Reason versus faith. Can an intelligent person believe in God today or has science replaced God? Is it possible to be a person of both reason and faith?
Atheism is on the rise. One of the reasons is due to the ongoing battle (or at least perceived battle) between faith and reason. Many people believe that science has replaced God and that faith must always retreat with the advance of reason and knowledge.
Here are two myths that form the basis of this rise of atheism and agnosticism. If a person can get past these myths, he or she will quickly appreciate that the appeal of atheism is superficial and that there remain solid reasons to embrace the existence of God and the supernatural.
Myth #1: Religion is only based on superstitions and legends
There is a theme underlying the agnostic-progressive ideology advanced by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The theme goes something like this: As humankind evolved, they began to experiment with and embrace various superstitions and legends, which over time, evolved into our modern religions.
The most dangerous lie is the one that contains a portion of truth. This myth is a perfect example. Yes, there was rampant superstition in the ancient world. And, yes, many of the legends and fables were informed by that superstition. And, yes, religion - broadly speaking - has no doubt been fueled by superstition, myth, and legend. All that is true - as far as it goes.
However, to say that all people die of cancer, because many people die of cancer is obviously an illogical argument - and flatly incorrect. Likewise, it is fallacious to argue that all the claims made by those associated with religion are bogus, because religion has been influenced by humanity's age-old relationship with legend and superstition. Religious truth claims deserve to be assessed on their own merit, as with any other truth claim.
What's more, just because many of the incredible ancient stories are legendary accounts based on exaggerated oral tradition and/or superstition doesn't mean that they all are. Some of those incredible stories deserve a closer look. Some of them just might be true.
Myth #2: Atheism is based on reason and science
Once the atheists and agnostics make the argument that religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition, they advance the notion that atheism is based on sound reason and scientific evidence.
The truth is that atheism is based on naturalism, which is a philosophical presupposition. As Phillip Johnson, a leading critic of evolution, puts it: "Scientists start by assuming that naturalism is true, and they try to give purely natural explanations for everything, including our existence."
Clearly, if the scientific community approaches the universe with a naturalistic mindset, the members of said community will arrive at naturalistic conclusions. What you put into the calculator, you will get out of the calculator. It's simple. But everyone observing this process should understand that the modern scientific community has stacked the deck against monotheism from the outset, thus skewing the results in favor of atheism.
The bottom line is that atheism and agnosticism are not the products of reason and science. Rather, they are the logical outcomes of a naturalistic mindset, which is every bit as philosophical (some might even say "religious") as monotheism.
The copyright of the article Faith and Reason in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Faith and Reason in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Dec 31, 2007 6:01 AM
Pink :
.
You wrote, <i>"Atheism is on the rise. One of the reasons is due to the ongoing battle (or at least perceived battle) between faith and reason."</i>
.
Another and, maybe, more significant reason is related to the extremism developed by Fundamentalism. It started in Christianity and has spread to Judaism and Islam as well. Eventually, it puts the focus on a purism that seeks to get every believer doing the goose step no matter what religious belief system is involved.
.
That amounts to shooting yourself in the foot when it~~finally~~surfaces in the public view. When observers eventually see the truth behind Fundamentalism, they "know" what they are looking at is bogus.
.
It seems like believers would be well advised to give up on Fundamentalism and its attempts to get everyone doing the goose step as they march onward to Zion. Demands that all believers "kiss the book" are outrageous.
.
Just admitting would be a good starter.
.
You wrote, <i>"Atheism is on the rise. One of the reasons is due to the ongoing battle (or at least perceived battle) between faith and reason."</i>
.
Another and, maybe, more significant reason is related to the extremism developed by Fundamentalism. It started in Christianity and has spread to Judaism and Islam as well. Eventually, it puts the focus on a purism that seeks to get every believer doing the goose step no matter what religious belief system is involved.
.
That amounts to shooting yourself in the foot when it~~finally~~surfaces in the public view. When observers eventually see the truth behind Fundamentalism, they "know" what they are looking at is bogus.
.
It seems like believers would be well advised to give up on Fundamentalism and its attempts to get everyone doing the goose step as they march onward to Zion. Demands that all believers "kiss the book" are outrageous.
.
Just admitting would be a good starter.
.
Dec 31, 2007 9:39 AM
Migisi :
.
Good points, Pink. Religious extremism and obsessive preoccupation with religion is a total turn off to reasonable people. 'Religious fundamentalism' has a negative connotation these days because of the fanatics associated with it.
.
From the article: <i>"...just because many of the incredible ancient stories are legendary accounts based on exaggerated oral tradition and/or superstition doesn't mean that they all are. Some of those incredible stories deserve a closer look. Some of them just might be true."</i>
.
Admission that religious myths exist. Who decides which stories are exaggerated superstitious legends to be discounted, and which of the 'incredible' (definition: so implausible as to elicit disbelief) stories are true? Focusing on the Bible - if it's considered the 'Word of God' - as Fundamentalists claim - aren't adherents required to believe it's all true?
.
From the article: <i>"Once the atheists and agnostics make the argument that religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition, they advance the notion that atheism is based on sound reason and scientific evidence."</i>
.
One doesn't have to be an atheist to conclude that "religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition". A Christian believer might conclude this about all nonChristian religions. A Jew might conclude it about all religions except Judaism. And so on.
.
Are theists allowed to believe in sound reason and scientific evidence too, or is this reserved for atheists only? Atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Nonbelief in a god doesn't automatically mean a person agrees with everything every scientist proposes ('evidence' concerning what, Brian doesn't specify). Scientists frequently dispute other scientists' findings.
.
<i>What you put into the calculator, you will get out of the calculator. It's simple.</i>
.
Yes, a simple math story problem -- no need for a calculator -- use the fingers on one hand ..... 1 person + 1 person + 1 person = 3 people. Not 1 god.
.
<i>But everyone observing this process should understand that the modern scientific community has stacked the deck against monotheism from the outset, thus skewing the results in favor of atheism.</i>
.
Boiled down: Science = atheism?
Good points, Pink. Religious extremism and obsessive preoccupation with religion is a total turn off to reasonable people. 'Religious fundamentalism' has a negative connotation these days because of the fanatics associated with it.
.
From the article: <i>"...just because many of the incredible ancient stories are legendary accounts based on exaggerated oral tradition and/or superstition doesn't mean that they all are. Some of those incredible stories deserve a closer look. Some of them just might be true."</i>
.
Admission that religious myths exist. Who decides which stories are exaggerated superstitious legends to be discounted, and which of the 'incredible' (definition: so implausible as to elicit disbelief) stories are true? Focusing on the Bible - if it's considered the 'Word of God' - as Fundamentalists claim - aren't adherents required to believe it's all true?
.
From the article: <i>"Once the atheists and agnostics make the argument that religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition, they advance the notion that atheism is based on sound reason and scientific evidence."</i>
.
One doesn't have to be an atheist to conclude that "religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition". A Christian believer might conclude this about all nonChristian religions. A Jew might conclude it about all religions except Judaism. And so on.
.
Are theists allowed to believe in sound reason and scientific evidence too, or is this reserved for atheists only? Atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Nonbelief in a god doesn't automatically mean a person agrees with everything every scientist proposes ('evidence' concerning what, Brian doesn't specify). Scientists frequently dispute other scientists' findings.
.
<i>What you put into the calculator, you will get out of the calculator. It's simple.</i>
.
Yes, a simple math story problem -- no need for a calculator -- use the fingers on one hand ..... 1 person + 1 person + 1 person = 3 people. Not 1 god.
.
<i>But everyone observing this process should understand that the modern scientific community has stacked the deck against monotheism from the outset, thus skewing the results in favor of atheism.</i>
.
Boiled down: Science = atheism?
Dec 31, 2007 5:23 PM
Pink :
.
I'm 76 and half way to 77.
.
I've been involved~~intimately~~with Christian Fundamentalism for about 72 years or so.
.
The point here is that I understand the relationships it builds up amongst its <i>adherents</i>. (That was a good word or you to use, Migisi.)
.
They constantly seek out a more pure way of understanding God through their scrupulous study of God through His Word--the Bible. They consistently think of the Bible as it is God speaking to them. Bring up a subject they haven't considered and they'll tell you that they will have to see what God has to say about that. Which means, they'll do a Bible search to get their answer.
.
Not only do they search the Bible as the foundation of their faith; but, they go over and over it to continuously refine their beliefs to be more and more closely related to where God expects of them to be in their walk. You have to know them on an intimate basis to truly understand their ways. It's not what they say; but, it is how they live their life.
.
It is the way Fundamentalism works. And, I'm sure it's the same way with Judaism and Islam.
.
I'm 76 and half way to 77.
.
I've been involved~~intimately~~with Christian Fundamentalism for about 72 years or so.
.
The point here is that I understand the relationships it builds up amongst its <i>adherents</i>. (That was a good word or you to use, Migisi.)
.
They constantly seek out a more pure way of understanding God through their scrupulous study of God through His Word--the Bible. They consistently think of the Bible as it is God speaking to them. Bring up a subject they haven't considered and they'll tell you that they will have to see what God has to say about that. Which means, they'll do a Bible search to get their answer.
.
Not only do they search the Bible as the foundation of their faith; but, they go over and over it to continuously refine their beliefs to be more and more closely related to where God expects of them to be in their walk. You have to know them on an intimate basis to truly understand their ways. It's not what they say; but, it is how they live their life.
.
It is the way Fundamentalism works. And, I'm sure it's the same way with Judaism and Islam.
.
Jan 1, 2008 12:23 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Clarifications...
I acknowledged there are religious myths and superstitions. I did NOT say the Bible contained myths and superstitions. For the record, I do not believe that it does.
My overall point in the article is that atheists tend to claim that their belief system (atheism) is based on reason and science, and that this is a faulty argument (on their part). There seems to be some confusion in what you inferred from my article.
Once again, you take a shot at the Trinitarian doctrine. I understand that some people are not comfortable with the Trinity. Let's debate that in the Trinity thread.
http://protestantism.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8509
I acknowledged there are religious myths and superstitions. I did NOT say the Bible contained myths and superstitions. For the record, I do not believe that it does.
My overall point in the article is that atheists tend to claim that their belief system (atheism) is based on reason and science, and that this is a faulty argument (on their part). There seems to be some confusion in what you inferred from my article.
Once again, you take a shot at the Trinitarian doctrine. I understand that some people are not comfortable with the Trinity. Let's debate that in the Trinity thread.
http://protestantism.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8509
Jan 1, 2008 12:30 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Disregard
Jan 3, 2008 4:14 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I acknowledge that there are Christians who take the doctrine of biblical
authority or inerrancy to an extreme. However, let's agree that the
doctrine of biblical authority was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in
his letter to Timothy.
<i>All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness</i> - 2 Timothy 3:16
Paul was directly referring to the Jewish Scriptures (i.e, the Old Testament) but was also including any additional written revelations from God that might be identified as "Scripture."
(It's like the Founding Fathers writing that the "Constitution" was the "Supreme Law of the Land." They only saw the initial Articles and, later, the next 12 amendments. But they had in mind the possibility that further amendments would be added).
I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion on the canon, though. We can do that in a different thread. For now, I simply want to show that Paul's statement affirms the DOCTRINE of scriptural authority. It is NOT a recent, "fundamentalist" corruption - as you (Pink) seem to imply.
<i>All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness</i> - 2 Timothy 3:16
Paul was directly referring to the Jewish Scriptures (i.e, the Old Testament) but was also including any additional written revelations from God that might be identified as "Scripture."
(It's like the Founding Fathers writing that the "Constitution" was the "Supreme Law of the Land." They only saw the initial Articles and, later, the next 12 amendments. But they had in mind the possibility that further amendments would be added).
I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion on the canon, though. We can do that in a different thread. For now, I simply want to show that Paul's statement affirms the DOCTRINE of scriptural authority. It is NOT a recent, "fundamentalist" corruption - as you (Pink) seem to imply.
Jan 3, 2008 4:27 PM
Pink :
.
<i>"...let's agree that the doctrine of biblical authority was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy."</i>
.
What the apostle Paul meant by the word, Scripture, is not what you mean by the word.
.
<i>"...let's agree that the doctrine of biblical authority was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy."</i>
.
What the apostle Paul meant by the word, Scripture, is not what you mean by the word.
.
Jan 4, 2008 7:41 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Paul most certainly understood "Scripture" to mean revelation
from God preserved in writing. I don't think any scholar or student of the
ancient literature would dispute that.
So, our difference comes down to the canon - what books rightfully make up the "Bible."
So, our difference comes down to the canon - what books rightfully make up the "Bible."
Jan 4, 2008 8:07 AM
Pink :
.
What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with the written word that was read in Synagogue and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing. Otherwise, he would have claimed his letters were Scripture. He actually set his words aside as HIS personal opinion. And, you know that is true. No sense in trying to change it.
.
What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with the written word that was read in Synagogue and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing. Otherwise, he would have claimed his letters were Scripture. He actually set his words aside as HIS personal opinion. And, you know that is true. No sense in trying to change it.
.
Jan 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with the written word that was read in Synagogue and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing.</i>
.
Right. As I understand it, 'scripture' to Paul would've been the Oral Torah (Talmud), the Written Torah (Tanakh), and the Midrashim (explanations of stories and rabbinical interpretations of Torah). The epistles would be more like a Christian Midrashim.
<i>What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with the written word that was read in Synagogue and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing.</i>
.
Right. As I understand it, 'scripture' to Paul would've been the Oral Torah (Talmud), the Written Torah (Tanakh), and the Midrashim (explanations of stories and rabbinical interpretations of Torah). The epistles would be more like a Christian Midrashim.
Jan 6, 2008 9:45 AM
Migisi :
.
From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=489&letter=C#1632
.
"Faith and Reason.
.
"Paul's depreciation of the Law and his laudation of faith (in Christ) as the only saving power for Jew and Gentile (cites sources) had, in the Middle Ages, an injurious effect upon the mental progress of man. Faith, as exhibited by Abraham and as demanded of the people in the Old Testament and rabbinical writings, is a simple, childlike trust in God; and accordingly "littleness of faith" -that is, want of perfect confidence in the divine goodness- is declared by Jesus as well as by the Rabbis in the Talmud as unworthy of the true servant and son of God (cites sources). Paul's theology made faith a meritorious act of saving quality (Rom. i. 16); and the more meritorious it is the less is it in harmony with the wisdom of the wise, appearing rather as "foolishness" (I Cor. i. 18-31). From this it was but one step to Tertullian's perfect surrender of reason, as expressed in, "Credo quia absurdum," or, more correctly, "Credibile quia ineptum; certum est quia impossibile est" (To be believed because it is foolish; certain because impossible"; "De Carne Christi," v.). Blind faith, which renders the impossible possible (Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a credulity throughout Christendom which became indifferent to the laws of nature and which deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"). A craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, or sanctioned, under the form of relic-worship, old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed. Whereas Judaism made the study of the Law, or rather of the Torah-which is learning, and included science and philosophy as well as religion- the foremost duty of each member of the household (cites sources), medieval Christianity tended to find bliss in ignorance, because knowledge and belief seemed incompatible (Lecky, "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne," ii. 203-210; idem, "History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe," i. 1-201)."
From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=489&letter=C#1632
.
"Faith and Reason.
.
"Paul's depreciation of the Law and his laudation of faith (in Christ) as the only saving power for Jew and Gentile (cites sources) had, in the Middle Ages, an injurious effect upon the mental progress of man. Faith, as exhibited by Abraham and as demanded of the people in the Old Testament and rabbinical writings, is a simple, childlike trust in God; and accordingly "littleness of faith" -that is, want of perfect confidence in the divine goodness- is declared by Jesus as well as by the Rabbis in the Talmud as unworthy of the true servant and son of God (cites sources). Paul's theology made faith a meritorious act of saving quality (Rom. i. 16); and the more meritorious it is the less is it in harmony with the wisdom of the wise, appearing rather as "foolishness" (I Cor. i. 18-31). From this it was but one step to Tertullian's perfect surrender of reason, as expressed in, "Credo quia absurdum," or, more correctly, "Credibile quia ineptum; certum est quia impossibile est" (To be believed because it is foolish; certain because impossible"; "De Carne Christi," v.). Blind faith, which renders the impossible possible (Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a credulity throughout Christendom which became indifferent to the laws of nature and which deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"). A craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, or sanctioned, under the form of relic-worship, old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed. Whereas Judaism made the study of the Law, or rather of the Torah-which is learning, and included science and philosophy as well as religion- the foremost duty of each member of the household (cites sources), medieval Christianity tended to find bliss in ignorance, because knowledge and belief seemed incompatible (Lecky, "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne," ii. 203-210; idem, "History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe," i. 1-201)."
Jan 7, 2008 12:32 AM
Paper Turtle :
.
The following quote from Elizabeth Gilbert's book <i>Eat, Pray, Love</i> pretty much sums up my thinking on faith V reason:
.
.
Devotion is diligence without assurance. Faith is a way of saying, "Yes, I pre-accept the terms of the universe and I embrace in advance what I am presently incapable of understanding." There's a reason we refer to "leaps of faith"-because the decision to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable, and I don't care how diligently scholars of every religion will try to sit you down with their stacks of books and prove to you through scripture that their faith is indeed rational; it isn't. If faith were rational, it wouldn't be--by definition--faith. Faith is belief in what you cannot see or prove or touch. Faith is walking face-first and full-speed into the dark. If we truly knew all the answers in advance as to the meaning of life and the nature of God and the destiny of our souls, our belief would not be a leap of faith and it would not be a courageous act of humanity; it would just be . . . a prudent insurance policy.
.
I'm not interested in the insurance policy. I'm tired of being a skeptic, I'm irritated by spiritual prudence and I feel bored and parched by empirical debate. I don't want to hear it anymore. I couldn't care less about evidence and proof and assurances. I just want God. I want God inside me. I want God to play in my bloodstream the way sunlight amuses itself on the water. (pp 175-176; ellipses part of original)
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
The following quote from Elizabeth Gilbert's book <i>Eat, Pray, Love</i> pretty much sums up my thinking on faith V reason:
.
.
Devotion is diligence without assurance. Faith is a way of saying, "Yes, I pre-accept the terms of the universe and I embrace in advance what I am presently incapable of understanding." There's a reason we refer to "leaps of faith"-because the decision to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable, and I don't care how diligently scholars of every religion will try to sit you down with their stacks of books and prove to you through scripture that their faith is indeed rational; it isn't. If faith were rational, it wouldn't be--by definition--faith. Faith is belief in what you cannot see or prove or touch. Faith is walking face-first and full-speed into the dark. If we truly knew all the answers in advance as to the meaning of life and the nature of God and the destiny of our souls, our belief would not be a leap of faith and it would not be a courageous act of humanity; it would just be . . . a prudent insurance policy.
.
I'm not interested in the insurance policy. I'm tired of being a skeptic, I'm irritated by spiritual prudence and I feel bored and parched by empirical debate. I don't want to hear it anymore. I couldn't care less about evidence and proof and assurances. I just want God. I want God inside me. I want God to play in my bloodstream the way sunlight amuses itself on the water. (pp 175-176; ellipses part of original)
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Jan 7, 2008 4:49 AM
Pink :
.
Makes sense to me.
.
:)
.
Makes sense to me.
.
:)
.
Jan 7, 2008 6:23 AM
Migisi :
.
And to me. Especially...
.
<i>"... to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable... If faith were rational, it wouldn't be--by definition--faith.... it would just be . . . a prudent insurance policy."</i>
.
Not all insurance policies cover acts of God. Gotta read the fine print. :)
And to me. Especially...
.
<i>"... to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable... If faith were rational, it wouldn't be--by definition--faith.... it would just be . . . a prudent insurance policy."</i>
.
Not all insurance policies cover acts of God. Gotta read the fine print. :)
Jan 7, 2008 7:01 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Paper Turtle, thanks for quoting from Gilbert. I wish to take exception
with the following passage you provided...
<i>There's a reason we refer to "leaps of faith"-because the decision to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable, and I don't care how diligently scholars of every religion will try to sit you down with their stacks of books and prove to you through scripture that their faith is indeed rational; it isn't. If faith were rational, it wouldn't be--by definition--faith. Faith is belief in what you cannot see or prove or touch. Faith is walking face-first and full-speed into the dark.</i>
This may be Gilbert's experience. As such, I am not going to challenge it across the board. I can tell you that my mother was more or less along these same lines in her faith experience. BUT...
Gilbert is WRONG (and so is anyone else) to broadly apply this to everyone. The fact of the matter is that many people come to Christianity (I won't speak for the other religions here) through study and research. Read up on Lee Strobel, for example. His experience is VERY different from Ms. Gilbert.
I would also take exception to how far she takes her definition of faith. She's absolutely right that faith involves walking into the dark. She's wrong to imply that that's necessarily ALL there is to it.
<i>There's a reason we refer to "leaps of faith"-because the decision to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable, and I don't care how diligently scholars of every religion will try to sit you down with their stacks of books and prove to you through scripture that their faith is indeed rational; it isn't. If faith were rational, it wouldn't be--by definition--faith. Faith is belief in what you cannot see or prove or touch. Faith is walking face-first and full-speed into the dark.</i>
This may be Gilbert's experience. As such, I am not going to challenge it across the board. I can tell you that my mother was more or less along these same lines in her faith experience. BUT...
Gilbert is WRONG (and so is anyone else) to broadly apply this to everyone. The fact of the matter is that many people come to Christianity (I won't speak for the other religions here) through study and research. Read up on Lee Strobel, for example. His experience is VERY different from Ms. Gilbert.
I would also take exception to how far she takes her definition of faith. She's absolutely right that faith involves walking into the dark. She's wrong to imply that that's necessarily ALL there is to it.
Jan 7, 2008 7:08 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with
the written word that was read in Synagogue...</i>
True
<i>...and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing</i>
False
<i>Otherwise, he would have claimed his letters were Scripture.</i>
You're jumping ahead a couple steps here, which conveniently sets up a straw man you can pummel. The Apostle Paul KNEW he was an apostle and KNEW that his teachings carried apostolic authority. Both his verbal teachings AND his written teachings carried that authority.
<i>He actually set his words aside as HIS personal opinion.</i>
He did this on only ONE occasion (for sure) and that was in I Corinthians 7.
<i>And, you know that is true. No sense in trying to change it.</i>
This is borderline what some would see as "rhetorical bullying." :) Not going to work with me. :)
I do not "know" your opinion to be true. In fact, I find your understanding of Paul to be seriously flawed.
True
<i>...and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing</i>
False
<i>Otherwise, he would have claimed his letters were Scripture.</i>
You're jumping ahead a couple steps here, which conveniently sets up a straw man you can pummel. The Apostle Paul KNEW he was an apostle and KNEW that his teachings carried apostolic authority. Both his verbal teachings AND his written teachings carried that authority.
<i>He actually set his words aside as HIS personal opinion.</i>
He did this on only ONE occasion (for sure) and that was in I Corinthians 7.
<i>And, you know that is true. No sense in trying to change it.</i>
This is borderline what some would see as "rhetorical bullying." :) Not going to work with me. :)
I do not "know" your opinion to be true. In fact, I find your understanding of Paul to be seriously flawed.
Jan 7, 2008 11:22 PM
Paper Turtle :
<i>Gilbert is WRONG (and so is anyone else) to broadly apply this to
everyone. The fact of the matter is that many people come to Christianity
(I won't speak for the other religions here) through study and research.
Read up on Lee Strobel, for example. His experience is VERY different from
Ms. Gilbert.</i>
.
Ah, but Brian, what led Strobel to WANT to do that study and research--or, perhaps more accurately, WHO? Of course God can and does speak to people through their minds, but what apprehends the message, and inspires them to want to pursue it comes from Spirit. And this spark of Spirit speaks a very different language than the intellect.
.
I've done a fair amount of research on conversion expriences, and I've talked to a lot of people about what led them to want to become people of faith. I can't recall a single one who didn't mention some inner prompting they didn't quite understand, anc couldn't even completely verbalize--but was very real to them nonetheless. Study and research may be one path to faith, but without heeding the inner voice, and without the transformation of the heart, it does not lead to authentic faith. And even if study and research is the path, the first step on the path was taken when the person heeded that mysterious Inner Call--and leapt without reasoning it all out first.
.
Of course there's more to faith than just the leap in the dark, but the leap is always there. We leap every time we act on faith. We leap every time we come smack up against the fact that we don't have a clue, and we cannot control anything in the Universe except ourselves (and sometimes this feels impossible). We leap every time we trust in God's goodness and mercy in the face of what we see in the world. We leap every time we recognize our own need of forgiveness and healing.
.
God gave us minds and of course he expects us to use them, but from what I have seen with my own eyes, what changes hearts, what transforms lives, what heals and brings hope is love, not facts. Sometimes what is true is completely inexplicable and might seem, on the surface, irrational. But its true, and you just know it, all the way down to your toes.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
.
Ah, but Brian, what led Strobel to WANT to do that study and research--or, perhaps more accurately, WHO? Of course God can and does speak to people through their minds, but what apprehends the message, and inspires them to want to pursue it comes from Spirit. And this spark of Spirit speaks a very different language than the intellect.
.
I've done a fair amount of research on conversion expriences, and I've talked to a lot of people about what led them to want to become people of faith. I can't recall a single one who didn't mention some inner prompting they didn't quite understand, anc couldn't even completely verbalize--but was very real to them nonetheless. Study and research may be one path to faith, but without heeding the inner voice, and without the transformation of the heart, it does not lead to authentic faith. And even if study and research is the path, the first step on the path was taken when the person heeded that mysterious Inner Call--and leapt without reasoning it all out first.
.
Of course there's more to faith than just the leap in the dark, but the leap is always there. We leap every time we act on faith. We leap every time we come smack up against the fact that we don't have a clue, and we cannot control anything in the Universe except ourselves (and sometimes this feels impossible). We leap every time we trust in God's goodness and mercy in the face of what we see in the world. We leap every time we recognize our own need of forgiveness and healing.
.
God gave us minds and of course he expects us to use them, but from what I have seen with my own eyes, what changes hearts, what transforms lives, what heals and brings hope is love, not facts. Sometimes what is true is completely inexplicable and might seem, on the surface, irrational. But its true, and you just know it, all the way down to your toes.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Jan 8, 2008 6:13 AM
Pink :
.
I won't argue the point with you.
.
The point I stand on is that Paul speaks of Scripture as an object. He does not claim that he is adding to Scripture nor does he say, "These words that I am writing are Scripture also known as the Revealed Word of God."
.
It's good for us to exchange ideas.
.
I won't argue the point with you.
.
The point I stand on is that Paul speaks of Scripture as an object. He does not claim that he is adding to Scripture nor does he say, "These words that I am writing are Scripture also known as the Revealed Word of God."
.
It's good for us to exchange ideas.
.
Jan 8, 2008 6:20 AM
Pink :
.
Interesting.
.
I've been reading some social theories and came across some ideas about coercion that line up with what you're saying in your post.
.
I agree with you.
.
Actually, you're touching on what our Founding Fathers called the unalienable rights--living under the God of Nature's laws. No coercion can force a person to give up their personal beliefs.
.
.
Interesting.
.
I've been reading some social theories and came across some ideas about coercion that line up with what you're saying in your post.
.
I agree with you.
.
Actually, you're touching on what our Founding Fathers called the unalienable rights--living under the God of Nature's laws. No coercion can force a person to give up their personal beliefs.
.
.
Jan 8, 2008 6:27 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>The Apostle Paul KNEW he was an apostle and KNEW that his teachings carried apostolic authority.</i>
.
Paul CLAIMED he was an apostle and CLAIMED his teachings carried authority.
.
An interesting article:
<b>Why did the Apostles Reject Paul?</b>
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
.
<i>In fact, I find your understanding of Paul to be seriously flawed.</i>
.
And your's is seriously biased. But being a pastor, it would have to be.
<i>The Apostle Paul KNEW he was an apostle and KNEW that his teachings carried apostolic authority.</i>
.
Paul CLAIMED he was an apostle and CLAIMED his teachings carried authority.
.
An interesting article:
<b>Why did the Apostles Reject Paul?</b>
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
.
<i>In fact, I find your understanding of Paul to be seriously flawed.</i>
.
And your's is seriously biased. But being a pastor, it would have to be.
Jan 8, 2008 11:09 AM
Paper Turtle :
<i><b>Brian wrote:</b>
The Apostle Paul KNEW he was an apostle and KNEW that his teachings carried apostolic authority.
.
<b>Migisi responded:</b>
Paul CLAIMED he was an apostle and CLAIMED his teachings carried authority.
.</i>
We are not mind readers. We have no way of ever **absolutely** determining what another person knows. Were you arguing your case in a court of law, Brian, you would be ruled against on the grounds of hearsay. Paul isn't here to testify for himself what he did or did not know. All we have is his *claim* of authority.
.
You find Migisi's understanding "seriously flawed," but that is, after all, only *your* opinion, baased upon *your* understanding.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
The Apostle Paul KNEW he was an apostle and KNEW that his teachings carried apostolic authority.
.
<b>Migisi responded:</b>
Paul CLAIMED he was an apostle and CLAIMED his teachings carried authority.
.</i>
We are not mind readers. We have no way of ever **absolutely** determining what another person knows. Were you arguing your case in a court of law, Brian, you would be ruled against on the grounds of hearsay. Paul isn't here to testify for himself what he did or did not know. All we have is his *claim* of authority.
.
You find Migisi's understanding "seriously flawed," but that is, after all, only *your* opinion, baased upon *your* understanding.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Jan 8, 2008 11:30 AM
Pink :
.
The apostle Paul may have claimed this and he may have claimed that; but, I don't ever recall reading where he claimed his words were Scripture. He may have claimed divine inspiration and he may have quoted Scripture; but, to him, the Scriptures were documents out side his own writings.
.
The point isn't what <b>we </b>call Scripture, it is what<b> Paul </b>called Scripture.
.
The apostle Paul may have claimed this and he may have claimed that; but, I don't ever recall reading where he claimed his words were Scripture. He may have claimed divine inspiration and he may have quoted Scripture; but, to him, the Scriptures were documents out side his own writings.
.
The point isn't what <b>we </b>call Scripture, it is what<b> Paul </b>called Scripture.
.
Jan 8, 2008 11:50 AM
Paper Turtle :
<i>I don't ever recall reading where he claimed his words were
Scripture.</i>
I agree, and my take is that with his background as a devout Jew, he would not have made such a claim--so deep would have been his respect for what he knew as Scripture.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
I agree, and my take is that with his background as a devout Jew, he would not have made such a claim--so deep would have been his respect for what he knew as Scripture.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Jan 8, 2008 12:13 PM
Brian Tubbs :
In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul writes that the Christian
movement or the universal church is "built on the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief
cornerstone." (Ephesians 2:20)
In other words, the teachings of the prophets (Old Testament) and those of the apostles (what would become the written New Testament) are on the same level! And then Jesus (not just his teachings, ministry, etc. - but Jesus HIMSELF) is the "chief cornerstone" of the church.
So, did Paul say "What I am writing is Scripture"? He didn't use that word "Scripture" in connection with himself, but he DID elevate apostolic teaching to the same level as the prophetic teachings in the Old Testament - and did make it clear that apostolic teaching was at the core foundation of the Christian church.
In other words, the teachings of the prophets (Old Testament) and those of the apostles (what would become the written New Testament) are on the same level! And then Jesus (not just his teachings, ministry, etc. - but Jesus HIMSELF) is the "chief cornerstone" of the church.
So, did Paul say "What I am writing is Scripture"? He didn't use that word "Scripture" in connection with himself, but he DID elevate apostolic teaching to the same level as the prophetic teachings in the Old Testament - and did make it clear that apostolic teaching was at the core foundation of the Christian church.
Jan 8, 2008 12:33 PM
Pink :
.
My only point to you, Brian, was and is that Paul was not referring to the New Testament when he talked about Scriptures.
.
Apparently you agree; but, you still want to include the New Testament just as though Paul had meant it to be Scripture.
.
That's not a problem as far as I can see; but, there is a distinction and it should be made.
.
My only point to you, Brian, was and is that Paul was not referring to the New Testament when he talked about Scriptures.
.
Apparently you agree; but, you still want to include the New Testament just as though Paul had meant it to be Scripture.
.
That's not a problem as far as I can see; but, there is a distinction and it should be made.
.
Jan 8, 2008 12:43 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Paper Turtle, I actually don't differ that widely from your explanation
here. A few comments...
<i>Of course God can and does speak to people through their minds, but what apprehends the message, and inspires them to want to pursue it comes from Spirit. And this spark of Spirit speaks a very different language than the intellect.</i>
I agree 100%. Very well said.
<i>I can't recall a single one who didn't mention some inner prompting they didn't quite understand, anc couldn't even completely verbalize--but was very real to them nonetheless.</i>
Absolutely. The work of the Spirit is a beautiful thing.
<i>Study and research may be one path to faith, but without heeding the inner voice, and without the transformation of the heart, it does not lead to authentic faith.</i>
True. It's a "path" toward faith, but will only take you so far. I agree, and so would Lee Strobel.
<i>And even if study and research is the path, the first step on the path was taken when the person heeded that mysterious Inner Call--and leapt without reasoning it all out first. </i>
I agree with the "Inner Call," but I'm not fully comfortable with your point about leaping "without reasoning it all out first." I think the person RESPONDS to the inner call according to his or her surroundings, personality, temperament, etc. In the case of my mother, there wasn't an intellectual path involved. That just wasnt' her. In the case of my dad, there was. In my case, as a child, there was no intellectual path. But as I grew older, I began to question what I had been taught to believe. I tested my faith - and there was a deep intellectual componnent to that testing.
<i>Of course there's more to faith than just the leap in the dark, but the leap is always there</i>
Well said. I am in 1000% agreement w/ that statement.
But where, I think, we MIGHT differ is where some people take the individual faith journey concept. For example, the early church (according to Luke) "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers (Acts 2:42). All of those things are important, including doctrine. And doctrine has an intellectual, logical component to it.
So, if a person feels "led" to cheat on his or her spouse, biblical doctrine is right there saying - NO! Adultery and extra-marital sex is wrong. Period.
Now, granted, I'm moving from conversion to discipleship here, but my point is that we can't get so wrapped up in the 'heart and f
<i>Of course God can and does speak to people through their minds, but what apprehends the message, and inspires them to want to pursue it comes from Spirit. And this spark of Spirit speaks a very different language than the intellect.</i>
I agree 100%. Very well said.
<i>I can't recall a single one who didn't mention some inner prompting they didn't quite understand, anc couldn't even completely verbalize--but was very real to them nonetheless.</i>
Absolutely. The work of the Spirit is a beautiful thing.
<i>Study and research may be one path to faith, but without heeding the inner voice, and without the transformation of the heart, it does not lead to authentic faith.</i>
True. It's a "path" toward faith, but will only take you so far. I agree, and so would Lee Strobel.
<i>And even if study and research is the path, the first step on the path was taken when the person heeded that mysterious Inner Call--and leapt without reasoning it all out first. </i>
I agree with the "Inner Call," but I'm not fully comfortable with your point about leaping "without reasoning it all out first." I think the person RESPONDS to the inner call according to his or her surroundings, personality, temperament, etc. In the case of my mother, there wasn't an intellectual path involved. That just wasnt' her. In the case of my dad, there was. In my case, as a child, there was no intellectual path. But as I grew older, I began to question what I had been taught to believe. I tested my faith - and there was a deep intellectual componnent to that testing.
<i>Of course there's more to faith than just the leap in the dark, but the leap is always there</i>
Well said. I am in 1000% agreement w/ that statement.
But where, I think, we MIGHT differ is where some people take the individual faith journey concept. For example, the early church (according to Luke) "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers (Acts 2:42). All of those things are important, including doctrine. And doctrine has an intellectual, logical component to it.
So, if a person feels "led" to cheat on his or her spouse, biblical doctrine is right there saying - NO! Adultery and extra-marital sex is wrong. Period.
Now, granted, I'm moving from conversion to discipleship here, but my point is that we can't get so wrapped up in the 'heart and f
Jan 8, 2008 12:55 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I maintain that Paul was referring to the "Scriptures" in the
same way the early Founders referred to the "Constitution." The
Founders knew that the Constitution could and would expand. Likewise, Paul
knew that the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles carried the same
weight as the prophets of the Old Testament. As such, Paul understood that
the "Scriptures" were expanding. There is a lot of evidence for
that from Paul's writings, Peter's writings, and the beliefs of the early
church fathers. If you want to reject this view, that's fine, but it's
there. It's a historical Christian viewpoint - one that can be traced right
back to the time of Paul.
Jan 8, 2008 3:04 PM
Migisi :
.
Paul had his own gospel.
.
Romans 2:16 - "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as <b>my gospel declares</b>."
.
<i>His</i> gospel! Not Jesus' gospel?
.
Romans 16:25 - "Now to him who is able to establish you by<b> my gospel</b>..."
.
<i>His</i> gospel, again.
.
1 Corinthians 15:1 - "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel <b>I preached to you</b>, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word <b>I preached to you</b>. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."
.
If they listened to any other gospel preacher, like Peter, James, etc., they weren't saved.
.
Galatians 1:8 - "But even if we <b>or <i>an angel from heaven</i> should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!</b>"
.
Imagine the audacity Paul had to condemn "an angel <i>from heaven</i>" if the angel preached a gospel different than his!
.
1 Timothy 1:11 - "...that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to <b>me</b>..."
.
God entrusted the gospel to Paul alone - not to Peter, or James, etc.
.
2 Timothy 2:8 - "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. <b>This is my gospel,</b>"
.
Again, with 'my' gospel. What were the other apostles preaching? I mean, the REAL apostles who were hand-picked by Jesus himself, and walked and talked with the Jesus in the flesh? Paul says 'Remember Jesus Christ', as if Paul could remember a man he'd never met?
Paul had his own gospel.
.
Romans 2:16 - "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as <b>my gospel declares</b>."
.
<i>His</i> gospel! Not Jesus' gospel?
.
Romans 16:25 - "Now to him who is able to establish you by<b> my gospel</b>..."
.
<i>His</i> gospel, again.
.
1 Corinthians 15:1 - "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel <b>I preached to you</b>, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word <b>I preached to you</b>. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."
.
If they listened to any other gospel preacher, like Peter, James, etc., they weren't saved.
.
Galatians 1:8 - "But even if we <b>or <i>an angel from heaven</i> should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!</b>"
.
Imagine the audacity Paul had to condemn "an angel <i>from heaven</i>" if the angel preached a gospel different than his!
.
1 Timothy 1:11 - "...that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to <b>me</b>..."
.
God entrusted the gospel to Paul alone - not to Peter, or James, etc.
.
2 Timothy 2:8 - "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. <b>This is my gospel,</b>"
.
Again, with 'my' gospel. What were the other apostles preaching? I mean, the REAL apostles who were hand-picked by Jesus himself, and walked and talked with the Jesus in the flesh? Paul says 'Remember Jesus Christ', as if Paul could remember a man he'd never met?
Jan 8, 2008 4:18 PM
Pink :
.
I give up.
.
You are unreasonably adamant--not willing to even consider another point of view. What the heck are you afraid of?
..
.
I give up.
.
You are unreasonably adamant--not willing to even consider another point of view. What the heck are you afraid of?
..
.
Jan 9, 2008 11:43 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, you are ASSUMING that I should back down and abandon my beliefs. In
your mind, my position is unreasonable and untenable. And so, you're
frustrated that I'm just rolling over and saying: "Wow, what profound
wisdom! I guess I've been all wrong. What I preach every week is wrong.
Thanks for setting me straight." If that's what your demand is of me,
then we are miles apart. I don't agree with your claims about Paul and his
use of the word "Scripture." Why must I agree with your claims?
Jan 9, 2008 11:46 AM
Brian Tubbs :
You're stretching Paul's words beyond what he meant. Yes, as an apostle, he
believed that he received revelation from God. But when he wrote "my
gospel," he simply meant "This is the revelation that God has
given me, which I'm now passing onto you." That's Paul's apostolic
authority.
Oh, and read I Corithians 15. Paul acknowledged Peter and the other apostles. He didn't diss them in any way, as you imply. He did have a disagreement with them over circumcision, but people (including Christians) disagree. THat's the nature of the human race.
Oh, and read I Corithians 15. Paul acknowledged Peter and the other apostles. He didn't diss them in any way, as you imply. He did have a disagreement with them over circumcision, but people (including Christians) disagree. THat's the nature of the human race.
Jan 9, 2008 12:09 PM
Pink :
.
How does considering what another person has to say have anything to do with backing down and abandoning your beliefs?
.
I can consider what you have to post without having a fit.
.
How does considering what another person has to say have anything to do with backing down and abandoning your beliefs?
.
I can consider what you have to post without having a fit.
.
Jan 9, 2008 12:54 PM
Migisi :
.
<b>He didn't diss them in any way, as you imply.</b>
.
Writing about the apostles and circumcision, Paul says
"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Philippians 3:2
.
In Galatians 5, Paul was disturbed that circumcision was being preached, and he says "12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" Yeah, Peter, James, and John ... go castrate yourselves! Don't forget... Jesus was among the circumcized too.
.
Paul called Peter (and James and Barnabas) hypocrites, and bragged about how he told Peter off "before them all", in Galatians 2.
.
He goes on with his tirade in Galatians 6:12 - "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh." He insulted the apostles here - saying that THEY were braggarts and all about appearances, they were law-breakers, and were merely trying to avoid persecution (remember, PAUL himself was a persecutor!).
.
Paul belittled the importance of the REAL apostles James, Cephas (Peter), and John in Galatians 2:6-9.
.
Paul implied that the apostles avoided the Gentiles for Jewish law and prejudicial reasons. Since Paul had never known Jesus, he would not have known that JESUS himself told the apostles to avoid them! "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6)
.
If these examples are not dissing, I don't know what dissing is.
<b>He didn't diss them in any way, as you imply.</b>
.
Writing about the apostles and circumcision, Paul says
"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Philippians 3:2
.
In Galatians 5, Paul was disturbed that circumcision was being preached, and he says "12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" Yeah, Peter, James, and John ... go castrate yourselves! Don't forget... Jesus was among the circumcized too.
.
Paul called Peter (and James and Barnabas) hypocrites, and bragged about how he told Peter off "before them all", in Galatians 2.
.
He goes on with his tirade in Galatians 6:12 - "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh." He insulted the apostles here - saying that THEY were braggarts and all about appearances, they were law-breakers, and were merely trying to avoid persecution (remember, PAUL himself was a persecutor!).
.
Paul belittled the importance of the REAL apostles James, Cephas (Peter), and John in Galatians 2:6-9.
.
Paul implied that the apostles avoided the Gentiles for Jewish law and prejudicial reasons. Since Paul had never known Jesus, he would not have known that JESUS himself told the apostles to avoid them! "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6)
.
If these examples are not dissing, I don't know what dissing is.
Jan 9, 2008 1:49 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I didn't have a fit.
Jan 9, 2008 2:43 PM
Pink :
.
:)
.
<b>THIS:</b>
<i>Pink, you are ASSUMING that I should back down and abandon my beliefs. In your mind, my position is unreasonable and untenable. And so, you're frustrated that I'm just rolling over and saying: "Wow, what profound wisdom! I guess I've been all wrong. What I preach every week is wrong. Thanks for setting me straight." If that's what your demand is of me, then we are miles apart. I don't agree with your claims about Paul and his use of the word "Scripture." Why must I agree with your claims?</i>
.
<b>Sounds a little like a fit to me.</b>
.
:)
.
I never asked nor did I assume anything one way or the other. I suppose I look for discourse on different ideas. And, you don't seem to be able to even accept the fact that some ideas are even laid on the table. It is as though you blind yourself to the possibility that there might be another idea out there that might not jibe with what you propose something is. It's pretty bad when it is unacceptable to accept the fact that there are other ideas out there that can be inspected and talked about. That's one of the major criticisms of dogmatism--fear of the unknown.
.
All this hassle over the fact that Paul was referring to something already in existence before the time when he was doing his writing. How can we speak of the present time as though it were in the past?
.
:)
.
<b>THIS:</b>
<i>Pink, you are ASSUMING that I should back down and abandon my beliefs. In your mind, my position is unreasonable and untenable. And so, you're frustrated that I'm just rolling over and saying: "Wow, what profound wisdom! I guess I've been all wrong. What I preach every week is wrong. Thanks for setting me straight." If that's what your demand is of me, then we are miles apart. I don't agree with your claims about Paul and his use of the word "Scripture." Why must I agree with your claims?</i>
.
<b>Sounds a little like a fit to me.</b>
.
:)
.
I never asked nor did I assume anything one way or the other. I suppose I look for discourse on different ideas. And, you don't seem to be able to even accept the fact that some ideas are even laid on the table. It is as though you blind yourself to the possibility that there might be another idea out there that might not jibe with what you propose something is. It's pretty bad when it is unacceptable to accept the fact that there are other ideas out there that can be inspected and talked about. That's one of the major criticisms of dogmatism--fear of the unknown.
.
All this hassle over the fact that Paul was referring to something already in existence before the time when he was doing his writing. How can we speak of the present time as though it were in the past?
.
Jan 9, 2008 7:35 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, I promise I wasn't exasperated or throwing a fit or anything. I was a
little 'beside myself' (if that's the right phrase) in trying to figure out
where you were coming from in your characterizations of my
'closed-mindedness.'
Responding to some of your points specifically...
<i>I suppose I look for discourse on different ideas. And, you don't seem to be able to even accept the fact that some ideas are even laid on the table.</i>
I think that's both unfair and untrue. I could've (from the get-go) put the word out that only professing Protestant Christians are welcome here and that we will restrict our conversations to the context of intra-Protestant discussions. Or I could've narrowed it down even more by saying only evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians. Or whatever. But that's not my desire. I welcome the diversity of opinion that's here.
<i> It is as though you blind yourself to the possibility that there might be another idea out there that might not jibe with what you propose something is.</i>
I've decided to accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. And I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I see no reason to revisit those decisions.
Please believe me when I say that I have (during two periods of my adult life) engaged in deep soul-searching where I tested my faith and really put much of what I believe under the microscope. Each time, I came out affirming my Christian faith.
So, I'm moving forward. I see no need or reason to ever look back. Now, when it comes to the outer edges of my theology or some of the related issues...sure...I'll trade ideas, talk over things, etc.
And when it comes to politics, I'm very open. In the last 6-8 years, I've gone from being a pretty strong right-wing Republican to more or less a moderate.
<i>It's pretty bad when it is unacceptable to accept the fact that there are other ideas out there that can be inspected and talked about.</i>
Just because I don't jump in and "oooh" and "ahhhh" at the alternative ideas being discussed here doesn't mean I disapprove of there being talked about.
But, Pink, you're not going to change me on the deity of Jesus Christ, for example. You and Migisi and/or whoever can talk all you want about it. Be my guest. But I'm not abandoning my firm conviction that Jesus Christ is God.
That's just one example. I think we all have some core convictions th
Responding to some of your points specifically...
<i>I suppose I look for discourse on different ideas. And, you don't seem to be able to even accept the fact that some ideas are even laid on the table.</i>
I think that's both unfair and untrue. I could've (from the get-go) put the word out that only professing Protestant Christians are welcome here and that we will restrict our conversations to the context of intra-Protestant discussions. Or I could've narrowed it down even more by saying only evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians. Or whatever. But that's not my desire. I welcome the diversity of opinion that's here.
<i> It is as though you blind yourself to the possibility that there might be another idea out there that might not jibe with what you propose something is.</i>
I've decided to accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. And I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I see no reason to revisit those decisions.
Please believe me when I say that I have (during two periods of my adult life) engaged in deep soul-searching where I tested my faith and really put much of what I believe under the microscope. Each time, I came out affirming my Christian faith.
So, I'm moving forward. I see no need or reason to ever look back. Now, when it comes to the outer edges of my theology or some of the related issues...sure...I'll trade ideas, talk over things, etc.
And when it comes to politics, I'm very open. In the last 6-8 years, I've gone from being a pretty strong right-wing Republican to more or less a moderate.
<i>It's pretty bad when it is unacceptable to accept the fact that there are other ideas out there that can be inspected and talked about.</i>
Just because I don't jump in and "oooh" and "ahhhh" at the alternative ideas being discussed here doesn't mean I disapprove of there being talked about.
But, Pink, you're not going to change me on the deity of Jesus Christ, for example. You and Migisi and/or whoever can talk all you want about it. Be my guest. But I'm not abandoning my firm conviction that Jesus Christ is God.
That's just one example. I think we all have some core convictions th
Jan 10, 2008 4:29 AM
Pink :
.
<i>Just because I don't jump in and "oooh" and "ahhhh" at the alternative ideas being discussed here doesn't mean I disapprove of there being talked about.</i>
.
That reads like an insult.
.
It's not all about me and neither is it all about you.
.
Participants interact and exchange ideas for the purpose of gaining understanding about each other as well as alternative ways of thinking. A letter in the alphabet can be positioned next to another letter and mixed with it in a variety of ways without becoming a different letter. Ideas--as well as people--compliment each other.
.
THIS is a discussion forum where people come to read different ideas and to either participate or stay incommunicado. In any event, lively discussion builds readership.
.
The 'Net represents a "new" media--it is a democratic form of communication.
.
If you're going to stand there and others are going to sit in their own little corner of the room or wherever they are, there really isn't much reason to interact now, is there?
.
Somethings are important to understand deeply.
.
It has been said that there are three different kinds of posts in discussion boards; 1. informative, 2. social, 3. performative. That's something to think about. If you want to know more about that, go to http://conchobar.org/IC/oconnor-IC_ethnography.pdf and scroll down to page 8.
.
<i>Just because I don't jump in and "oooh" and "ahhhh" at the alternative ideas being discussed here doesn't mean I disapprove of there being talked about.</i>
.
That reads like an insult.
.
It's not all about me and neither is it all about you.
.
Participants interact and exchange ideas for the purpose of gaining understanding about each other as well as alternative ways of thinking. A letter in the alphabet can be positioned next to another letter and mixed with it in a variety of ways without becoming a different letter. Ideas--as well as people--compliment each other.
.
THIS is a discussion forum where people come to read different ideas and to either participate or stay incommunicado. In any event, lively discussion builds readership.
.
The 'Net represents a "new" media--it is a democratic form of communication.
.
If you're going to stand there and others are going to sit in their own little corner of the room or wherever they are, there really isn't much reason to interact now, is there?
.
Somethings are important to understand deeply.
.
It has been said that there are three different kinds of posts in discussion boards; 1. informative, 2. social, 3. performative. That's something to think about. If you want to know more about that, go to http://conchobar.org/IC/oconnor-IC_ethnography.pdf and scroll down to page 8.
.
Jan 10, 2008 9:21 AM
Migisi :
.
<b>I could've put the word out that only professing Protestant Christians are welcome here ... or... only evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians.</b>
.
I'm sure there are/were some "evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians" who believe that you shouldn't have 'yoked' your topic with wicked unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14 - "...what fellowship can light have with darkness?")
.
<b> I welcome the diversity of opinion that's here. </b>
.
Me too.
<b>I could've put the word out that only professing Protestant Christians are welcome here ... or... only evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians.</b>
.
I'm sure there are/were some "evangelical, Bible-believing, Protestant Christians" who believe that you shouldn't have 'yoked' your topic with wicked unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14 - "...what fellowship can light have with darkness?")
.
<b> I welcome the diversity of opinion that's here. </b>
.
Me too.
38 Comments
more in suite
- business & finance
- education & career
- film & tv
- food & drink
- health & wellness
- history
- home & style
- mind & soul
- music
- outdoor & recreation
- partners & parents
- plants & animals
- politics & society
- reading & literature
- science & nature
- sports
- technology
- travel
- visual & performing arts
- writing & publishing
Mind & Soul
categories
related articles
reference
about us
•
Limelight Blog
•
freelance writing jobs
•
careers
•
press room
•
Site Map
•
Terms & Conditions
•
Privacy Policy