Protestantism

» _Boanerges_ - How....?

In response to How....? posted by BrianTubbs:

hmmm.. I kinda asked that.. but, was objectively rebuked!.. for not being brilliant - I assume? (a sigh and a disappointing sad smile - but happy nonetheless)...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - How....?

.
Brian sez, "...but you bear the burden of proof here - or at least the burden of argument."
.
Maybe you missed my original premise. Here is the premise for you to read again.
.
"There is a certain peculiarity of absolutists that can be identified.
.
It is found in their inability to give voice to an idea for which they do not believe.
.
For example, is there one that is able to articulate how the Trinity obfuscates the message Jesus taught about atonement? Will one be able to give voice to the idea at all?" (Emphasis provided to identity the premise.)
.
Then Brian iterates,
.
"How does the Trinity obfuscate the atonement?"
.
That was not my premise; but, merely given as an example. There are many. But, as I mentioned to Wendell. You understand the Doctrine of the Trinity and you understand what Jesus teaches about Atonement.
.
Go for it. You CAN explain the example if you like. I'm not under any burden of proof that my example is or is not true. But, YOU are under the burden to try to ARTICULATE it.
.
Go for it.
.

.
As you can see, my premise does not say you have to believe it. In fact, it says just the opposite--that you DO NOT believe it.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - How....?

In response to How....? posted by pink101:

I don't see how the Trinity confuses or bewilders the atonement. So, I don't know how I am to proceed in defending against an assertion that it does.

I read your post clearly. Absolutists are unable give voice to an idea for which they do not believe. Hmmmmm. I disagree. I am absolutely convinced that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong, but I am able to articulate the pro-choice position pretty well, methinks. So well, in fact, that I could convince anyone who doesn't really know me that I was passionately pro-choice.

I'm absolutely convinced that the Founding Fathers intended to indict slavery - the very premise of slavery - in the Declaration of Independence and our founding heritage overall. Yet, if I wanted to, I'm knowledgeable enough about history that I could join in with the likes of Howard Zinn, Paul Finkelman, and others who condemn the Founders for their alleged self-serving hypocrisy.

I am absolutely convinced that God is real, but I'm familiar enough with the arguments against the existence of God that I can articulate them pretty convincingly if called upon to do so.

One of the skills I acquired in collegiate debate was to study all sides of an issue well enough to argue from any side of the issue.

So...sorry, Pink. I reject your premise. Not every absolutist is unable to give voice to ideas with which he disagrees.

p.s. But, I'm still curious about your example. You throw out an assertion - the Trinity obfuscates the Atonement - and then you expect Wendell, myself, or anyone else to somehow respond to that. You haven't even qualified, explained, or backed up your assertion! Sorry, I'm not falling for that.

» _Boanerges_ - Go for it.

In response to How....? posted by pink101:

wow.. another "go for it".. okie dokie....

I'm not under any burden of proof that my example is or is not true.

Okie.. I have quoted you on this...

YOU are under the burden to try to ARTICULATE it.

Okie.. See above message #4 okie.. the answer....

The answer...
Psalms 110:1: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

There. I guess we have decontructed this conversation in an objective way. And since, I quote - "I'm not under any burden of proof that my example is or is not true" pretty much ends this discussion on the "example" in your opening statement...

wow.. simple stuff....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - How....?

In response to How....? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I think you have turned my premise into an argument and that was not what I am looking for.
.
To believe is to give credence to something. That's the definition I mean to imply here.
.
To give credence is to imagine a thing is true--at least in some sense of the word true.
.
If an argument is laid on the table complete with all points covered to the degree that a person is able to repeat it, that's one thing. Generally the Pro-Life position is well known and so, repeating it is not giving voice to it in the sense of this thread. Can you allow that to be a fact in this thread?
.
In another way, my premise is saying that an Absolutist CANNOT imagine how the Doctrine of the Trinity obfuscates the ideas of Atonement that Jesus teaches.
.
So, can we put the two ideas together so that we can compare the Trinity with Atonement if you want to flesh out the example, that is?
.
Otherwise. I think you did a yeoman's job refuting my premise; although I don't necessarily agree with all the points--especially the one that I supposedly condemn the Founders for anything. It's probably not a good idea to get too personal in these discussions, don't you think, Brian? My shin is getting black and blue.
.
As far as what Wendell claims ....
.
heh heh heh
.
You have to forgive him, he is a celibate and his eyes probably cross involuntarily from time to time as he bounces off walls.
.

.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Maybe?

.
Maybe none of us is able to give voice to that which we are unable to imagine.
.
So, does being called the Son of Man? Does that mean one is able to give voice to all people because one IS all people? Is THAT part of what it means to say that Jesus died for the sins of each and every one?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Mysteries

In response to How....? posted by pink101:

Even absolutists or fundamentalists allow for mysteries. The Trinity is a mystery to a great extent.

» pink101 - Mysteries

In response to Mysteries posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Okay, if you want to discuss the Trinity.
.
Does it not say that Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are Three in One being able to be separate; yet, they are all one? So, in THAT sense, is not Jesus ONE with God?
.
Is that what Jesus teaches us--that he and he alone is one with God and the Holy Spirit in his messages about Atonement?
.
To obfuscate is to make obscure or unclear.
.
Are you able to articulate that? Can you even hack it?
.
Curious.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Mysteries

In response to Mysteries posted by pink101:

Can I "hack" it? Interesting choice of words on your part.

I'm not trying to be difficult here at all. But I really don't understand where you're coming from in this thread. And I am also trying to tread carefully, because I don't want you to think I'm misrepresenting you or disrespecting you in any way. I strive to be respectful and cordial and not "kick" anybody "in the shins." So, I'm really at a loss on how to proceed in this discussion.

You are saying that an absolutist is unable to "articulate" or "give voice" to something that they don't believe in. That is your position. Correct?

And then you assert that the Trinity "obfuscates" the Atonement, and you cite that as an example of how "absolutists" get tied up in knots.

Am I correctly stating your point? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Assuming I'm on the right track, I don't get it. A person can believe in absolute Truth and, at the same time, be humble enough to realize that he/she hasn't figured everything out about said Truth. I believe in God, but I don't need to completely and totally understand and explain God in order to validate my belief in Him.

I just don't understand where you're coming from on this.

p.s. As for the Trinity, it IS a mystery, and I don't see any reason why I should have to "hack" it beyond what the Bible says about it.

» Brian Tubbs - Articulating the Unimaginable

Going back through this thread again to try to make sense of it, I see a line in which you say that it's probably not possible for any of us to articulate that which we cannot imagine. I'll buy that.

What I don't 'get' is the extent to which you're trying to drive that home in the context of absolutism.

I agree - and have preached A LOT from my own pulpit - that Christians need to be characterized by LOVE and HUMILITY. My congregation is probably tired of hearing that by now, but I hit those themes A LOT - love and humility. However...

I believe a person can be loving, can be humble, AND....

Can hold to his or her convictions, embracing (among other things) that there ARE absolute truths - and that Jesus Himself is THE Truth!