Biblical Inerrancy

13468915

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 23
    MPaul wrote: »
    the bible is not a coherent work,

    You’d be doing yourself an eternal favour if you rethought that piece of nonsense.

    To make that work you have had to make up a metanarrative that makes the Bible overwhelmingly, axiomatically coherent, whatever that means.

    What is that metanarrative?

    And what does it have to do with eternity? Which [you] can't dare look in to.

    (Corrected by B62)

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 23
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That's the thing; I don't understand the adherence to inerrancy when a cursory glance at the text shows massive contradictions - to harmonise Samuel and Chronicles requires you to equate God with Satan, or perform some very unconvincing dancing around the plain meaning of the text - the very thing you're trying to defend!

    As for never having considered the Joshua (and later) genocides a problem at all, I really struggle to see how you can do that without actually being a sociopath, totally devoid of any ability to empathise, totally devoid of any sense of right and wrong, any conscience. Either that or you exercise double-think; simultaneously seeing the obvious issue but because The Party, I mean your commitment to inerrancy, says There Is No Problem, There Is No Problem.

    "How many fingers am I holding up? And if the party says it's five, how many is it then?"

    Back in the days I was an inerrancist it was double-think I used. Eventually I couldn't keep it up. "Four! Four! How can I deny what is in front of my eyes! Four fingers!"

    MPaul is perfectly normal. Fear of death makes him declare black is white. No sociopathy (the euphemism for psychopathy) is needed as it isn't with 99% of damnationist theists.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    One of James Barr's points in Fundamentalism is that the psychological approach to inerrantist interpretation is so often sterile and self-defeating. Methodological criticism is essentially value-free. For example the generally accepted understanding by protestants of the synoptics, that Mark was primary and used as reference in the writing of Matthew and Luke, is a finding of painstaking source-criticism. It is an illuminating explanation of the differences of content and sequence in the synoptics. The late F F Bruce, a lifelong member of the Plymouth Brethren and long time Rylands Professor of Biblical Exegesis at Manchester University, wrote an article for a New Testament Commentary much used amongst the Brethren which endorsed the main findings of the source-critical analysis of the synoptics. I have a copy on my shelf at home, given to me by a long time friend within the Brethren.

    It is perfectly possible to combine both a reverence for scripture and an acceptance of the findings of source-critical scholarship. These approaches do not have to lead to polarisation.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    the bible is not a coherent work,
    You’d be doing yourself an eternal favour if you rethought that piece of nonsense.
    Multiple problems here, one is that the bible is obviously not a coherent work. If one being directly guided it, it doesn't appear to be an omniscient, omnipotent or loving one.
    Another is that if one doesn't acquiesce to the obscure, and obscured, meanings you posit, God will throw one into the pit of Hell? Out of love?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    As for never having considered the Joshua (and later) genocides a problem at all, I really struggle to see how you can do that without actually being a sociopath, totally devoid of any ability to empathise, totally devoid of any sense of right and wrong, any conscience.
    A sociopath is as a sociopath does. The bible is alike a box of chocolates, you never know... OK, OK.
    Seriously, though, one does not need to be a sociopath to believe in the way that MPaul appears to. However, sociopaths love such as followers.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    the bible is not a coherent work,
    You’d be doing yourself an eternal favour if you rethought that piece of nonsense.
    Multiple problems here, one is that the bible is obviously not a coherent work. If one being directly guided it, it doesn't appear to be an omniscient, omnipotent or loving one.
    Another is that if one doesn't acquiesce to the obscure, and obscured, meanings you posit, God will throw one into the pit of Hell? Out of love?

    It's the sort of theology that gave rise to the parody of Kissing Hank's Arse
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Barnabas 28:There is also very strong evidence of significant variation in the histories in the OT (Samuel and Chronicles), significant story and history variation both within the Synoptic Gospels and when comparing them to the gospel of John.
    OK, show us what you’ve got then.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It doesn't matter, it's all true and correct and infallible and inerrant and literal.
  • by lilbuddha
    Another is that if one doesn't acquiesce to the obscure, and obscured, meanings you posit, God will throw one into the pit of Hell? Out of love?

    from John chapter 3
    `And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; 20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light,
    John 3:19-20 (YLT)

    On the basis of that text, more that people choose to throw themselves into the pit of Hell despite God's love. And if God is in fact giving them what they want, why complain?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 24
    by lilbuddha
    Another is that if one doesn't acquiesce to the obscure, and obscured, meanings you posit, God will throw one into the pit of Hell? Out of love?

    from John chapter 3
    `And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; 20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light,
    John 3:19-20 (YLT)

    On the basis of that text, more that people choose to throw themselves into the pit of Hell despite God's love. And if God is in fact giving them what they want, why complain?
    For some interpretations include failing obeisance to God in “loving the darkness”.
    Needing to be acknowledged a Lord High mucky muck is not love.

  • Agreed that 'charlatanry' requires a degree of deceit/insincerity and probably the majority of Orthodox/RCs genuinely believe in what they're doing. But also AIUI making icons etc is a quite profitable business

    What's your source on this? I don't know of any iconographers who are making "quite [a] profit." There are monasteries that sell icons to keep the wolf from the door, and there a rare few that make a decent living from it. For most it is a labor of love.
    Yes the Temple and its Tabernacle predecessor contained lots of images. But then they themselves were in a sense 'images', what we might call 'visual aids' looking forward to Jesus and the renewed covenant he brings.

    You do know that the purpose of icons, as we define them, is as 'visual aids' looking to the kingdom of Heaven, right?
    In that new covenant there is no need of 'holy' buildings and 'holy' paraphernalia therein, the NT concept is that the faithful Christians are themselves the 'temple' in which God dwells.

    That is your interpretation. There are clearly others. Don't kid yourself (you're certainly not kidding me) that this is the raw, unintepreted meaning of the gospel and that we have twisted it with our interpretation.
  • MPaul--
    MPaul wrote: »
    The good news is that Christ overcame sin ..he condemned sin in the flesh. However, because he came from a different line, a non Adamic line of ancestry, he qualified as the divine ‘Passover lamb as well. No one else could have done it. God had to become human to defeat sin.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    Ok, I know churches vary wildly and widely on the Incarnation, and I may well have forgotten a lot.

    But "non-Adamic" assumes that Jesus didn't get any genetic material from Mary. I've come across Shipmates who don't think it was (if it happened) a matter of mixing human DNA and whatever God contributed.

    I don't think I've come across that view from conservative, fund/evo sorts of Protestants. (I grew up as one, and have most of it in my "don't know" stack. But I'm not poking at you.)

    Would you explain, please? Thx.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Lilbuddah: Another is that if one doesn't acquiesce to the obscure, and obscured, meanings you posit, God will throw one into the pit of Hell? Out of love
    Well the question is are they there, those meanings. My understanding is that you only qualify for the pit if you reject Revelation. You are on earth for the precise purpose of hearing God’s message. That’s revelation. You haven’t ‘heard’ it till you have and only you know that. The eyes of the heart need to be opened to ‘get’ spiritual truth.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 24
    Completely. What was Mary? And who was Adam? This is exactly what I meant by an incoherent metanarrative trying to achieve a coherent narrative.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Completely. What was Mary? And who was Adam? This is exactly what I meant by an incoherent metanarrative trying to achieve a coherent narrative.
    What is incoherent is your determination that everything is incoherent. To a normal postmodernist, text comes alive in the reading; makes sense in the discernment..but not in your case buddy.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Agreed that 'charlatanry' requires a degree of deceit/insincerity and probably the majority of Orthodox/RCs genuinely believe in what they're doing. But also AIUI making icons etc is a quite profitable business

    What's your source on this? I don't know of any iconographers who are making "quite [a] profit." There are monasteries that sell icons to keep the wolf from the door, and there a rare few that make a decent living from it. For most it is a labor of love.

    I didn't accuse all iconographers; I just said that human nature being as it is, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few who are just doing for the profit something they may not believe in.
    Yes the Temple and its Tabernacle predecessor contained lots of images. But then they themselves were in a sense 'images', what we might call 'visual aids' looking forward to Jesus and the renewed covenant he brings.

    You do know that the purpose of icons, as we define them, is as 'visual aids' looking to the kingdom of Heaven, right?

    Yes and I have no particular objection to such use. A full answer here would require quite a bit of space. But don't kid yourself that some of them are not treated as 'idols' in a bad sense by some worshippers.
    In that new covenant there is no need of 'holy' buildings and 'holy' paraphernalia therein, the NT concept is that the faithful Christians are themselves the 'temple' in which God dwells.

    That is your interpretation. There are clearly others. Don't kid yourself (you're certainly not kidding me) that this is the raw, uninterpreted meaning of the gospel and that we have twisted it with our interpretation.

    One of the things I really dislike about the Ship is this habit people seem to have developed of just saying "there are other interpretations" as if that settled something. And as usual my question has to be what are the other interpretations and what is their backing/support/evidence? Just saying there are other interpretations proves nothing except that there are other interpretations.

    Unless you can demonstrate the validity of the "other interpretations" it's an empty assertion, and come to think of it one that expresses dubious attitudes both to the principles of discussion and to the people you're having the discussion with.

    In this case there clearly are texts saying that the Church - the people/assembly/ekklesia - are the Temple, the place God in Christ through the Spirit lives in the new covenant; and offhand I'm not aware of texts that tell us to build expensive cathedrals and decorate them with icons.
  • But surely those buildings, the churches and cathedrals, are echoing the Temples of the Bible. Places to meet and worship.
  • by lilbuddha
    For some interpretations include failing obeisance to God in “loving the darkness”.
    Needing to be acknowledged a Lord High mucky muck is not love.

    Very true in human terms where any "Lord High mucky muck" is just another human being who isn't as special as he thinks he is.

    Not quite the same when we are talking about the God who made both you and the world you live in and just possibly knows a great deal better than you how both you and that world best work. And whose commands are therefore not unreasonable, and indeed do express love and care towards us, while your refusal to obey is likely to be both unreasonable and self-destructive....
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Completely. What was Mary? And who was Adam? This is exactly what I meant by an incoherent metanarrative trying to achieve a coherent narrative.

    Sounds like Chaos Theory. ;) Hmmm..."The Case For The Chaotic Creator"?
  • But surely those buildings, the churches and cathedrals, are echoing the Temples of the Bible. Places to meet and worship.

    {Sticks dust-covered head out of mental attic.}

    IIRC, God was against having a temple. (I think there was a tent of meeting, or something.) I think the people and King David pushed for it, because they wanted what other people had for their deities. At some point, God said, "All right, all right, already. This is a mistake. But go ahead. One snag: David, you can't build it, because you've got so much blood on your hands." I think maybe David at least started sourcing materials. But his son Solomon, the next king, was the one who had it built.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited January 24
    MPaul wrote: »
    Barnabas 28:There is also very strong evidence of significant variation in the histories in the OT (Samuel and Chronicles), significant story and history variation both within the Synoptic Gospels and when comparing them to the gospel of John.
    OK, show us what you’ve got then.

    Not very well at present, wrestling with a virus.
    But from many examples

    OT - Firstly trajectory of understanding who God is.
    Exodus 20. You shall have no other Gods before me. Psalm 95. The Lord is the great God, the great King above all Gods. That's henotheistic. Those verses do not deny the existence of other Gods but declare God's supremacy. Isaiah 43 v 10. Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me. Also Isaiah 45 v 1. I am the Lord and there is no other. That's monotheistic. There has only ever been one God.

    On the detail of the histories. Here is a well known example. Who killed Goliath? Was it David (1 Sam 17) or Elhanan (2 Sam 21)? Or maybe Elhanan slew Goliath's brother (1 Chron 20)?

    NT -. In what stage of his ministry did Jesus cleanse the Temple? The synoptics place his actions in the week before the crucifixion, but John places it right at the start. Who is right? Or is John not to be trusted for chronology?

    When was the Holy Spirit given to the disciples? At Pentecost, after Jesus ascension, as Acts has it, or in the upper room during the first resurrection appearance in the upper room, as John has it? And if the disciples received the Holy Spirit as a direct gift from the resurrected but not yet ascended Jesus, why do the Synoptics not mention this? Seems like a pretty big deal.

    On an important issue of teaching, why does Matthew report Jesus as allowing divorce for marital unfaithfulness, whereas Mark does not? Oh and on a detail of history, how many times did the cock crow in Peter's denial? Mark is very clear that Jesus prophesied twice. That's not the way Matthew tells it. Or John, whose version is different in other ways.

    A theology of scripture has to take these variations into account or it is ignoring evidence.
  • 2 Samuel 7, 12-13 has Nathan tell David that his heir will build a temple¹
    12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
    This is chronologically a few chapters before the death of Uriah the Hittite and some of David's more bloody incidents.

    In 1 Kings 5:3-5:
    3 “You know that because of the wars waged against my father David from all sides, he could not build a temple for the Name of the Lord his God until the Lord put his enemies under his feet. 4 But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side, and there is no adversary or disaster. 5 I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the Lord my God, as the Lord told my father David, when he said, ‘Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.’
    and in 1 Kings 6: 11-13 it sounds as if God is agreeing to these arrangements:
    11 The word of the Lord came to Solomon: 12 “As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, observe my laws and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. 13 And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel.”

    ¹ although there is a footnote saying those words may have been added in the reign of Solomon
  • Dueling passages! ;)

    1 Chronicles 17:1-6, NIV (Bible Gateway).
    After David was settled in his palace, he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of the covenant of the Lord is under a tent.”

    2 Nathan replied to David, “Whatever you have in mind, do it, for God is with you.”

    3 But that night the word of God came to Nathan, saying:

    4 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: You are not the one to build me a house to dwell in. 5 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought Israel up out of Egypt to this day. I have moved from one tent site to another, from one dwelling place to another. 6 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their leaders[a] whom I commanded to shepherd my people, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’

    *Then* God basically tells Nathan to tell David, "But go ahead now, and I will make you great".

    I found this: "A Temple Made By Human Hands" (Unveiling.org).. I skimmed most of it, and it seems pretty much in line with what I was taught. Start with the section titled "The Temple - Made with Hands".
  • You've just quoted the Chronicles section before the two verses I quoted. And then it's subject to interpretation. Those who come from traditions that eschew church buildings will interpret those passages one way, with more emphasis on the travelling section, those who believe in church buildings will concentrate on the agreement from God for the building of the Temple.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    But "non-Adamic" assumes that Jesus didn't get any genetic material from Mary. I've come across Shipmates who don't think it was (if it happened) a matter of mixing human DNA and whatever God contributed.

    The H in "Jesus H. Christ" stands for "Haploid".
  • by Curiosity Killed
    Those who come from traditions that eschew church buildings will interpret those passages one way, with more emphasis on the travelling section, those who believe in church buildings will concentrate on the agreement from God for the building of the Temple.

    From where I am, neither of the above. I have no problem with the idea of God's people building meeting places - though decided reservations about grandiose cathedrals and similar. But also no problem with the idea that it's just as valid to meet as a group in a house; the 'church/ekklesia' is the people, not the building.

    But either way the church building is NOT a 'temple'; the Temple (and its 'tabernacle/tent' predecessor) was a place of sacrifice for a nation. The parallel for the church would rather be the synagogue - which again, AIUI, didn't actually need a building though it was OK to have one. A Temple is no longer needed in the 'New Covenant' because sacrifices are no longer needed.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Lilbuddah: Another is that if one doesn't acquiesce to the obscure, and obscured, meanings you posit, God will throw one into the pit of Hell? Out of love
    Well the question is are they there, those meanings. My understanding is that you only qualify for the pit if you reject Revelation. You are on earth for the precise purpose of hearing God’s message.
    If the revelation were the important bit, then god could reveal himself directly to everyone. He hasn't, so it isn't.

  • by lilbuddha
    For some interpretations include failing obeisance to God in “loving the darkness”.
    Needing to be acknowledged a Lord High mucky muck is not love.

    Very true in human terms where any "Lord High mucky muck" is just another human being who isn't as special as he thinks he is.

    Not quite the same when we are talking about the God who made both you and the world you live in and just possibly knows a great deal better than you how both you and that world best work. And whose commands are therefore not unreasonable, and indeed do express love and care towards us, while your refusal to obey is likely to be both unreasonable and self-destructive....
    OK, this presumes that the acknowledgement of God is the important bit. Because one can find examples of lives lived that would seem ever bit as Christian as the best Christian lives, except for a different religious symbol (or non at all) above their door. Of all the virtues of Christianity, the only one unique to it is in acknowledging the Christian God.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    by lilbuddha
    For some interpretations include failing obeisance to God in “loving the darkness”.
    Needing to be acknowledged a Lord High mucky muck is not love.

    Very true in human terms where any "Lord High mucky muck" is just another human being who isn't as special as he thinks he is.

    Not quite the same when we are talking about the God who made both you and the world you live in and just possibly knows a great deal better than you how both you and that world best work. And whose commands are therefore not unreasonable, and indeed do express love and care towards us, while your refusal to obey is likely to be both unreasonable and self-destructive....
    OK, this presumes that the acknowledgement of God is the important bit. Because one can find examples of lives lived that would seem ever bit as Christian as the best Christian lives, except for a different religious symbol (or non at all) above their door. Of all the virtues of Christianity, the only one unique to it is in acknowledging the Christian God.

    And that's not a bad insight. Christianity doesn't claim to have a massively better moral code than anybody else - the basics of being human are the same whoever is living the life.

    Having said that one of the Christian distinctives is perhaps a greater concern with the inner motives, not just with the external acts. As Jesus' dealings with Pharisees show, it was possible to live an externally very good life yet be decidedly not 'justified/in the right' with God due to self-centred self-righteousness; and I think most Shipmates can and do appreciate much of the rationale behind that.

    But the really key difference in Christianity is in the way it deals with putting things right when we've failed to live up to the moral ideals - in most cases even to our own low standards, let alone God's ideals. And in turn that 'putting things right' aspect at the very least works a lot better if there is acknowledgement of God and engagement with Him....
  • Having said that one of the Christian distinctives is perhaps a greater concern with the inner motives, not just with the external acts. As Jesus' dealings with Pharisees show, it was possible to live an externally very good life yet be decidedly not 'justified/in the right' with God due to self-centred self-righteousness; and I think most Shipmates can and do appreciate much of the rationale behind that.
    So you are saying everyone else is shallow? I don’t think you understand other theists, non-theists or atheists as well as you presume.
    But the really key difference in Christianity is in the way it deals with putting things right when we've failed to live up to the moral ideals - in most cases even to our own low standards, let alone God's ideals. And in turn that 'putting things right' aspect at the very least works a lot better if there is acknowledgement of God and engagement with Him....
    I’m not sure how. If one puts things right out of fear of damnation, one isn’t any better than the person who doesn’t. If one does it because they feel it is the right thing to do, I see no difference whether one believes in god or not.
    I’d actually say the opposite. If one know the rules one has more culpability in failing them.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ="Steve Langton
    But the really key difference in Christianity is in the way it deals with putting things right when we've failed to live up to the moral ideals - in most cases even to our own low standards, let alone God's ideals. And in turn that 'putting things right' aspect at the very least works a lot better if there is acknowledgement of God and engagement with Him....
    I’m not sure how. If one puts things right out of fear of damnation, one isn’t any better than the person who doesn’t. If one does it because they feel it is the right thing to do, I see no difference whether one believes in god or not.
    I’d actually say the opposite. If one know the rules one has more culpability in failing them.

    And if you can't put things right? If you've piled up a debt you've no hope of ever repaying, for example...? I wasn't talking about us humans putting things right, but a loving God putting things right when we can't, and doing it out of love - though of course we can refuse it and it seems some people do.

    And totally agree with the one about "If one knows the rules...." It's precisely because in general humans do know the rules, which in turn is because the Christian version is not so exceptional at the rules level, that Paul can say that all are guilty.

    Sure it's undesirable to want to put things right just out of 'fear of damnation'; it is still probably better than nothing and therefore not wanting to put things right. But it is actually a bit more complex than that. It starts with this thing called 'repentance' which in turn starts when you realise just how far off the rails you are.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    But the really key difference in Christianity is in the way it deals with putting things right when we've failed to live up to the moral ideals - in most cases even to our own low standards, let alone God's ideals. And in turn that 'putting things right' aspect at the very least works a lot better if there is acknowledgement of God and engagement with Him....
    And if you can't put things right? If you've piled up a debt you've no hope of ever repaying, for example...? I wasn't talking about us humans putting things right, but a loving God putting things right when we can't, and doing it out of love - though of course we can refuse it and it seems some people do.

    Whether that "works a lot better" would seem to be a matter of perspective. Assuming that God is going to fix everything so human action is unnecessary seems like something that would "work a lot better" from the perspective of a transgressor but a lot less so from the perspective of the transgressed. One of the recurring themes throughout a lot of recent religiously-based scandals is that the transgressor will eventually claim to have God's forgiveness so anything else, like returning the proceeds of fraud, jail time, or even an apology to the victims, is completely unnecessary.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ="Steve Langton
    But the really key difference in Christianity is in the way it deals with putting things right when we've failed to live up to the moral ideals - in most cases even to our own low standards, let alone God's ideals. And in turn that 'putting things right' aspect at the very least works a lot better if there is acknowledgement of God and engagement with Him....
    I’m not sure how. If one puts things right out of fear of damnation, one isn’t any better than the person who doesn’t. If one does it because they feel it is the right thing to do, I see no difference whether one believes in god or not.
    I’d actually say the opposite. If one know the rules one has more culpability in failing them.

    And if you can't put things right? If you've piled up a debt you've no hope of ever repaying, for example...? I wasn't talking about us humans putting things right, but a loving God putting things right when we can't, and doing it out of love - though of course we can refuse it and it seems some people do.
    And why can't God put things right for people who do not believe in him?
    Sure it's undesirable to want to put things right just out of 'fear of damnation'; it is still probably better than nothing and therefore not wanting to put things right.
    Trying to fix something with the person you damaged, might do some good for the damaged regardless of motive. But how is the cowardly person better? If I steal a ball from a child and you tell me to give it back and I only do so out of fear that you will beat me if I do not, I am still a bad person.
    But it is actually a bit more complex than that. It starts with this thing called 'repentance' which in turn starts when you realise just how far off the rails you are.
    You realise that this is also not an exclusively Christian thing.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Lilbuddah:And why can't God put things right for people who do not believe in him?

    Just in case this is a serious question. The basic issue is not intellectual, it is one’s heart response to truth. The fact is that we are hard wired to recognise truth but that often that recognition interferes with our similarly hard wired self interest. If you respond positively to truth you encounter, the Holy Spirit will feed you the next step. If you balk in pride or other fleshly reaction, you cease to be open in heart and the process stops.

    Only you know where you are in this regard as none of us are qualified to judge each other’s heart motives. This is the process of repentance and the path into relationship with God. It is an exclusively Christian concept, repentance. No other religion demands such radical change of heart but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.

    It took me 3 years to work through if it’s any comfort..fighting all the way.
  • MPaul wrote: »

    Just in case this is a serious question.
    I am serious.
    The basic issue is not intellectual, it is one’s heart response to truth. The fact is that we are hard wired to recognise truth but that often that recognition interferes with our similarly hard wired self interest. If you respond positively to truth you encounter, the Holy Spirit will feed you the next step. If you balk in pride or other fleshly reaction, you cease to be open in heart and the process stops.
    A strangely lazy approach for a God who loves us, but will condemn us to eternal suffering for a misstep.
    This is the process of repentance and the path into relationship with God. It is an exclusively Christian concept, repentance.
    In Islam it is called Tawba
    In Judaism it is called tshuva or teshuva
    In Hinduism it is called Prāyaścitta
    In the Hawaiian religion is is called Hoʻoponopono
    Buddhism is varied, but in Mahayana Buddhism there is a Repentance Verse in Chapter 40 of the Flower Adornment Sutra and Zen Buddhism has two forms of repentance.
    I could go on, but I think it safe to say your catechism has not extended beyond Christianity.
    No other religion demands such radical change of heart
    This is very arguable and very subjective.
    but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.
    And that is incompatible with a loving god.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.
  • I didn't accuse all iconographers; I just said that human nature being as it is, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few who are just doing for the profit something they may not believe in.

    Then we have moved firmly into "so what?" territory. The claim was that icons are charlatanry. Not that there is the occasional person who is a charlatan who uses icons to bilk people.
    But don't kid yourself that some of them are not treated as 'idols' in a bad sense by some worshippers.

    As is the Bible. As are many things. So what.
    In this case there clearly are texts saying that the Church - the people/assembly/ekklesia - are the Temple, the place God in Christ through the Spirit lives in the new covenant; and offhand I'm not aware of texts that tell us to build expensive cathedrals and decorate them with icons.

    Again in the so what territory. The bible doesn't tell us to have indoor plumbing or brush our teeth, either. So. What. I don't know any Orthodox who would say that if you don't hve icons and cathedrals you're not truly worshiping God. But I will say that the minimizing attitude -- what's the least we can do and still be worshiping God? -- speaks to me of selfishness and holding back, not of giving everything to God.
  • Steve--

    FWIW: You might want to take a look at the novel "The Kitchen Madonna", by Rumer Godden (IIRC). A family's new domestic worker is used to icons, and the family isn't. Pretty light reading, IIRC, but good.

    YMMV.

    Oh, and there's a saying to the effect that "the thing about icons is that you don't just look at them, but see through them".
  • mousethief--
    mousethief wrote: »
    Again in the so what territory. The bible doesn't tell us to have indoor plumbing or brush our teeth, either.

    Deuteronomy 23 even has a mini-tutorial on digging/using a latrine. ;) So God must not like indoor plumbing.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.

    As I say, I do not understand it and am happy to leave the mystery element alone. Jesus could not be a created being yet he shares in our humanity. Heretical? Less so than denying the fall I would have thought.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »

    Just in case this is a serious question.
    I am serious.
    The basic issue is not intellectual, it is one’s heart response to truth. The fact is that we are hard wired to recognise truth but that often that recognition interferes with our similarly hard wired self interest. If you respond positively to truth you encounter, the Holy Spirit will feed you the next step. If you balk in pride or other fleshly reaction, you cease to be open in heart and the process stops.
    A strangely lazy approach for a God who loves us, but will condemn us to eternal suffering for a misstep.
    This is the process of repentance and the path into relationship with God. It is an exclusively Christian concept, repentance.
    In Islam it is called Tawba
    In Judaism it is called tshuva or teshuva
    In Hinduism it is called Prāyaścitta
    In the Hawaiian religion is is called Hoʻoponopono
    Buddhism is varied, but in Mahayana Buddhism there is a Repentance Verse in Chapter 40 of the Flower Adornment Sutra and Zen Buddhism has two forms of repentance.
    I could go on, but I think it safe to say your catechism has not extended beyond Christianity.
    No other religion demands such radical change of heart
    This is very arguable and very subjective.
    but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.
    And that is incompatible with a loving god.
    Well look at it this way. He did not create our sin but was willing to intervene to save us from its consequences.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.

    As I say, I do not understand it and am happy to leave the mystery element alone. Jesus could not be a created being yet he shares in our humanity. Heretical? Less so than denying the fall I would have thought.

    Sorry, I just reread this. According to the flesh Jesus was indeed ‘Adamic’ as this was an element of his humanity. I think that the fact that he was sinless as well is human is the mystery since as God, he did not partake in the sinful nature of Adam, despite being descended from him. Best I can do at explaining the inexplicable.

  • by lilbuddha
    but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.
    And that is incompatible with a loving god.

    Please explain - why and how is Jesus dying for our sins incompatible with a loving God??
  • by mousethief
    Then we have moved firmly into "so what?" territory. The claim was that icons are charlatanry. Not that there is the occasional person who is a charlatan who uses icons to bilk people

    Not my claim. But overall icons are questionable in various ways. This is somewhat of a tangent to 'inerrancy' and I don't propose to go further here about it.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.

    As I say, I do not understand it and am happy to leave the mystery element alone. Jesus could not be a created being yet he shares in our humanity. Heretical? Less so than denying the fall I would have thought.

    Can you reconcile what you say with the Nicene and Athanasian creeds? It's very hard to.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.

    As I say, I do not understand it and am happy to leave the mystery element alone. Jesus could not be a created being yet he shares in our humanity. Heretical? Less so than denying the fall I would have thought.

    What's the fall?
  • The Trinity and the Incarnation are the central pillars of the Christian faith. The Fall? That comes WAAAAY down the list. Bad theology leads to bad deeds. A rotten theology of the Incarnation is not just a heresy. It's a danger.
  • by lilbuddha
    but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.
    And that is incompatible with a loving god.

    Please explain - why and how is Jesus dying for our sins incompatible with a loving God??

    It's not. Requiring people to believe it happened or punish them for all eternity is incompatible with a loving God.
  • by lilbuddha
    but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.
    And that is incompatible with a loving god.

    Please explain - why and how is Jesus dying for our sins incompatible with a loving God??
    Well, the whole concept is problematic, but what I was referring to in that reply was the "need" to recognise.
Sign In or Register to comment.