Author Topic: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.  (Read 41736 times)

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #550 on: June 26, 2017, 11:01:15 AM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #551 on: June 26, 2017, 11:10:23 AM »
To me things like Scientology flash warning signs with their requirement of spending massive amounts of money to participate, their secrecy and being closed off.

I totally agree with you on the above statement, but that is not the point I was making at all.

My point was the Scientology makes the same claim that many denominations of Christians do, which is that you must first believe in order to understand.
If there is a perceived problem or question about the religion the deficiency is always assumed to be a lack of faith on the part of the questioner - never a legitimate issue that must be explored.
I can think of no other aspect in life in which that would be an acceptable approach to knowledge, but somehow in religion it has become commonplace.

Yet if we were to take that same approach to literally anything else (as I mentioned with physics and geometry as examples) we would all agree it was nonsense.
The concept of belief before understanding is not a pathway to truth.
OK, I see that point.

I am not saying that as a Christian that you MUST first believe in order to understand not does any church I have ever joined say that.  The point Scripture makes is that until one believes it all seems utter foolishness, which I an terming "understand" but may better be stated as "it now makes sense to me", "OK, I get it now!", or "Oh, that's what that means!".  The effort needed to get to that point is not trivial and someone who has at least not crossed the threshold of genuine curiosity and I guess wanting to believe usually gives up the effort before they get there. 

I would not purport it is a pathway to truth, but if you truly investigate and find it not truthful, you leave.  You are not tormented and attempting to bullied into staying like I see stories about Leah Remini in Scientology for example.  Sure you will find Christians who will get belligerent if you try to denigrate Christ, but it is not sponsored by the leadership of the church as it is in a cult or Scientology as they way to do things. 

I also feel the comparison breaks down because I have explained some reasons why it makes sense to me and not hidden behind it being you lack of faith as the questioner, and I believe I have more than amply demonstrated that I believe anything is an issue to be explored.  I just can't promise I'll have a satisfactory answer for you.  Where I also think it digresses, is that I would never tell anyone to believe and never study.  That is the opposite of what we should do as Christians.  We should constantly be studying the Scripture to understand what it is telling us.  What you refer to is brainwashing in a sense (which I get is always what is hurled at religion, certainly many times validly).  This is why it took me two decades to find a church body that I feel is wholly Biblically focused.  If I got that same answer (as I did from my Catholic priest all the time) that I just needed to trust him and not worry about where it said such and such in the Bible, that was a sign to run, and run fast.  The vast, vast majority of churches suffer from this and is what creates a much bigger aversion to God than anything else.  If anyone tells me the Catholic Church followed Christ's church discipline approach in the altar boy abuse for example, I'd very clearly walk then through how it does not follow the guidance at all.  It was a coverup, favoritism and lack of action all around.  It was a disgrace to God by men who claim to be for God.  Televangelists are in a similar vein.  Yet this is what most unbelievers come into contact with first when they explore God on their own.  Is it any wonder that they never reach faith?  When all the high profile examples they have are such massive flaws?  A solid pastor is not out making a name for themselves.  They are out glorifying God in everything they do. 

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #552 on: June 26, 2017, 11:14:04 AM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.
I think it was said you align (or are) in the Calvanist tradition and that you ascribe to one of the five points of limited atonement. 

I do not believe that.  Romans is again the doctrinal text I would point to when Paul states ALL are sinners and ALL can be saved.  He delves into it in much greater depth and in much greater detail than that (as I am sure you are aware), but I believe Calvin's doctrine there is another false barrier man has placed before God.  God wants ALL to be saved.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #553 on: June 26, 2017, 11:22:21 AM »
I am not saying that as a Christian that you MUST first believe in order to understand not does any church I have ever joined say that.  The point Scripture makes is that until one believes it all seems utter foolishness, which I an terming "understand" but may better be stated as "it now makes sense to me", "OK, I get it now!", or "Oh, that's what that means!".  The effort needed to get to that point is not trivial and someone who has at least not crossed the threshold of genuine curiosity and I guess wanting to believe usually gives up the effort before they get there.

In the first sentence you say that neither you nor the church is claiming you must believe before understanding, but in the very next sentence you say that scripture says that it will all seem foolish until you believe.

Perhaps I am simply being dense here, but I sincerely don't see a distinction.
It seems to me that you are saying that scripture says that until you believe you will not understand.
What am I missing?

And to be clear, I would not call it brainwashingas much as I would call it confirmation bias (which is exactly what it is).
Belief before understanding leads us to 'find' things that confirm the belief we already hold without rational justification.

As an aside - you seem intent on showing how Scientology and Christianity are different, as if anyone claimed they were the same.
You mentioned that 'the comparison breaks down, ' as if I had equated the two overall.
I drew a comparison between one specific approach to doctrine, which I still feel holds.
You can feel free to point out all the ways Scientology is different, and I will continue to agree with you - they are clearly vastly different in many ways.

It's as if I said, "hey look, both frisbees and tires are round" and you proceeded to point out every way in which they are different.
I never said Scientology and Christianity are the same, nor would I.  Obviously they are very different in a lot of ways.
But they do share one thing at least (not just with eachother but with most other religions) and that is the idea that belief comes before understanding.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 11:24:44 AM by MrDelane »

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #554 on: June 26, 2017, 11:26:15 AM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.
I think it was said you align (or are) in the Calvanist tradition and that you ascribe to one of the five points of limited atonement. 

I do not believe that.  Romans is again the doctrinal text I would point to when Paul states ALL are sinners and ALL can be saved.  He delves into it in much greater depth and in much greater detail than that (as I am sure you are aware), but I believe Calvin's doctrine there is another false barrier man has placed before God.  God wants ALL to be saved.
The problem with your position is it makes salvation a conditional proposition and turns grace into a works scheme.  You must perform X action to synergize with grace to activate it.  It is just like Catholicism.  I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #555 on: June 26, 2017, 11:38:09 AM »
I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.

Ouch.
Once again we have an example of a disagreement between two believers, and I am left wondering how either of you propose that we discover which of you may actually be correct.
Because clearly both of you cannot be right (though you could both be wrong).

How can we reliably learn the truth about reality?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #556 on: June 26, 2017, 11:44:23 AM »
I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.

Ouch.
Once again we have an example of a disagreement between two believers, and I am left wondering how either of you propose that we discover which of you may actually be correct.
Because clearly both of you cannot be right (though you could both be wrong).

How can we reliably learn the truth about reality?
Obviously we both think we are holding the truth.  The scriptures are the final arbiter of doctrine.  His position can't be supported.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #557 on: June 26, 2017, 11:51:15 AM »
Obviously we both think we are holding the truth.
Yes, obviously.
That would be why I said, "we have an example of a disagreement between two believers."
A disagreement occurs when both people believe they hold the truth yet have contradictory views.

Quote
The scriptures are the final arbiter of doctrine.
Well, the scriptures would be the final arbiter about doctrine, yes.
My question was how do we learn the truth about reality.

You each believe the scriptures say something different about the reality in which we all live.
That means one of you is holding a false doctrine.

There must be some way to discover the truth about reality, and I would think that reality would be the arbiter of that.

Quote
His position can't be supported.

Of course, that is the nature of a disagreement.
Each side believes the other is incorrect.

I am just wondering how the rest of us can discover which of you may have the truth about reality and which may be mistaken.

Vindicated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Indianapolis
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #558 on: June 26, 2017, 12:00:02 PM »
You each believe the scriptures say something different about the reality in which we all live.
That means one of you is holding a false doctrine.
OR, it could mean that both are holding false doctrine...


His position can't be supported.
But yours can?
My MMM Journal: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/my-almost-perfect-life-experience/

"Remember that sometimes not getting what you want is a wonderful stroke of luck.” - Dalai Lama

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #559 on: June 26, 2017, 12:32:08 PM »
The doctrine of election and reprobation REALLY cuts people the wrong way.  It is a doctrine that is very hard to accept for most people.  Instead of accepting it they refuse it and create a God that does not exist in scripture.  It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #560 on: June 26, 2017, 12:43:48 PM »
It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'worldly wisdom'?
Does that just mean knowledge about the world, or does it mean something specific that I'm not familiar with within your religion?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #561 on: June 26, 2017, 12:57:51 PM »
It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'worldly wisdom'?
Does that just mean knowledge about the world, or does it mean something specific that I'm not familiar with within your religion?
Worldly wisdom is that God loves everyone and desperately wants to help you if you do your part.  Sounds reasonable.  Not in scripture.  Nothing rips through this worldly wisdom like the doctrine of unconditional election.   But wait!  Are you saying God loves some and not others, that's not my God!  The doctrine is hated and despised by those who want the God who gives you a chance and is fair.  They simply will not accept things any other way than the way they want things to be, not the way things are. 


MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #562 on: June 26, 2017, 01:03:38 PM »
It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'worldly wisdom'?
Does that just mean knowledge about the world, or does it mean something specific that I'm not familiar with within your religion?
Worldly wisdom is that God loves everyone and desperately wants to help you if you do your part.  Sounds reasonable.  Not in scripture.  Nothing rips through this worldly wisdom like the doctrine of unconditional election.   But wait!  Are you saying God loves some and not others, that's not my God!  The doctrine is hated and despised by those who want the God who gives you a chance and is fair.  They simply will not accept things any other way than the way they want things to be, not the way things are.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.  I'm glad I asked.
I thought you meant that the bible 'demolished' our understanding of the world, by virtue of the fact that it was in conflict with it - which would have been a bit ridiculous.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #563 on: June 26, 2017, 01:04:45 PM »
It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'worldly wisdom'?
Does that just mean knowledge about the world, or does it mean something specific that I'm not familiar with within your religion?
Worldly wisdom is that God loves everyone and desperately wants to help you if you do your part.  Sounds reasonable.  Not in scripture.  Nothing rips through this worldly wisdom like the doctrine of unconditional election.   But wait!  Are you saying God loves some and not others, that's not my God!  The doctrine is hated and despised by those who want the God who gives you a chance and is fair.  They simply will not accept things any other way than the way they want things to be, not the way things are.

Well, I will give you points, at least, for admitting that the god you worship is an asshole.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Overflow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Mitten
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #564 on: June 26, 2017, 01:11:59 PM »
I have been a quiet lurker on this thread because theology and religion fascinate me.

While I have enjoyed reading this, the conversation has also disappointed me in many ways. I am a Christian, and probably what you would consider pretty conservative. The arguments between Christians on this thread has only provided evidence and ammunition for the agnostics/atheists to ignore Christianity (and probably all religion in general).

In this context, there is very little to be gained from debating various positions on the atonement, the 5 points of Calvinism, baptism (beliver's or infant), nature of Communion, or similar discussions. These topics have literally been discussed for hundreds, and in several cases, thousands of years.

A thread on a financial forum is hardly the place to convince someone that their specific theological tradition is "wrong".

I am a firmly convinced that the abundant diversity found in the Christian faith is healthy. Yes, I have strong theological convictions that I would be happy to explain, but I recognize and embrace the beautiful diversity of traditions and theological practices in Christian.

For the anti-religious, unreligious, and apathetic...I hope you will see that.

While I embrace diversity, I am not advocating that every religion is equally true in its own special way. I find that intellectually incoherent. 

I realize some of this conversation went deep into the theological weeds of nuance, translation, and interpretation. In order to help us find "center" can we back up a little bit?

If someone were to ask me "What do Christian's Believe?" the Apostle's Creed is the simplest and clearest expression. It goes back to the 2nd century and is maybe the one thing Christians can universally agree on. These are the most basic and foundation confessions of Christianity.

(translations vary slightly, but here is a common one)
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

AnswerIs42

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #565 on: June 26, 2017, 01:17:17 PM »
How can we reliably learn the truth about reality?

Science. That's the whole point of it.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #566 on: June 26, 2017, 01:23:51 PM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.
I think it was said you align (or are) in the Calvanist tradition and that you ascribe to one of the five points of limited atonement. 

I do not believe that.  Romans is again the doctrinal text I would point to when Paul states ALL are sinners and ALL can be saved.  He delves into it in much greater depth and in much greater detail than that (as I am sure you are aware), but I believe Calvin's doctrine there is another false barrier man has placed before God.  God wants ALL to be saved.
The problem with your position is it makes salvation a conditional proposition and turns grace into a works scheme.  You must perform X action to synergize with grace to activate it.  It is just like Catholicism.  I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.
Jim, I'm unclear how it is anymore "conditional" than Calvin's stance.  Calvin indicates (if I understand correctly) that those that God has elected (predestined if you will) have no option to to find their way to belief because God has basically baked it into their DNA.  While the condition is not under their control, it is a condition, i.e. did God pick me as one of the elect.  The only path I see to reconcile that with Scripture is that you refer ALL being saved in Romans as being restricted to a select group, i.e.  ALL who God has chosen for atonement.  Is that how you view it?

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: PNW
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #567 on: June 26, 2017, 01:24:22 PM »
How can we reliably learn the truth about reality?

Science. That's the whole point of it.

What is reality? Is anything real?

Science has proven that matter does not exist, only energy exists, what are the implications of that?
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

Vindicated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Indianapolis
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #568 on: June 26, 2017, 01:26:58 PM »
How can we reliably learn the truth about reality?

Science. That's the whole point of it.

What is reality? Is anything real?

Science has proven that matter does not exist, only energy exists, what are the implications of that?

You get to choose!
My MMM Journal: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/my-almost-perfect-life-experience/

"Remember that sometimes not getting what you want is a wonderful stroke of luck.” - Dalai Lama

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #569 on: June 26, 2017, 01:28:18 PM »
It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'worldly wisdom'?
Does that just mean knowledge about the world, or does it mean something specific that I'm not familiar with within your religion?
Worldly wisdom is that God loves everyone and desperately wants to help you if you do your part.  Sounds reasonable.  Not in scripture.  Nothing rips through this worldly wisdom like the doctrine of unconditional election.   But wait!  Are you saying God loves some and not others, that's not my God!  The doctrine is hated and despised by those who want the God who gives you a chance and is fair.  They simply will not accept things any other way than the way they want things to be, not the way things are.

Well, I will give you points, at least, for admitting that the god you worship is an asshole.
If election was conditional than love would be conditional, but the love of God is unconditional and so is election.   A high doctrine is seen is as absurd to the world.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #570 on: June 26, 2017, 01:28:47 PM »
I have been a quiet lurker on this thread because theology and religion fascinate me.

While I have enjoyed reading this, the conversation has also disappointed me in many ways. I am a Christian, and probably what you would consider pretty conservative. The arguments between Christians on this thread has only provided evidence and ammunition for the agnostics/atheists to ignore Christianity (and probably all religion in general).

In this context, there is very little to be gained from debating various positions on the atonement, the 5 points of Calvinism, baptism (beliver's or infant), nature of Communion, or similar discussions. These topics have literally been discussed for hundreds, and in several cases, thousands of years.

A thread on a financial forum is hardly the place to convince someone that their specific theological tradition is "wrong".

I am a firmly convinced that the abundant diversity found in the Christian faith is healthy. Yes, I have strong theological convictions that I would be happy to explain, but I recognize and embrace the beautiful diversity of traditions and theological practices in Christian.

For the anti-religious, unreligious, and apathetic...I hope you will see that.

While I embrace diversity, I am not advocating that every religion is equally true in its own special way. I find that intellectually incoherent. 

I realize some of this conversation went deep into the theological weeds of nuance, translation, and interpretation. In order to help us find "center" can we back up a little bit?

If someone were to ask me "What do Christian's Believe?" the Apostle's Creed is the simplest and clearest expression. It goes back to the 2nd century and is maybe the one thing Christians can universally agree on. These are the most basic and foundation confessions of Christianity.

(translations vary slightly, but here is a common one)
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
The one line about "the holy catholic Church" makes it a segmentational doctrine.  There are nuances in the Creed, and the fact that the Creed is not present in Scripture.  There is not an oath that a Christian is supposed to read in the Bible.  It would state that is not the simplest not the clearest.  It simply obfuscates what is simple and clear by being overlong and pontificating.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #571 on: June 26, 2017, 01:35:01 PM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.
I think it was said you align (or are) in the Calvanist tradition and that you ascribe to one of the five points of limited atonement. 

I do not believe that.  Romans is again the doctrinal text I would point to when Paul states ALL are sinners and ALL can be saved.  He delves into it in much greater depth and in much greater detail than that (as I am sure you are aware), but I believe Calvin's doctrine there is another false barrier man has placed before God.  God wants ALL to be saved.
The problem with your position is it makes salvation a conditional proposition and turns grace into a works scheme.  You must perform X action to synergize with grace to activate it.  It is just like Catholicism.  I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.
Jim, I'm unclear how it is anymore "conditional" than Calvin's stance.  Calvin indicates (if I understand correctly) that those that God has elected (predestined if you will) have no option to to find their way to belief because God has basically baked it into their DNA.  While the condition is not under their control, it is a condition, i.e. did God pick me as one of the elect.  The only path I see to reconcile that with Scripture is that you refer ALL being saved in Romans as being restricted to a select group, i.e.  ALL who God has chosen for atonement.  Is that how you view it?
I don't study Calvin so I don't know what his position is.  Irresistible grace means in time all the elect will come to conversion and saving faith.  The condition is Jesus atoned for them and paid for them so in time this can happen.  Don't know the exact verse you are referring to but ALL can refer to the elect.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #572 on: June 26, 2017, 01:39:55 PM »
It is a prime example of how the Bible demolishes worldly wisdom.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'worldly wisdom'?
Does that just mean knowledge about the world, or does it mean something specific that I'm not familiar with within your religion?
Worldly wisdom is that God loves everyone and desperately wants to help you if you do your part.  Sounds reasonable.  Not in scripture.  Nothing rips through this worldly wisdom like the doctrine of unconditional election.   But wait!  Are you saying God loves some and not others, that's not my God!  The doctrine is hated and despised by those who want the God who gives you a chance and is fair.  They simply will not accept things any other way than the way they want things to be, not the way things are.

Well, I will give you points, at least, for admitting that the god you worship is an asshole.
If election was conditional than love would be conditional, but the love of God is unconditional and so is election.   A high doctrine is seen is as absurd to the world.
Jim, I'm trying to actually engage in a discussion.  Let me deal with this in a way you seem to prefer.  Can you explain how you would explain John 12:32 and 1 Tim 2:4-6?

If you'd do not want to get into Scriptural proof than let me know and we'll just agree to disagree.  I'm truly interested in sharing how I see those verses in contrast to you, because just as others have stated I see them very differently.  I do not see that as "absurd" but you can discount the attempt to truly discourse about this that way if you want.  I just feel we should help each other (and this group of others who is interested in the result) get a clearer understanding. 

If God's love is unconditional (which you said it is) then how does that reconcile with what you state as Scripturally based that  he loves some and not others, which is what you just stated as above that is hated and despised by true?  Unconditional means He loves everyone, does it not?

ETA:  Modified to remove Calvin, as you indicate you are not following that teaching, but you are walking down TULIP so it is confusing how you say you are not studying Calvin when you are using the theology directly, or so it appears.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:47:00 PM by caracarn »

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #573 on: June 26, 2017, 01:57:31 PM »
I realize some of this conversation went deep into the theological weeds of nuance, translation, and interpretation.

To be fair, the conversation began with theological nuance, translation and interpretation - that seems to be what the OP was all about.

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: PNW
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #574 on: June 26, 2017, 02:04:14 PM »
Caracan, Jim555, have you had a spiritual experience? Can you describe it?
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

Overflow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Mitten
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #575 on: June 26, 2017, 02:05:15 PM »
I have been a quiet lurker on this thread because theology and religion fascinate me.

While I have enjoyed reading this, the conversation has also disappointed me in many ways. I am a Christian, and probably what you would consider pretty conservative. The arguments between Christians on this thread has only provided evidence and ammunition for the agnostics/atheists to ignore Christianity (and probably all religion in general).

In this context, there is very little to be gained from debating various positions on the atonement, the 5 points of Calvinism, baptism (beliver's or infant), nature of Communion, or similar discussions. These topics have literally been discussed for hundreds, and in several cases, thousands of years.

A thread on a financial forum is hardly the place to convince someone that their specific theological tradition is "wrong".

I am a firmly convinced that the abundant diversity found in the Christian faith is healthy. Yes, I have strong theological convictions that I would be happy to explain, but I recognize and embrace the beautiful diversity of traditions and theological practices in Christian.

For the anti-religious, unreligious, and apathetic...I hope you will see that.

While I embrace diversity, I am not advocating that every religion is equally true in its own special way. I find that intellectually incoherent. 

I realize some of this conversation went deep into the theological weeds of nuance, translation, and interpretation. In order to help us find "center" can we back up a little bit?

If someone were to ask me "What do Christian's Believe?" the Apostle's Creed is the simplest and clearest expression. It goes back to the 2nd century and is maybe the one thing Christians can universally agree on. These are the most basic and foundation confessions of Christianity.

(translations vary slightly, but here is a common one)
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
The one line about "the holy catholic Church" makes it a segmentational doctrine.  There are nuances in the Creed, and the fact that the Creed is not present in Scripture.  There is not an oath that a Christian is supposed to read in the Bible.  It would state that is not the simplest not the clearest.  It simply obfuscates what is simple and clear by being overlong and pontificating.

The word "catholic" simple means universal. It isn't confessing allegiance to the Roman Catholic (proper noun) church. Really "catholic" as a proper noun didn't exist when this was written.

You are welcome to substitute "universal" in for catholic if you are more comfortable with that word.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #576 on: June 26, 2017, 02:05:52 PM »
If He loves everyone than everyone must become saved.  But this is not the case in scripture or by observation.

The word "all" in 1 Tim 2:4-6 refers to all types, Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, etc..  This was a big change that the gospel was expanding out beyond just the Jews.  In due time many of all types will become saved.

In John 12:32 " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The word "men" is not in the greek.  "All" again can refer to types as he is the propitiater for the world of all peoples by type.  Again a big change from the OT.




J Boogie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #577 on: June 26, 2017, 02:08:15 PM »
I have been a quiet lurker on this thread because theology and religion fascinate me.

While I have enjoyed reading this, the conversation has also disappointed me in many ways. I am a Christian, and probably what you would consider pretty conservative. The arguments between Christians on this thread has only provided evidence and ammunition for the agnostics/atheists to ignore Christianity (and probably all religion in general).

In this context, there is very little to be gained from debating various positions on the atonement, the 5 points of Calvinism, baptism (beliver's or infant), nature of Communion, or similar discussions. These topics have literally been discussed for hundreds, and in several cases, thousands of years.

A thread on a financial forum is hardly the place to convince someone that their specific theological tradition is "wrong".

I am a firmly convinced that the abundant diversity found in the Christian faith is healthy. Yes, I have strong theological convictions that I would be happy to explain, but I recognize and embrace the beautiful diversity of traditions and theological practices in Christian.

For the anti-religious, unreligious, and apathetic...I hope you will see that.

While I embrace diversity, I am not advocating that every religion is equally true in its own special way. I find that intellectually incoherent. 

I realize some of this conversation went deep into the theological weeds of nuance, translation, and interpretation. In order to help us find "center" can we back up a little bit?

If someone were to ask me "What do Christian's Believe?" the Apostle's Creed is the simplest and clearest expression. It goes back to the 2nd century and is maybe the one thing Christians can universally agree on. These are the most basic and foundation confessions of Christianity.

(translations vary slightly, but here is a common one)
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
The one line about "the holy catholic Church" makes it a segmentational doctrine.  There are nuances in the Creed, and the fact that the Creed is not present in Scripture.  There is not an oath that a Christian is supposed to read in the Bible.  It would state that is not the simplest not the clearest.  It simply obfuscates what is simple and clear by being overlong and pontificating.

Not sure I understand you correctly, but just in case you weren't aware -

The word "Catholic" was understood to mean universal at that time, and was not used to define a specific type of Christianity.  Since Martin Luther wouldn't come for another thousand or so years, none of the offshoots aka heresies gained significant enough traction to truly rival the church - so there wasn't any need to label the church as Catholic, but they did want to describe it as Catholic (Universal, meaning for everyone).


caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #578 on: June 26, 2017, 02:11:53 PM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.
I think it was said you align (or are) in the Calvanist tradition and that you ascribe to one of the five points of limited atonement. 

I do not believe that.  Romans is again the doctrinal text I would point to when Paul states ALL are sinners and ALL can be saved.  He delves into it in much greater depth and in much greater detail than that (as I am sure you are aware), but I believe Calvin's doctrine there is another false barrier man has placed before God.  God wants ALL to be saved.
The problem with your position is it makes salvation a conditional proposition and turns grace into a works scheme.  You must perform X action to synergize with grace to activate it.  It is just like Catholicism.  I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.
Jim, I'm unclear how it is anymore "conditional" than Calvin's stance.  Calvin indicates (if I understand correctly) that those that God has elected (predestined if you will) have no option to to find their way to belief because God has basically baked it into their DNA.  While the condition is not under their control, it is a condition, i.e. did God pick me as one of the elect.  The only path I see to reconcile that with Scripture is that you refer ALL being saved in Romans as being restricted to a select group, i.e.  ALL who God has chosen for atonement.  Is that how you view it?
I don't study Calvin so I don't know what his position is.  Irresistible grace means in time all the elect will come to conversion and saving faith.  The condition is Jesus atoned for them and paid for them so in time this can happen.  Don't know the exact verse you are referring to but ALL can refer to the elect.
It CAN.  I started with two verses and how you determine that they mean elect.  Let me add another that is typically cited by TULIPers as verification.  John 10:15, which is argued to point to the fact that Jesus died for his sheep.  Then the argument tends to go that people have been identified by God as sheep, hence definite or limited atonement (pick your wordsmithing).  Except the very next verse John 10:16 has Jesus explaining that he will bring other sheep into the fold who are not there.  This seems to imply that they are still sheep, and the TULIP argument is that you cannot change from a sheep to a goat because of the hardcore over reading of Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats.  TULIPers argue you cannot convert a "goat" to a "sheep", or an unbeliever into a believer yet the Corinthians and Paul himself went through that process and explain it in 1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:13-14.  My contention in all of this is that ALL CAN refer to the elect, but there is nothing that locks that in as much as the TULIP stance likes to think, in my humble opinion.  To bind oneself to that you need to place a lot of false constraints and cans around verses that are written much more openly and only restricted by added rationalization. 

I get the the TULIP stance is that is Christ died for all and then all mankind rejected him than it would seem pretty stupid and this is a core of the basis for the belief that Scripture must speak of a preordained group.  The counter to that is that God is all-knowing and he could offer up salvation for all because he knows that all would not reject him.  I guess you can then get into a circuitous point here that God then knows who will be saved already, and that may be true, that he knows who will accept the gift, but that does not then flow to God chose who would accept it, but it does seem to counter the basis that He had to elect people because then he'd be foolish and his death pointless if everyone said "Um.  No." 

I am looking for a PLAIN reading that gets one to limited atonement and that is all I am asking you to explain.  You can get there with a nuanced reading, but plain reading of the seven passages where all or everyone is referenced shows those words there, with no limiting language around them.  This is the struggle I have with not seeing limited atonement as a doctrine that is more out of harmony with plain Biblical reading, while I understand you argue the counterpoint.  I'm just asking for the plain reading that gets you to a limit.  If it is there I am missing verses (versus adding interpretation to them as it seems one must do to get there).  You end up assuming how God must be thinking to get to the point versus just taking what God says and not adding or subtracting from it in any way.  Should a simple thing for you to cite and explain plain verses.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #579 on: June 26, 2017, 02:14:20 PM »
Caracan, Jim555, have you had a spiritual experience? Can you describe it?
None for me.  Unless I'm not understanding what you are truly asking by "spiritual experience".  If you are asking if I had a vision, a dream, had a dead relative talk with me and ask me to believe in God for my own eternal soul, no.  No near death experiences.  My path is what I shared in my long discourse with MrDelane.  Just searching and over more and more study being led to where I am.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #580 on: June 26, 2017, 02:19:41 PM »
Caracan, Jim555, have you had a spiritual experience? Can you describe it?
I described what happened to me earlier in the thread.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #581 on: June 26, 2017, 02:27:46 PM »
I have been a quiet lurker on this thread because theology and religion fascinate me.

While I have enjoyed reading this, the conversation has also disappointed me in many ways. I am a Christian, and probably what you would consider pretty conservative. The arguments between Christians on this thread has only provided evidence and ammunition for the agnostics/atheists to ignore Christianity (and probably all religion in general).

In this context, there is very little to be gained from debating various positions on the atonement, the 5 points of Calvinism, baptism (beliver's or infant), nature of Communion, or similar discussions. These topics have literally been discussed for hundreds, and in several cases, thousands of years.

A thread on a financial forum is hardly the place to convince someone that their specific theological tradition is "wrong".

I am a firmly convinced that the abundant diversity found in the Christian faith is healthy. Yes, I have strong theological convictions that I would be happy to explain, but I recognize and embrace the beautiful diversity of traditions and theological practices in Christian.

For the anti-religious, unreligious, and apathetic...I hope you will see that.

While I embrace diversity, I am not advocating that every religion is equally true in its own special way. I find that intellectually incoherent. 

I realize some of this conversation went deep into the theological weeds of nuance, translation, and interpretation. In order to help us find "center" can we back up a little bit?

If someone were to ask me "What do Christian's Believe?" the Apostle's Creed is the simplest and clearest expression. It goes back to the 2nd century and is maybe the one thing Christians can universally agree on. These are the most basic and foundation confessions of Christianity.

(translations vary slightly, but here is a common one)
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
The one line about "the holy catholic Church" makes it a segmentational doctrine.  There are nuances in the Creed, and the fact that the Creed is not present in Scripture.  There is not an oath that a Christian is supposed to read in the Bible.  It would state that is not the simplest not the clearest.  It simply obfuscates what is simple and clear by being overlong and pontificating.

The word "catholic" simple means universal. It isn't confessing allegiance to the Roman Catholic (proper noun) church. Really "catholic" as a proper noun didn't exist when this was written.

You are welcome to substitute "universal" in for catholic if you are more comfortable with that word.
That is the argument given, I get it.  I was brought up in that religion.  The Virgin Mary if not a deity as Catholicism places her.  She is not to be worshiped.  That makes her an idol.  I have not done a study here, but I believe catholic likes to think it means universal because they think they are the one religion (as does everyone).  So I'd like to understand if our definition of catholic being a "unviersal" is a little twist as it went through history (which a simple etymology indicates as the Greek kind of went there but did not quite start there). This conversion also happened before the Catholic church formed so it was simple to say "let's call ourselves the universal church".

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #582 on: June 26, 2017, 02:38:09 PM »
If He loves everyone than everyone must become saved.  But this is not the case in scripture or by observation.

The word "all" in 1 Tim 2:4-6 refers to all types, Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, etc..  This was a big change that the gospel was expanding out beyond just the Jews.  In due time many of all types will become saved.

In John 12:32 " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The word "men" is not in the greek.  "All" again can refer to types as he is the propitiater for the world of all peoples by type.  Again a big change from the OT.
Your last statement may be telling.

Of course the NT is a big change from the OT.  It is a new covenant in Christ.  The TULIP argument is no different than the Jews arguing that God was just theirs for the same reason (because Scripture said so, i.e. Scripture is the ENTIRE OT) even though Jesus very clearly taught it was for the Gentile (non-Jew) as well.  παντας (pantas) has no antecedent and it again causes us to draw inferences.  A plain reading allows for an accepted definition when looked at without antecedent which is "every kind or variety".  But I do see how you can look at the explicit lack of antecedent as having a different meaning, so thanks for that.

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: PNW
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #583 on: June 26, 2017, 02:39:07 PM »
Caracan, Jim555, have you had a spiritual experience? Can you describe it?
None for me.  Unless I'm not understanding what you are truly asking by "spiritual experience". If you are asking if I had a vision, a dream, had a dead relative talk with me and ask me to believe in God for my own eternal soul, no.  No near death experiences.  My path is what I shared in my long discourse with MrDelane.  Just searching and over more and more study being led to where I am.

Well, I guess it is up to you what that means isn't it?

Typical means of bringing about these experiences:

Prayer
Meditation
Martial Arts
Sweat Lodge
Dancing
Music
Drugs
Fasting

Are you saying you came to Christianity intellectually? That would certainly explain the debate going on in this thread, it is very intellectually based. Do you not feel united with god in some way?

Jesus was having a constant spiritual experience. These days we might call him psychotic, perhaps throw him in a mental facility. He might have been schizophrenic or perhaps on a constant mushroom trip. Speaking of, what do you think about the early depictions of the tree of life as the amanita muscaria mushroom?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 02:41:15 PM by zoltani »
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #584 on: June 26, 2017, 02:55:56 PM »
It CAN.  I started with two verses and how you determine that they mean elect.  Let me add another that is typically cited by TULIPers as verification.  John 10:15, which is argued to point to the fact that Jesus died for his sheep.  Then the argument tends to go that people have been identified by God as sheep, hence definite or limited atonement (pick your wordsmithing).  Except the very next verse John 10:16 has Jesus explaining that he will bring other sheep into the fold who are not there.  This seems to imply that they are still sheep, and the TULIP argument is that you cannot change from a sheep to a goat because of the hardcore over reading of Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats.  TULIPers argue you cannot convert a "goat" to a "sheep", or an unbeliever into a believer yet the Corinthians and Paul himself went through that process and explain it in 1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:13-14.  My contention in all of this is that ALL CAN refer to the elect, but there is nothing that locks that in as much as the TULIP stance likes to think, in my humble opinion.  To bind oneself to that you need to place a lot of false constraints and cans around verses that are written much more openly and only restricted by added rationalization. 
The other sheep in John 10 are the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews he was speaking to, those chosen, and ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48).   
1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:13-14 - Don't know what point you are making with these.  The ungodly get saved. 
Quote
I get the the TULIP stance is that is Christ died for all and then all mankind rejected him than it would seem pretty stupid and this is a core of the basis for the belief that Scripture must speak of a preordained group.  The counter to that is that God is all-knowing and he could offer up salvation for all because he knows that all would not reject him.  I guess you can then get into a circuitous point here that God then knows who will be saved already, and that may be true, that he knows who will accept the gift, but that does not then flow to God chose who would accept it, but it does seem to counter the basis that He had to elect people because then he'd be foolish and his death pointless if everyone said "Um.  No." 
Without election no one would become saved.  The atonement actually atones and guarantees all the blessings of salvation for those to whom it is for.  No atonement means no salvation.  Universal atonement means everyone gets saved.
Quote
I am looking for a PLAIN reading that gets one to limited atonement and that is all I am asking you to explain.  You can get there with a nuanced reading, but plain reading of the seven passages where all or everyone is referenced shows those words there, with no limiting language around them.  This is the struggle I have with not seeing limited atonement as a doctrine that is more out of harmony with plain Biblical reading, while I understand you argue the counterpoint.  I'm just asking for the plain reading that gets you to a limit.  If it is there I am missing verses (versus adding interpretation to them as it seems one must do to get there).  You end up assuming how God must be thinking to get to the point versus just taking what God says and not adding or subtracting from it in any way.  Should a simple thing for you to cite and explain plain verses.
I can site many verses showing chosen, elect, predestinated.  You can then use the "tunnel of time" to dismiss them.  God determines the beginning to the end and ordains all events, so the tunnel of time is not going to work.  In fact it makes your case hard, why not do something if millions are seen perishing?


caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #585 on: June 26, 2017, 03:09:53 PM »
It CAN.  I started with two verses and how you determine that they mean elect.  Let me add another that is typically cited by TULIPers as verification.  John 10:15, which is argued to point to the fact that Jesus died for his sheep.  Then the argument tends to go that people have been identified by God as sheep, hence definite or limited atonement (pick your wordsmithing).  Except the very next verse John 10:16 has Jesus explaining that he will bring other sheep into the fold who are not there.  This seems to imply that they are still sheep, and the TULIP argument is that you cannot change from a sheep to a goat because of the hardcore over reading of Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats.  TULIPers argue you cannot convert a "goat" to a "sheep", or an unbeliever into a believer yet the Corinthians and Paul himself went through that process and explain it in 1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:13-14.  My contention in all of this is that ALL CAN refer to the elect, but there is nothing that locks that in as much as the TULIP stance likes to think, in my humble opinion.  To bind oneself to that you need to place a lot of false constraints and cans around verses that are written much more openly and only restricted by added rationalization. 
The other sheep in John 10 are the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews he was speaking to, those chosen, and ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48).   
1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:13-14 - Don't know what point you are making with these.  The ungodly get saved. 
Quote
I get the the TULIP stance is that is Christ died for all and then all mankind rejected him than it would seem pretty stupid and this is a core of the basis for the belief that Scripture must speak of a preordained group.  The counter to that is that God is all-knowing and he could offer up salvation for all because he knows that all would not reject him.  I guess you can then get into a circuitous point here that God then knows who will be saved already, and that may be true, that he knows who will accept the gift, but that does not then flow to God chose who would accept it, but it does seem to counter the basis that He had to elect people because then he'd be foolish and his death pointless if everyone said "Um.  No." 
Without election no one would become saved.  The atonement actually atones and guarantees all the blessings of salvation for those to whom it is for.  No atonement means no salvation.  Universal atonement means everyone gets saved.
Quote
I am looking for a PLAIN reading that gets one to limited atonement and that is all I am asking you to explain.  You can get there with a nuanced reading, but plain reading of the seven passages where all or everyone is referenced shows those words there, with no limiting language around them.  This is the struggle I have with not seeing limited atonement as a doctrine that is more out of harmony with plain Biblical reading, while I understand you argue the counterpoint.  I'm just asking for the plain reading that gets you to a limit.  If it is there I am missing verses (versus adding interpretation to them as it seems one must do to get there).  You end up assuming how God must be thinking to get to the point versus just taking what God says and not adding or subtracting from it in any way.  Should a simple thing for you to cite and explain plain verses.
I can site many verses showing chosen, elect, predestinated.  You can then use the "tunnel of time" to dismiss them.  God determines the beginning to the end and ordains all events, so the tunnel of time is not going to work.  In fact it makes your case hard, why not do something if millions are seen perishing?
So yes, it does not appear you are attached to hardcode TULIP viewpoint.  Yes, we can run in circles on this one because either version is placing things on contexts each of us believes are there in the Bible and not reading the same context into things that are not specifically stated. 

Thanks for the discussion.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #586 on: June 26, 2017, 03:11:58 PM »
I am hardcore TULIP, I think you have misread me.

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #587 on: June 26, 2017, 03:16:19 PM »
Yes, we can run in circles on this one because either version is placing things on contexts each of us believes are there in the Bible and not reading the same context into things that are not specifically stated. 

When a text is allegedly the inerrant instruction of an allmighty being it's interesting that so much of it is still open to personal interpretation by depraved individuals.


zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: PNW
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #588 on: June 26, 2017, 03:16:28 PM »
Jim555, what are your thoughts about the Gnostics and the Nag Hammadi texts?

Gnosticism, which took elements from many sources, professed to be based on gnosis, the Greek word for "knowledge," or rather "insight." It is a transcendental knowledge of God's redemptive purpose, and this redemption is effected through the Logos who is Christ. The resurrected Christ is an inner spiritual experience and the gnosis is the secret knowledge which Jesus gave to his immediate followers to be shared only with those of sufficient spiritual maturity.

While it is difficult to find one's way in the complexity of Gnostic belief, it is possible to indicate some points on which most of the sects were in agreement. These include:

1) The Godhead -- as in Hinduism and theosophy -- is eternal, infinite, and absolute. It is, in fact, beyond the range of human thought. Silence can best express it. He or It does not create in the Biblical sense -- making something out of nothing. He emanates from himself manifestations as reflections, and among those emanations is the creator of earth and material things, known as the Demiurge and usually identified with the Old Testament Jehovah, the God of Israel. Jehovah is said to have created an imperfect, even evil, world and he is ignorant of the existence of the real Godhead, believing himself to be the absolute ruler of the universe. So while the God of the Old Testament was rejected as the lower deity who created the wholly evil phenomenal world (and sometimes was even identified with Satan), it was Jesus the Christ who revealed the High God, the Father within.

2) Man is a mixture of spirit and matter but has a spark of the Highest -- the Pleroma. For man to be saved he must be freed from his bondage to the visible world and its rulers, the planetary spirits. The means of his salvation is gnosis -- a mystical, spiritual enlightenment for the initiated, which brings them into contact with the realm of spiritual realities. This process is described in the Nag Hammadi text called The Gospel of Truth, which contains a powerful statement on the human condition as an emptiness, ignorance, and dereliction to be healed by the saving revelation of Christ. Many Gnostics insisted that ignorance -- not sin in the orthodox Christian meaning -- is what involves mankind in suffering (as do Buddhists, with whom they share other basic views). Most Gnostics believed that man must wake up, must become aware of his condition and the possibility of his release.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-oost.htm


If the bible is the one true word then what does it mean that these Gnostic texts were written around the same time, even pre-dating Christianity, about the same figure, Jesus, but suppressed for thousands of years? Who was it that decided which text would become the one true text? According to the above article that it was Saint Irenaeus who sought to attack and suppress Gnosticism. Wikipedia states the same:

"As one of the first great Christian theologians, he emphasized the traditional elements in the Church, especially the episcopate, Scripture, and tradition.[4] Against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture."

"The resurrected Christ is an inner spiritual experience"
This really jives with and reflects my own thoughts that it is allegory for the enlightenment of Jesus, and that we all are able to obtain it within ourselves. I like the gnostic texts because it gives power to the individual and makes him responsible for his own spiritual experience, not God. I think though that most people do not want this burden so Christianity is easier to follow and accept.

“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #589 on: June 26, 2017, 03:26:21 PM »
Jim555, what are your thoughts about the Gnostics and the Nag Hammadi texts?
You don't want to know. 

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #590 on: June 26, 2017, 05:48:13 PM »
If someone were to ask me "What do Christian's Believe?" the Apostle's Creed is the simplest and clearest expression.
As we talked about earlier in this thread, the 'what' is vaguely interesting on its own - but it's the 'why' that is of much more interest.

So, now that you've shared what you believe, could you tell us why you believe it?

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #591 on: June 26, 2017, 05:50:28 PM »
Jim555, what are your thoughts about the Gnostics and the Nag Hammadi texts?
You don't want to know.

Given Zoltani took the time to write all that out, I think they are probably genuinely interested in what your thoughts are.

I don't want to speak for someone else though - but I'll add that I am sincerely interested in hearing what you have to say.  Honestly the entire Calvinist viewpoint really fascinates me.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #592 on: June 26, 2017, 06:35:42 PM »
Jim555, what are your thoughts about the Gnostics and the Nag Hammadi texts?
It is hard to reply to these doctrines since they have no basis in  scripture. 
The Word of God has been preserved by providence and these "lost" texts are not meant to be included as scripture.
Sounds like some New Age mumbo jumbo.

FireLane

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Location: NYC
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #593 on: June 26, 2017, 07:39:26 PM »
caracarn, what do you believe about the atonement?  I believe it was made for all who will be saved, not everyone in general.
I think it was said you align (or are) in the Calvanist tradition and that you ascribe to one of the five points of limited atonement. 

I do not believe that.  Romans is again the doctrinal text I would point to when Paul states ALL are sinners and ALL can be saved.  He delves into it in much greater depth and in much greater detail than that (as I am sure you are aware), but I believe Calvin's doctrine there is another false barrier man has placed before God.  God wants ALL to be saved.
The problem with your position is it makes salvation a conditional proposition and turns grace into a works scheme.  You must perform X action to synergize with grace to activate it.  It is just like Catholicism.  I would not greet you as a spiritual brother with that doctrine.

Can we take a moment to appreciate the irony? The two most fervent and outspoken Christians in this thread are arguing with each other over what the Bible really teaches.

What gives, guys? Based on what I've been reading in this thread, all you have to do is read the Bible with an open heart and a willingness to believe, and God will reveal the truth to you. It seems like that didn't work in this instance, since at least one of the two of you must have received an incorrect revelation. How are the rest of us supposed to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

Or, y'know, maybe the Bible is just a collection of poetry, folklore and mystical metaphors assembled by human beings over the ages. Maybe there's no one "true" meaning waiting to be discovered, and we all come away with different interpretations based on our own life experiences and the preconceptions we bring to the text. Sounds logical to me!

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #594 on: June 26, 2017, 08:03:28 PM »
It is hard to reply to these doctrines since they have no basis in scripture.

Fair enough.

One thing I find interesting is that when you discussed how you came to your beliefs you mentioned your intense studying of the bible.  But you didn't actually tell us how you came to believe that the bible was worthy of intense study and a trustworthy source of knowledge initially.

I'm curious, how exactly did you come to believe that the bible was the 'Word of God'?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #595 on: June 26, 2017, 08:06:56 PM »
caracarn,

I would be curious on what you think about those who never hear the gospel in their entire life, like American Indians before the westerners arrived.  No gospel, no possibility of faith, no chance to be saved.  If God wants every single person saved wouldn't they at least get the chance to say no?

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #596 on: June 26, 2017, 08:43:11 PM »
It is hard to reply to these doctrines since they have no basis in scripture.

Fair enough.

One thing I find interesting is that when you discussed how you came to your beliefs you mentioned your intense studying of the bible.  But you didn't actually tell us how you came to believe that the bible was worthy of intense study and a trustworthy source of knowledge initially.

I'm curious, how exactly did you come to believe that the bible was the 'Word of God'?
Right after my conversion.  Once I was reading it and it made sense for the first time.  It says the Holy Spirit witnesses with your spirit, I know this sounds like hocus pochus, but it is true.  Before that I was like I will give it a chance, but being an agnostic I was highly sceptical of most things.  How can I know this is true?  What if I am falling into a trap?  What if this is all bunk?  I see no way to get faith since I didn't trust anything.  When you trust nothing you have nothing to hold on to.  It says faith is the gift of God, and it is, that is how it happens. 

MrDelane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #597 on: June 26, 2017, 09:12:14 PM »
Right after my conversion.  Once I was reading it and it made sense for the first time.  It says the Holy Spirit witnesses with your spirit, I know this sounds like hocus pochus, but it is true.  Before that I was like I will give it a chance, but being an agnostic I was highly sceptical of most things.  How can I know this is true?  What if I am falling into a trap?  What if this is all bunk?  I see no way to get faith since I didn't trust anything.  When you trust nothing you have nothing to hold on to.  It says faith is the gift of God, and it is, that is how it happens.

It doesn't sound like hocus pocus exactly, it sounds like religious faith - and I'm curious to understand how you wound up relying on faith if you were such a skeptic to begin with. 

For example - looking at the questions you listed:

Quote
How can I know this is true?  What if I am falling into a trap?  What if this is all bunk?

What sort of study did you do to answer those questions?
Did you study the bible itself (as a document, I mean), archeology, history, etc?
It seems like you would want to look at evidence and weigh it if you were so skeptical.

I guess I just don't understand how faith is a pathway to truth.
Millions of people believe their own religions (which contradict yours) on a faith which is just as strong.
Caracarn clearly believes his own doctrine on faith, never mind all the Muslims, Jews and others who believe their own doctrines on faith and personal revelation.

How can we possibly trust faith if we have no way to confirm the belief it leads us to?

We don't use faith as a justification for any other belief in our lives (and I'd be willing to bet you don't rely on faith for anything else). I find it odd we would trust such an important belief to faith.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 09:18:44 PM by MrDelane »

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #598 on: June 26, 2017, 09:23:13 PM »
The long awaited response from one of our pastors on slavery.   He sent me a PDF, that says it is 3.5MB but I have tried about 15 times and it will not upload.  Is contains about 20 pages of various books.  I really will not be able to retype everything but here are the areas he highlighted and also the note he started with.

It is clear that slavery as well as every other social injustice
is the direct result of sin entering the world. God created
originally man and woman both in His image in a state of
complementarity equality. They were essentially the same but
with different roles. They were in paradise with no slavery and
both were called to be the vice regents of the whole earth,
responsibly subjugating its resources for the benefit of
mankind. Sin as it always does ruins everything. Slavery as we
know it absolutely denigrates the image likeness of God in
man and was not God's original intention at all. But sin
entered and God began to restore man in his image. This first
requires a change on the inside through salvation (Gen 3:15)!
But eventually God will make right all the things he allows
among which most horrifically is physical death with a close
second, human slavery. Like human death, he never intended
it to be this way, but for now allows it with the goal of
eradicating it:). Along the way he has given man the capacity
and directed him as in common grace to be able to mitigate
the pain it causes. So too with human slavery. He allows it and
like death (dead to sin) even uses it as a metaphor for our
relationship to Jesus (slaves of Christ). However the cup of his
wrath is filling up for its evil. One day it will be fully done
away with. The sections that follow then demonstrate how
God was and still is in the process of dealing with human
slavery. It is true that Slavery in the Nation of Israel was an
altogether different kind of a slavery, but was still the result of
living in a fallen world.
Let me know if this helps. I've tried to highlight relevant
portions to help the reading.
PK

Manners and Customs of Bible Lands by Fred H. Wight Moody Press
Slavery among the Hebrews themselves was not allowed.

Why the Mosaic Law permitted slavery instead of abolishing it.
When the laws were given at Mt. Sinai, slavery was universal among the nations of the world.  It was not practical to do away with it all at once.  Further, laws were given to prevent the worst abuses and evils of it from being present among the Jews.

....mitigate the evils and prepare the way for their ultimate repression.

...slavery among the Jews had virtually disappeared by the time of Christ and His disciples.

Slavery in the Roman Empire
Attitude of the Apostles toward slavery in the Roman Empire
They did not attempt to do away with the terrible evil immediately.  ... Rather, they were satisfied to give forth Christian principles, and so preach the gospel of liberation from sin that the result would be to do away with human slavery through the conquering power of Christ....Philemon.... done more to overcome slavery than any other document ever written.

Manners and Customs of Bible Times
Ralph Gower Moody Press

....they were carefully protected by the law.

Slaves were often well treated, as if members of the family.
God treatment was not solely a Jewish characteristic.
Some slaves were entrusted with great authority, could marry, were set free

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Gleason L. Archer Zondervan Publishing House

Was slavery all right in the sight of God?
Noah cursed his son....namely Cannan...singled out

The fulfillment of this curse came about in Joshua's conquest.

As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historic record.....Not until the more exalted concept of man and his innate dignity as a person created in the image of God had permeated the world as a product of Bible teaching did a strong sentiment arise in Christendom in criticism of slavery and a questioning of its right to exist.  No equivalent movement toward abolition is discernible in an non-Christian civilization of which we have any knowledge.

In New Testament times slaves who became Christians were regarded as true brothers of the Christian free men and fellow heirs of the kingdom of God.  They were bidden to serve their masters faithfully, respectfully, and with a right good will, as if they were serving the Lord Himself (Eph 6:5-8)- even though they should seek to earn or purchase their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor 7:21)

...undermined slavery.  This principle found expression first in the Christian world and then in other religions and cultures, which were shamed by the Christian example into abolishing slavery within their own domains.  Thus God's ultimate purpose was brought to fruition.


caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: That's me in the corner... losing my religion.
« Reply #599 on: June 26, 2017, 09:30:15 PM »
caracarn,

I would be curious on what you think about those who never hear the gospel in their entire life, like American Indians before the westerners arrived.  No gospel, no possibility of faith, no chance to be saved.  If God wants every single person saved wouldn't they at least get the chance to say no?
I do not have any answer to that other than what you have said all along.  There are stories of aborigines in Africa for example, who felt the indwelt piece that God places in all of us that clearly points us to him (explained in early chapters of Romans where man is without excuse because of everything he sees in creation), who years later finally hear the message and understand clearly God sent them a messenger to share the good news.  I would also say that Abraham did not hear the gospel, nor did Moses or others, but the Bible clearly says they were saved as their faith was counted as righteousness, so perhaps God allows something similar with those prior to actual access.  I just do not make the leap that your view has that because some people have no access that means God planned who does over all time.  God adjusted his plan to allow for salvation as man moved (as noted above by my pastor's comments on slavery).  Before NT times people were being saved, so there was clearly a path to salvation before the gospel.