reality. Apparently, the things you believe about reality are different than the things I believe about reality.
I don't get all het up about what you believe about reality, but you sure as shootin' appear to be het up about what I believe about reality. Why?
(Also? I'm totes changing my .sig to my favorite Mythbusters quote ever thanks to this thread.)
[ 11. February 2010, 21:13: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
Or to sum it up - I think we are primarily called to a relationship not a body of knowledge.
Yet it's not friendship circles that we get, but churches... I think this underestimates the volume of knowledge each theological system claims it has...
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Personally, I think there's a danger in being too perfectionist about getting your ideas right. Good enough is good enough; it doesn't have to be absolutely spot on.
Well, it's not only about whether it's truth coming from God that you must make the sign of the cross with three or with two fingers, but it's also about whether Jesus was more than a mere human, or about whether a personal God exists.
Imagine this scenario:
There is no personal God. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. There is no resurrection, no after life, no one caring for us from above.
Andrew says to Christians: Are you making things up? How do you know you aren't?
Christians reply to Andrew: We might be wrong, but don't get too worked up with that! You shouldn't focus on getting all your ideas perfectly correct. It doesn't have to be actually spot on!
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Well, from what I have experienced, people would say "we believe this is God's Truth" rather than "we speculate, and this is our speculation, and it comes from us, and not from God, whose mind we don't really know".
...and do you have a problem with that?
Why?
'We believe' pretty much sums it up nicely.
I beg to differ. Even a cursory reading of these boards would be sufficient for one to realize that many people here do more than just speculate and offer their speculations as thoughts of their own making. To believe means something different than to speculate.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I see the pain and suffering in the world, the cruelty of nature, and the indifference of the skies, and I come to the conclusion that there is no personal almighty deity that cares for us.
You know that parable of the blind guys and the elephant? Well, you're the one at the back going: "There is no elephant, it's all just a giant heap of shit." Fine - that's your truth. Stick with it. Your experience is a true experience. Go do buddhist meditation or something that doesn't require you to believe in a deity.
FYI, I am not peddling any truth as "God's truth". My truth is mine. I may be mistaken, so might you. Think on.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
To believe means something different than to speculate.
But it also means something different from "to know". And this is the point you are not acknowledging.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
Because.
There, you happy now?
Why I believe in God and specifically Jesus is, in my world, one of those questions like "What color are your underpants today?" You know, one of those questions I don't post on open Internet forums and you have to develop some form of trust with me to get an answer.
Frankly, Andrew El Greco, I trust you about as far as I can throw you, and I don't think you're particuarly aerodynamic. Therefore, you're either going to have to accept the answer as given or deal with the suspense.
[ 11. February 2010, 22:07: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wm Duncan
Buoy tender
# 3021
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
Which, if true, would put them on at least the same level as the questioner, who has not described his own theological system's origins and how he knows.
[ 11. February 2010, 22:24: Message edited by: Wm Duncan ]
--------------------
I have overcome a fiercely anti-Catholic upbringing in order to attend Mass simply and solely to escape Protestant guitars. Why am I here? Who gave these nice Catholics guitars?
-- Annie Dillard
Posts: 1193 | From: about 30 km above the Juan de Fuca plate | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
To believe means something different than to speculate.
But it also means something different from "to know". And this is the point you are not acknowledging.
I believe you've understood my point perfectly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
[QUOTE]
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
Actually I believe I and several others have answered that question several times already, clearly and directly. You simply are, as you stated, "unsatisfied" with our answers. Which is your right.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Custard, I'd be wary of regarding Constantine as some kind of seminal watershed moment in Church History and rejecting everything non-pre-Constantinian. What about the Trinity, for example?
I'm not taking Constantine as a hard-and-fast watershed. Simply that post-Constantine, it's much easier for societal practice to get codified as tradition.
The Trinity is quite clearly pre-Constantinian. Well, the Trinity is eternal and pre-existent, of course, but even the doctrine is pre-Constantinian. It's not like those folks at Nicea (or Constantinople) made it up. It's clearly there in the NT; it's clearly there in Tertullian and Origen.
Important stuff like the Chalcedonian explanation of the two natures of Christ is either fairly clearly in accord with Scripture (in which case, let's keep it) or people arguing about metaphysics and precisely which set of language to use (in which case, let's read it then not really bother with it again).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying. The issue is not whether my wife really loves me, or whether rationality means morality, or whether we should only have opinions about things we know for sure, but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth.
Such ideas affect many people's lives (and not necessarily only those that believe them) which makes these concerns even more important.
Don't you get it? You've asked a question about the ability of humans to determine or decide upon reality. Religious belief is only one specific and rather small subset of that field. And I bet you know enough about contemporary philosophy of science that it's disingenuous for you to be even asking the question stated in your OP.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Spiffy, I have no interest in becoming personal. I'm more interested for the reasons your school of theology gives as to why their theology isn't made up, rather than for the private reasons that led you to Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Wm Duncan:
Which, if true, would put them on at least the same level as the questioner, who has not described his own theological system's origins and how he knows.
Not at all. You can say that something is not true, and that to be valid, without having to propose an alternative explanation. It's a logical fallacy to assume that one needs to suggest a whole new explanation before an old one gets rejected. If something is problematic, it's problematic and that doesn't depend on other explanations.
Let me put it this way.
I suggest a proof for a conjecture. A professional mathematician finds a mistake in that proof, and the mathematical community does not accept my proof. I can't say "but you have to suggest another proof if you are to reject mine as erroneous". No they don't.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Spiffy, I have no interest in becoming personal. I'm more interested for the reasons your school of theology
I have a school, now? Since when?
Faith is personal, buddy. Anyone who tells you different is lyin'.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Hmm, let me put it this way. When I walk into the church, I believe a few things. That God exists, that Christ is the Son of God, in the essential nature of the Trinity, and that the Lord's Supper is our communion in and with the Body of Christ.
I may have lots of questions on these beliefs, and often do. I deal with them. My faith is my own. It is not an assent to a list, nor a recitation of words, nor the performance of ceremonies. It is my response to God's love.
El Greco, you see Faith like a gate, a bar you must be on one side of, inside or out. I see Faith as a journey, a road whose path is marked by the love of Christ and our constant growth in understanding of His truth.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Greco appears to see faith as the result of a mathematical proof.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ Maths is in fact one of the few areas where that kind of notion of 'proof' works. Because it's built on a small set of defined axioms and is entirely abstract, mathematics is capable of that kind of proof.
Years ago I was involved in a maths school where we looked at some of the axioms and explored what happens when you use different axioms from the 'normal' ones. The results can be a little mind-bending.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I don't think God deals in what ifs; he deals in truth and Scripture is the means by which he makes that truth known.
God deals in truth and Orthodox Tradition is the means by which he makes that truth known. See, I proved you wrong.
Insofar as Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, I agree. Where it departs from Scripture, it is mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief” unnecessary or irrelevant. But I think that that kind of knowledge actually undermines genuine faith and offends God.
The reasoning goes something like this. God wants us to have faith. In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true? Faith, then (so the false reasoning goes), is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.
On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you. I see a lot of that on the ship. I've done it myself more that once. According to this epistemology, faith is a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness. When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,” as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.
This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking. We can hope, but we can never know. El Greco is right when he says that this will never work. Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.” If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.
I believe that the “I just take Christianity on faith” attitude cannot be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet the Apostle Peter directs us to make a defense for the hope that is in us. I take that to mean that what I believe that faith can be objectively defended because there is something objective about faith. In this respect El Greco is right again. Many people settle for having faith in faith, but I don't think that works either.
The biblical word for faith, pistis, doesn’t mean wishing. It means active trust; the type of trust that cannot be conjured up or manufactured. You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible speaks of unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true. It seems to me that El Greco's question is,"How do you know what is true? In other words what can you trust and why do you trust it?"
Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. I believe that ultimately Scripture is the only admissible evidence when it comes to the formation of rejection of doctrines. So, I would answer El Greco's OP like this: Scripture Alone. That's all I have to help me decide if a doctrine is true.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
After all, it's not like we care about the people around us enough to want to share the peace that we've found; it's just for us and the rest of the world is going to have to struggle on... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Kankucho has probably described it better than I. If the Gospel is relational, then it is displayed through relationship. Crapping on merely makes you a pain in the arse.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patdys:
[qb] The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel.
But Christ didn't simply rise from the dead as a private person with whom Christians have a private personal relationship. He rose as the public head of the church, so that in his rising all believers are joined to one another and together corporately participate in Christ's risen life. In this respect your first sentence is seriously, seriously erroneous.
Says You.
I disagree entirely.
But, At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
The church is a tool for relationship. It is good in that it encourages realtionship between each individual and Christ, each other and the environment. But is flawed. Seriously flawed. And worshipping the Church is idolatorous in my opinion.
But, At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
[ 12. February 2010, 06:59: Message edited by: Patdys ]
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty: Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. I believe that ultimately Scripture is the only admissible evidence when it comes to the formation of rejection of doctrines. So, I would answer El Greco's OP like this: Scripture Alone. That's all I have to help me decide if a doctrine is true.
But your answer isn't really "Scripture alone" - your answer is your faith that scripture is True. You call it 'knowledge' but really it is simply an experience, and act of recognition. My act of recognition led me to another path (btw, El G, Quakers don't have a theological system) and El Greco's led him to another.
How can those experiences all be 'true'? Well they can be partially true or relatively true, for starters. No one person, or even faith system can encompass the whole Truth about the whatever-it-is we call 'God'. What is required of us to navigate the path of truth? Respect for others' experience, humility and a mind which is 'grounded' but also open.
El Greco - your problem, as I see it, is that you have no respect for others and no concept of humility. You were the world expert on Orthodoxy and now you seem to think that you're the first person who ever discovered atheism. Do you think that people never had the experience that "there is no God"? I suggest you go away and do some reading, if that's the case. And yet some people persist in Faith. Why is that? You don't know, and nobody can tell you, because seemingly the only voice you really hear is your own.
eta: misplaced apostrophe ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 12. February 2010, 07:41: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
