"Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:%awWj.886$IK1.657@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:JG8Wj.621$IK1.335@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Chris Bell" <cbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:HvTVj.407$IK1.283@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>
>>>*snip*
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You need to start paying enough attention to what I say to notice how
>>>>and when I qualify a statement. You obviously blew right past the
above
>>>>phrase, "...if we are to limit ourselves to what the Bible has to
say".
>>>>It therefore doesn't matter to what I actually said what your
dictionary
>>>>says, or what the usual usage in Oz is. There are two very different
>>>>denotations given the concept "integrity" between "normal" usage, and
>>>>biblical usage. In the Bible, being a person of integrity is being a
>>>>true witness for the truths of God, which entails living out one's
>>>>faith, which entails doing the moral thing in any cir***stance. In
>>>>normal usage, however, you're correct; having integrity simply means
>>>>generally acting according (rather than contrary to) one's beliefs,
>>>>regardless of how moral or immoral those actions may be.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I tried to follow this up, but none of the half-dozen or so references
I
>>>consulted had anything about it. Care to provide some references?
>>
>>
>> References? How about reading your Bible? After you do that, if you
>> don't think I've given you an accurate characterization for biblical
>> "integrity", you can let me know and tell me where I'm wrong.
>>
>>
>>>>>>requires acting on faith *as if* it were "knowledge". Biblically
>>>>>>speaking, there is no real distinction, in any moral sense, between
>>>>>>acting on the "belief" that Jesus is the Son of God, for example,
and
>>>>>>"knowing" that He is. And since this is the case, biblically
speaking
>>>>>>there is no real distinction between "belief", "knowledge", and
>>>>>>"faith" when it comes to the great truths of Scripture. I believe
>>>>>>Jesus rose
>>>>>
>>>>>>from the dead; I know Jesus rose from the dead,
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot "know" Jesus rose from the dead. You were not there when
he
>>>>>did and see the event.
>>>>
>>>'Know verb. Have in one's mind or memory as a result of experience,
>>>learning or information' Perhaps your usage fits into the latter cases.
>>
>>
>> Chris, you're going to have to dig a bit deeper than simply consulting
a
>> dictionary if you want to acquire anything close to an adequate grasp
of
>> the nature of knowledge and true belief. As I said, library shelves
>> worth of scholarly works have been written on the subject.
>>
> I know. I went there, at your suggestion. I read, and I decided that it
> really wasn't for me. I am a scientist, and philosophy just leaves me
> bored witless! Someone even suggested I join the local U3A philosophy
> group. I just looked at them.
Perhaps this attitude pertains because you've yet to see how philosophy
underlies almost all of science? Mathematics, the "langugage of science",
is nothing but very stylized formal logic.
I would think anyone with a real scientific aptitude wouldn't be able to
just ignore the underpinnings of their discipline like this. But I also
am
not oblivious to the ills of the modern world, one of which is this
artificial chasm that's been dug between science and the humanities,
allowing no crossover. This pigeonholing of human inquiry and knowledge
is
a very recent phenomenon in human history, and the jury is still out as to
whether or not it's valid.
>>
>>>>Chris, please don't lecture me out of your encyclopedic lack of
>>>>understanding concerning the nature of knowledge. Seeing something
>>>>occur doesn't automatically equate to knowing it did, nor is seeing
>>>>something occur necessary for knowledge that it did. What counts is
>>>>warrant/justification for the belief, and when you've got enough of
it,
>>>>then it becomes "knowledge" for the one who has it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Philosophical twaddle as far as I can see.
>>
>>
>> Then you need to get your eyes checked.
>>
> True. Must remember to make an appointment soon.
You need a balance you don't have right now.
>>
>>>>>>I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead, and by the grace of God,
I
>>>>>>act on my belief/knowledge/faith that Jesus rose from the dead.
When
>>>>>>I don't act on that belief/knowledge/faith, I'm being disingenuous;
>>>>>>I'm acting in a way that lacks "integrity".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not in the definition of integrity used here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The issue is whether or not Rowland exhibits "integrity" in pointing
>>>>>>people who are actively looking for the truth of God to various
>>>>>>conflicting and contradictory opinions, rather than providing them
>>>>>>with what he believes/knows/has faith is that truth. He obvious
can't
>>>>>>accept all those opinions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course not, but it is quite possible to accept different opinions
at
>>>>>different times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which is completely irrelevant when the fact is he presents them en
>>>>masse repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Que?
>>
>>
>> You were saying that one reason a person may accept contradictory
>> propositions was that they did so over time; that they held one belief
>> for a time, eventually rejecting it and accepting it's denial in its
>> place. That's perfectly true. People learn; people change beliefs over
>> time; rejecting some they've held, adopting others they didn't.
>>
>> But it's also a non sequitur here, as I said. Rowland isn't changing
his
>> beliefs over time. He's handing out a list of contradictory beliefs to
>> people seeking the truth, and saying, in effect, take your pick! And
>> he's using the same list over and over!
>>
> I don't see the problem. Its like going into the supermarket and seeing
> lots of different brands of beans. One time you will choose one brand,
> another time another. Rowland just keeps the shelves well stocked.
You've conveniently left out of your characterization that at least some
of
the brands are poison; that the person who picks them up and takes them
home
may end up making their last meal on earth out of them.
Why do I constantly have to take you and rub your nose in the obvious??
Why
do you do what you just did here? Leave out the whole crux of the issue
so
you can make it sound innocent? If beliefs didn't matter, then why did
Jesus come to teach us the "Truth"? If it really doesn't matter what
anyone
takes from Rowland's list of beliefs and opinions, and believes, then
Christ
came in vain.
And YOU! You're the one who was arguing no one could act contrary to
their
beliefs. Now you're implying it doesn't really matter what anyone
believes.
If we put the two of those conclusions together (forgetting for the moment
there isn't any valid justification for either one of them!), we end up
with
it doesn't really matter what anyone does! You sure you want to end up
there? Are you, perhaps, an anarchist? I wouldn't think a person who
loves
science would be an anarchist.
More likely, you just have never subjected your own beliefs to any sort of
critical analysis, with the result that by now you've got a noetic
structure
chalk full of contradictory beliefs. You may want to think about a little
spring cleaning this year, Chris.
>>
>>>>>>>>Besides, who said anything about "parroting" a statement of
beliefs.
>>>>>>>>I said it takes integrity to make one's TRUE beliefs KNOWN, and
then
>>>>>>>>defend them against all comers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And I repeat my point is that it is only when you are tested in
>>>>>>>action that you discover what you truly believe, or at least that
is
>>>>>>>my experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you're arguing that in your experience it takes experience to
test
>>>>>>your beliefs so that you know what they are???
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is correct. I visited the Grand Canyon several years ago, and
when
>>>>>I first saw it, my brain refused to believe that it was real. It kept
>>>>>telling me that what I was seeing was an image of some sort, and not
>>>>>something real. I could have tested it by walking over the edge, but
I
>>>>>didn't. My rational mind told me it was real, but it took my brain a
>>>>>whole day to catch up. Which was the "belief" then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where was the test you're talking about? You say it took a whole day
>>>>for your brain to "catch up". You've got so many misnomers in that
>>>>expression I don't really know where to begin. For example, your
brain
>>>>and your cognitive faculties are not necessarily the same things. If
>>>>they're not, then your brain is that organ that presents to your
>>>>cognitive faculties impressions of the external world, and it is those
>>>>faculties that process the information and form beliefs for you. If
>>>>that's even close to an accurate picture of normal human mental
>>>>activity, your brain does what it does almost instantaneously; there's
>>>>no "catching up" possible for your brain.
>>>>
>>>>What you're talking about is resolving a conflict of beliefs within
your
>>>>noetic structure. That can take anywhere from a few milliseconds, to
a
>>>>lifetime or longer. Some people live with conflicts of belief they
>>>>NEVER resolve!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That doesn't sound ridiculous to you? Not even slightly circular in
>>>>>>it's logic??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I see what you're trying to say now, and it's not circular, it's just
>>>>very confused about what human cognitive faculties do for us, and how
>>>>they function.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Hence the power of almost all good literature and movies. When have
>>>>>>>you had to pit your life or home or friends or family against what
>>>>>>>you believe? The book of Job is in the bible for a good reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think what you're confused about is the difference between having
a
>>>>>>belief and acting on it. You seem to think it's impossible to have
a
>>>>>>belief and fail to act upon it. I suppose I could point you to
about
>>>>>>a library shelf's worth of epistemological works that would argue
this
>>>>>>idea is nonsense, and maybe more than that in the psych dept., but
>>>>>>since we're both Bible believing Christians (or so it would seem
from
>>>>>>your above desire to bring scriptural explanations into the
>>>>>>discussion, however dimly you remember it), why don't I just quote
>>>>>>Scripture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not indeed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
>>>>>>eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
>>>>>>understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21
>>>>>>For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave
>>>>>>thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish
>>>>>>hearts were darkened." Romans 1:20-21 (NIV)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And the following:"22 Claiming to be wise they became fools 23 and
they
>>>>>exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images etc..."
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW my version (NRSV) has minds in vs 21, not hearts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now what exactly does this have to do with beliefs and actions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you'd show enough patience to read the paragraph below, perhaps you
>>>>could have saved yourself typing out this question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't Paul do a good sermon? Stirring stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That depends, Chris. If it stirs you and you understand it, that's
>>>>good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>If that's not saying that people had beliefs they failed to act
upon,
>>>>>>it's saying something much stronger, and much worse for your idea
that
>>>>>>people always act upon their beliefs - it's saying they failed to
act
>>>>>>upon what they KNEW was true. Since "knowledge" is a special case
of
>>>>>>belief (being, as it is, a belief for which we have *maximal*
>>>>>>warrant/justification), and "faith" is belief that isn't
"knowledge",
>>>>>>the above is Paul talking about belief/knowledge/faith, and the fact
>>>>>>that men have had AMPLE amounts they failed to act upon. So much
for
>>>>>>your notion that if one has a belief, one will act upon it, and that
>>>>>>failure to act upon a belief calls into question whether or not one
>>>>>>really believes.
>>>>>
>>>>>But they did, its just that their actions were foolish. God didn't
want
>>>>>images, he wanted repentance and good works, even integrity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How can you miss it like that? Go read it again, and this time,
instead
>>>>of trying to find a way to understand it so you get to keep your
notion
>>>>that people always act on their belief, read what Paul actually says
>>>>about them. And don't go to verse 22 until you fully understand what
>>>>he's saying in verses 20-21.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is not good exegesis. You should read the whole passage first,
then
>>>go back and try and understand it.
>>
>>
>> Man you have a lot of screwy ideas! Why would you read an entire
>> paragraph before going back to understand what a sentence is saying
when
>> the sentence is the basic unit of communication in language?
>>
> I could go and look for a reference for you, but its not really worth my
> time. Different ways of reading (and understanding) the bible are taught
> rather routinely now. Just look at any modern book on reading the bible.
How many of these ways deny that the Bible is first and foremost a piece
of
literature? If they don't, then they agree with what I just said about
the
sentence, and everything I'm going to say below.
>
>> What did they teach you in school, Chris? The very first thing about a
>> sentence? They said, "It conveys a complete thought", right?
>
> Yep, and they taught me lots else beside which is all completely wrong.
I hope you're not suggesting that the sentence in English isn't a complete
thought; I hope you're not that far gone.
>
>> They even taught you that's how you could distinguish a phrase from a
>> clause or sentence, right? The sentence is the basic unit of
>> communicating a thought; a complete thought. Until you've got that
down,
>> you don't have anything! No wonder you're exegesis is so consistently
>> screwed up!
>>
>> In fact, now that I do and start with
>>
>>>vs 18, I see what Paul is really saying. He is talking to those "who by
>>>their wickedness suppress the truth" (that God can be seen in his
>>>creation). But I still cannot see anything in the passage that talks
>>>about beliefs. Just because they had some understanding of what God
>>>actually wanted, if they set up their own gods for some reason, why is
>>>this acting contrary to their beliefs? Looks like simple exploitation
to
>>>me.
>>
>>
>> Where to start? You sure you're not being obtuse here? Just pulling
my
>> chain, as we say here in the States? I'm going to need your assurance
>> here before I pushback as far as I'm evidently going to have to to get
>> you to see what's staring you in the face.
>>
> Much as I enjoy pulling your chain, I'm not actually doing that here. My
> reading is very straightforward as far as I can see.
I believe you, but since farther on down it becomes obvious we've got some
very rudimentary differences of opinion as to what is a proposition, what
is
truth, etc., let's just shelve this until we can come closer to some sort
of
agreement on these basic issues.
>>
>>>>>>I'm afraid the human psyche isn't as simplistic as you would have
it,
>>>>>>Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for the main theme of Job, you need to get up to speed there as
>>>>>>well. It's the earliest treatise on the question, "Do bad things
>>>>>>happen to good people?", and entailed subjects (such as the fact
that
>>>>>>evil people seem to prosper in this world). It's a rebuttal to the
>>>>>>then prevalent opinion that doing good always brings tem****al
rewards
>>>>>>from God, and doing evil always brings tem****al punishments from
God.
>>>>>>It has nothing whatever to do with your simplistic theory concerning
>>>>>>belief/faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing to do with my theory (or understanding) at all, but
everything
>>>>>to do with having faith even while questioning Gods motives and even
>>>>>existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Motives, sure; existence, not unless you're insane/irrational. You
>>>>can't believe in something you're not sure exists, Chris, if your
sane.
>>>>Now maybe what you've got in mind here are those irrational moments we
>>>>all have from time to time, but in those moments we're not acting in a
>>>>sane, rational way, so those moments don't rise to the level of
>>>>counter-examples to the statement that sane people can't believe in
>>>>something they're not sure exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you believe in love? How do you know it exists and is not just
>>>self-interest?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do. Because love and self-interest are opposites, which makes
>> telling them apart pretty easy. Do you normally have trouble telling
>> between a proposition and its denial? Is there something about "I love
>> you" and "I love myself" that makes it difficult for you to see the
>> difference?
>>
> No, but sometimes it makes sense to say I love you in order to get
> something in return. Maybe feelings of love are just a way our brain
works
> to serve its own interests and procreate.
Maybe you're just a brain in a vat on the counter top of an Alpha
Centaurian
scientist interested in seeing how many false beliefs he can cause you to
believe. What's your point? That anything's possible? Fine. Virtually
anything's possible. Now what?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, Rowland, you've never "categorically" stated you are a
>>>>>>>>>>universalist. You've just taken every op****tunity you ever had
to
>>>>>>>>>>either argue for that belief yourself, or provide article after
>>>>>>>>>>article by others who either do, or express sympathy for that
>>>>>>>>>>belief. That makes you worse than a universalist, Rowland, for a
>>>>>>>>>>universalist is "either warm or cold" (they TAKE A STAND), and
you
>>>>>>>>>>are neither.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>See above. Rowland takes many "stands" as you call them, and I
>>>>>>>>>would never call him either warm or cold. He is definitely in the
>>>>>>>>>"hot" category!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Easy to say, Chris. Give me an example of Rowland making a firm,
>>>>>>>>clear expression of a belief he has, and then justifying it
against
>>>>>>>>its challengers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I will let Rowland speak for himself, but in my experience he has
>>>>>>>done pretty well in going into bat for those who cannot do it
>>>>>>>themselves. Two examples here in arc - Dawn and Ninere (?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ninure? You're talking about the woman who claims an active
>>>>>>homo***ual lifestyle isn't sinful? That Ninure??
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You make my point for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And who helped the woman caught in adultery and about to be stoned?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And who then said to her, "Go and sin no more"? You guys always
>>>>conveniently leave that part out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And if Jesus spoke to either of us, could he not say the same thing?
>>
>>
>> He DID say the same thing. Are you suggesting that your encounter with
>> Jesus has made no difference in the way you live your life? I hope
not.
>>
> No, certainly not. But I am very mindful of the plank in my own eye
before
> I cast aspersions.
And you think that makes you...what? Rare? Different from me?
>>
>>>>Besides, you know how Mark T says that 99% of the Gospel of John isn't
>>>>reliably what Jesus actually said? Well, he's using fringe NT
>>>>scholar****p to say it, but there really is a consensus of biblical
>>>>scholars who hold that this entire pericope is a later interpolation,
>>>>and they have very compelling arguments for that conclusion.
>>>>Personally, after reviewing those arguments, I've been forced to agree
>>>>with them that this pericope is "problematic". I didn't arrive at
this
>>>>position happily or quickly, because the story is one of my favorites.
>>>>
>>>>Ninure promotes her homo***ual lifestyle as an "alternate" to
>>>>hetero***uality that is equally pleasing to God. That is not only
>>>>contradictory to biblical teaching, but contrary to common sense as
>>>>well. If God said to man, "Go and multiply and fill the earth", and
>>>>designed man in such a way as to be able to obey that command, saying
to
>>>>God, in effect, I can do it anyway I think is best for me, is sort of
>>>>insulting to God's omniscience and glory. There is inherent in it at
>>>>least some sort of element of raising oneself to a position from which
>>>>they may pass judgment on God's design of them; finding it flawed and
in
>>>>need of their "fix".
>>>>
>>>>Rowland and others calling themselves Christians seem to see no
problem
>>>>whatsoever in sup****ting this sort of pragmatic arrogance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can't speak for Rowland, but I agree with your arguments above.
>>>Homo***uality can only be seen as an aberration in normal ***uality.
>>>However, to me that doesn't mean that we should reject homo***uals or
>>>even their lifestyle if they live lives of integrity in harmony with
the
>>>gospel.
>>
>>
>> But that's the whole point, Chris. The "gospel" involves going and
>> sinning no more. Forget about having homo***ual *** for the moment,
>> fornication, *** outside of the bond of marriage as instituted by God
>> (which means between a man and a woman), is sin. You can't say you've
>> surrendered your life to Jesus Christ on the one hand, and then go on
>> fornicating your way through life!
>>
> I agree, but I think there is too much emphasis on fornicating and not
> enough on other forms of sinning.
You brought up Ninure! I didn't. If you want to talk about other types
of
sins, fine. We can talk about you, or about me. But don't run away from
the truth here in an ink cloud of obfuscation, and think you're being
"moral" or "high-minded" for the ***-obsessed fundamentalist, because
that's
not the case here. You're DEFENDING a person who pants after sin like a
dog
in heat, and you're doing it on the basis all humans sin and are weak, not
on the basis of the Gospel, which CLEARLY makes a difference between those
who love sin, and those who love God.
Sin is about desire, Chris. You either desire to satisfy yourself and
what
you think of as your "needs", or you desire to please God. There is no in
between. Now I don't know about Ninure's conscience now, but I'll
guarantee
you there was a time in her life when she KNEW, with every fiber of her
being, that her ***ual desire for other women was wrong; offended God.
And
just because she may not feel that way anymore, doesn't change the reality
she once knew. I can deaden my leg so it doesn't feel anything. Doesn't
mean the pain it felt before wasn't real.
snip
>
>> Homo***ual *** is, by definition, fornication. There are other
arguments
>> that can be brought to bear here, but if you're a Christian, that
should
>> end the discussion as to whether or not someone who makes a lifestyle
out
>> of fornicating can be a Christian. Christians "fall" into sin from
time
>> to time, Chris, they don't make a life out of it, and they certainly
>> don't sin seeking personal fulfillment or happiness.
>>
>>
>>>Just as I have physiological defects, so do they, but we are all
sinners
>>>anyway, so what is the essential difference?
>>
>>
>> Maybe there isn't any between you and Ninure, Chris. I'm in no
position
>> to know that. But I can speak for myself. The difference is just what
I
>> was saying above; the difference is I don't want to sin; I hate it when
I
>> sin, and I'm unhappy sinning. It eats at me. I'm convicted about it,
>> even if no one knows but me.
>>
>> That's not the case with our little "rainbow" Christian, Chris. She's
>> only happy when she's sinning. She needs to be in a relation****p that
is
>> an abomination before God to be truly happy. Without that sin in her
>> life she feels incomplete, as if she is missing something.
>>
>> Now if you can't see the difference between those two states of mind
when
>> one sins now, then there is no hope of ever showing it to you.
>>
> Yes I can, and I feel much the same about someone who is a professional
> thief or murderer. I see that lifestyle as incompatible with faith. I
> would say the same about someone who keeps slaves, yet that was
perfectly
> acceptable only a few hundred years ago.
But since you DIDN'T live a few hundred years ago, you can't know what you
would have thought then.
I can tell you what you "probably" would have thought, though, just from
listening to you in here, and knowing where (very generally) you got it.
You'd have thought it was fine if you'd been in a church whose pastor was
preaching it was fine, and you'd have thought it was an abomination to God
if you'd been in a church whose pastor was preaching it was an abomination
to God.
Why do I think that would have probably been the case, Chris? Because
you've evinced no grounding for your faith! You don't like philosophy,
can't stand thinking theologically, and just want to dabble in science.
Why? Because when the rubber meets the road, way deep down, you think
religion and philosophy are crap, and only science has any real intrinsic
value for you.
You're a good man out of balance, Chris, and as such, you would have spun
like a top any which way anyone pushed you a few hundred years ago.
> What changed was that societies views about slavery changed, and that
led
> to a change in our understanding of the bible, particularly Paul's talk
> about the lack of an essential difference between different types of
> people. You don't have to go far back to find Christians debating
whether
> black people were people or animals!
Source?
>
> My guess is that we are seeing the same change in our attitude to
> ***uality.
Chris, I'm not interested in your guesses.
> Biblical ***ual mores (particularly in the OT) were based on property
> rights and the need to know if a child was yours or not.
I see. So all that "written by the finger of God" stuff was just a bunch
of
bull****, hey? Okay, fine. You go ahead and you try living out your
"faith", Chris. Watch what happens the first time it's really tested.
Watch it change with the cir***stances. Watch how your personal
experiences
mold it; shape it, until you can't tell you from it anymore. Until what
you
believe in is, simply, you. Then you will have definitely reasoned your
way
to atheism.
I've got to go now, Chris. Nice talking to you. Sorry we can't
communicate
on these basic issues.
Chuck Stamford
PS - Albert Schweitzer wasn't a Christian by any stretch of the
imagination.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was God in flesh. Schweitzer only
appears the Christian next to the liberal German school of theology that
served as his theological counterpoint. He is no more a "Christian" in
the
sense of one who believes the apostolic faith "once delivered to the
saints"
than are Reimarus, Strauss, or Bultmann. As far as Albert was concerned,
Jesus failed in His mission as He percieved what it was. Who fills your
head with this nonsense?!
These
> days we have DNA tests. ***uality is no longer primarily about having
> children, so the basis for our values has changed entirely. The absolute
> acceptance of fornication (*** outside marriage) by the vast majority of
> our society shows me that there will be no going back. As Christians, we
> can either go along with the new views (but we are not forced to
> participate), or we can fight against them and further alienate
ourselves
> from society and become totally marginal to the modern world. The choice
> is yours, but I prefer to remain relevant so that I can influence the
more
> im****tant issues Jesus concentrated on in his ministry.
>>
>>>To take any other path seems to me to go back to the legalism of the
>>>pharisees which Jesus so roundly condemned.
>>
>>
>> That's because you've been brain-washed by "ministers" like Rowland.
>> You've been lulled into condoning sin, Chris, and you need to rouse
>> yourself back to seeking real righteousness; begin following after real
>> sanctification again.
>>
> I never condone sin, but I am willing to overlook it in others. I know
my
> own sins too well to even begin to judge others. Mind you, it has taken
me
> many decades to get to this position.
>>
>>>Do you want to exclude people who have diseases or physical deformities
>>>from the church as in the OT? How about the obese (obviously persistent
>>>sinners), or those who drive expensive cars, or have Rolex watches? Or
>>>persistent liars (such as politicians)? The list could be quite long!
>>
>>
>> This isn't about anyone excluding anyone from my church, nor does it
have
>> anything to do with legalism or the OT. If the real gospel is preached
>> in the church, Chris, the sinner is convicted of their sin. No one has
>> to go point them out and shout "Sinner here!" to the congregation. The
>> Holy Spirit does that in a still, small voice as they hear the real
>> Gospel. And either they repent, or they don't. If they do, they are
>> accepted by God back into the kingdom, and no one need know they were
>> ever absent except the one who died so they could live.
>>
>> If they don't, however, it is not the pastor, or the elders, or the
other
>> members of the congregation who will usually ask them to leave; it will
>> be the Holy Spirit, who won't let them stay (there are some exceptions
>> here; people with consciences so hardened they can no longer feel
>> anything at all!). He will not let them sit there unharrassed. He
will
>> pick at them, and nag them, and generally make such a pest out of
Himself
>> they will simply not want to come anymore, and they will just stop
>> coming.
>>
>> But when they leave, they will take with them the knowlege of where to
>> come if the burden of their sin ever becomes too much for them to bear.
>> They won't have to worry about someone selling them a bill of goods in
>> their hour of need; giving them the latest PC gospel for social reform
>> when internally they are crumbling with remorse and longing for real
love
>> in their lives. And if they come back, they won't be looking to the
>> people IN the church to satisfy their needs. They will be looking to
>> Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, and they will be looking
in
>> the right direction to see the Heaven in His eyes.
>>
>> And THEN, and ONLY THEN, they will be ready to do some good in the
world
>> for someone else.
>>
> I agree with everything you have said here, except the last sentence.
Try
> reading the stories of some of the great Christian helpers like Mother
> Theresa or Albert Schweitzer. Many of the great christians of social
> reform were riven people whose faith was weak and needed constant
> reassurance. They found their faith in action, by doing good in the
world,
> not after they had faith.
>
> Much the same is seen in many churches today. People are brought in,
> nurtured, taught and sent out to help others, and that is how they find
> faith - in action. To my mind, the best example of this form of
evangelism
> is the Salvation Army.
>>
>>>>>>>>I can cite you example after example where he has simply thrown a
>>>>>>>>panoply of differing beliefs at people who were truly seeking
>>>>>>>>guidance in their search for truth. Is that your idea of what a
>>>>>>>>minister of the Gospel is supposed to do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. Absolutely. How can you find truth if it is hidden under a
>>>>>>>bushel, as the fundamentalists do? Don't you read your bible?
>>>>>>>(Rhetorical question - I know you do, but have trouble with the
>>>>>>>interpretation! For truth to be revealed, you must open every
bushel,
>>>>>>>even if you don't like what you find under it!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You people always act as if you never arrive at the truth about
>>>>>>anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jesus is the truth about everything. But he is also the way and the
>>>>>life, and like both of those, it is a journey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's not a journey, Chris. You don't need to go anywhere to find
truth.
>>>>If it was a journey, you would.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not my experience. I continue to discover new truths, particularly from
>>>the bible, as I read more and experience more of life.
>>
>>
>> But you're not going anywhere to do it. You're sitting in the same
place
>> just before you discover some new insight into the truths in the Bible
as
>> you are just after.
>>
> No, its a step along a metaphorical journey.
>
>> I know I'm being picayune, but there's a point to it. You're so
steeped
>> in poetic images and language in the area of spiritual truths, I don't
>> think you can cogently articulate a real spiritual truth! You don't do
>> that with scientific subjects. You try to be precise in your
>> articulation and terminology. I can't help but wonder why you have
this
>> split personality thingy going on depending on what the subject is.
It's
>> as if you've got this cubbyhole where you put your religious ideas and
>> latent desire to be a poet, and another cubbyhole where you put
>> "science". It's almost as if you're afraid to be precise and rational;
>> probably because of what you said to Pete a couple of days ago: you
think
>> all rational thinking leads to atheism.
>>
>> Well, you can relax, Chris. I've got to be one of the most analytical
>> thinkers around here; I LOVE philosophy and logic; I crave precision in
>> argument and language, and I have never had any real problems between
how
>> I'm cognitively put together, and my faith in Jesus Christ as the risen
>> Son of God who takes away my sins if I let Him.
>>
> You are probably right about me. What worries me is that one day you
will
> see a flaw in your logic and lose your faith. That has happened to many
> with your particularly logical mindset. I can be both (at a pinch), but
my
> faith is not based on logic.
>
> There is also another aspect. Some seekers after truth get put off your
> type of logical approach, and need something else. (BOG for instance)
Its
> a matter of horses for courses, and as a youngster I would have gone
along
> with just about everything you say.
>>
>>>>>>The point is, Chris, after you've opened most of the bushels, and
have
>>>>>>accepted a calling into the ministry of the Gospel, you're supposed
to
>>>>>>HAVE the truth!
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep, every time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You speak of truth as if it's some pot of gold at the end of the
>>>>>>rainbow; a mythical beast in a legendary story. It's not.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's as solid as reality, and you don't need to know all of it to
know
>>>>>>some of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fundamentalists don't claim omniscience; they just stand for the
part
>>>>>>of the truth they know to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>All truth is true, but not all is applicable at any point of time.
>>>>>Truth, however, can be contradictory, and paradoxes are probably the
>>>>>greatest truths.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris, every statement you just made in the above paragraph is false,
>>>>and the sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
>>>>
>>>>Propositions are true or false independent of time, and thus of
>>>>cir***stances.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am not talking about propositions. I am talking about truths.
>>
>>
>> What do you think a proposition is? They are statements of fact, Chris.
>> They are (or so many philosophers hold) descriptive of states of
affairs
>> that either do or do not obtain, thus making them either true or false.
>>
>> All true propositons are "truths", Chris, and no "truth" is not a
>> proposition. Therefore, being propositions, and given that all
>> propositions are true or false independent of time, all "truths" are
>> independent of time...QED.
>>
> In philosophy, perhaps. To me, truths are something much deeper. That
God
> loves me is a truth, never a proposition, because it can never be
tested.
> It cannot be falsified, ever.
>>
>>>>Truth is never contradictory to truth, although it is always
>>>>contradictory to falsity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So the old paradox of the piece of paper with "this statement is true"
on
>>>one side and "the statement on the other side is false" means what
>>>exactly?
>>
>>
>> Okay, Chris, but if you're going to require me to pushback to basic
stuff
>> like this, don't complain later that I was too verbose. If you don't
>> nail DOWN the foundations, the house falls over no matter how good it
>> looks just before it does.
>>
>> "This statement is true" What is that saying, Chris, if not that that
>> *sentence* is true. But what is that *sentence* saying that may be
true?
>> It's only saying it *is* true. But simply saying something is true,
>> without saying what it is that's true, isn't really saying anything. A
>> proposition is an expression of a state of affairs, Chris. "That house
>> is green"; "This glass is cracked". The sentence in question has no
>> subject except itself, and therefore no connection to any actual or
>> possible state of affairs. Instead, it predicates a property of a
>> meaningless sentence. Because it's not actually a proposition, it
can't
>> have any relation****p to either truth of falsity. It shares that
>> property with a sentence like "Thar gwein ov'e on gimmbling nather", or
a
>> sentence like "Come over here".
>>
>> There are lots of sentences in the English language, Chris, good
>> grammatical sentences, that do not express a proposition. This is one
of
>> them, which makes "The statement on the other side is false", false.
The
>> statement on the other side is not a proposition, and thus cannot be
>> either true or false. Since the second statement predicates of the
first
>> the property "being false", and the first is not false (nor is it
true),
>> then the second statement, because it actually IS a proposition, is a
>> false proposition. It describes a state of affairs actually obtaining
>> that does not actually obtain.
>>
>> Are we clear on this now? Sentences and propositions are not
necessarily
>> the same thing. A sentence can be a grammatical sentence and not be a
>> proposition. More than one sentence can be the same proposition. All
>> propositions are either true or false (although not all propositions
are,
>> even in principle, knowable as true or false to anyone not omniscient).
>> All propositions are independent of time, both for their existence, and
>> for their truth values, whatever those values happen to be.
>>
> Yes, I see the distinction you are making. However, I think you are
> nit-picking, but that is probably because you are talking in
philosophical
> terms whereas I am using normal language.
>
>> If you have any more questions, the best place to go is Plantinga's
"The
>> Nature of Necessity", chap. IV; pp. 44-69, but I'll be happy to answer
as
>> I'm able so long as civility lasts.
>>
> I tried reading some of Plantinga. No more thanks.
>>
>>>>Paradoxes are simply paradoxes, and they have no inherent relation****p
>>>>to truth at all, let alone are indicators of great truths. This is
not
>>>>to say a paradox cannot concern a great truth; only that there is no
>>>>necesssary relation****p between the great truths and paradoxes, as you
>>>>seem to be suggesting above.
>>>>
>>>>"A not equal B" is a great truth; one, without which, no human
knowledge
>>>>could exist. It is hardly a paradox.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The greatest paradox of all is that Jesus died on the cross, but is
alive
>>>and reigns in heaven and brings us to salvation.
>>
>>
>> A great truth indeed, but I do not see the paradox you seem to see.
>> Eternal life conquering death and living forevermore doesn't exactly
>> shout "paradox" at me, anymore than light chasing away darkness and
>> ****ning forevermore does.
>>
> So you see not paradox in a shameful death on a cross and reigning in
> glory?
>>
>>>>>>That's all I expect from Rowland. If he knows any truth (and he's
>>>>>>certainly had enough time given to him by God to have arrived at
>>>>>>some!), he has an obligation to share it at every op****tunity he's
>>>>>>given, and he doesn't do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes he does.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Easy to say. Bring me an example. No, wait. The issue isn't whether
>>>>or not he's EVER acted with integrity, but does he TYPICALLY act with
>>>>integrity. So bring me LOTS of examples, because honestly, I've seen
>>>>precious few over the years.
>>
>>
>> I see I'm not going to get any evidence from you for your defense of
>> Rowland's habitual posting of opinions and arguments that attack
>> Apostolic Christianity. Fine. Let it go. You've got much bigger fish
>> to fry anyway.
>>
> No, I don't remember any.
>
>> Chuck Stamford
>
> Chris
|
