For JP Holding: Is the Bible outdated? [Archive]

jpholding

September 5th 2003, 01:16 PM

My intention here is not to be sarcastic.

I know. :smile:

Considering the enormous measure of time you must spend in order to find the correct interpretations of the Bible (i.e., author's intent), would you consider the book to be outdated and irrelevant to the layperson?

Yes...and no. Eschaton has it more or less correct. There are levels of understanding. The very basic understanding, with which salvation may be obtained, is open to all. A deeper appreciation of what is there -- which requires discipleship (something the text ITSELF mandates) -- does require time (not that much, actually; far less than most spend watching football) but discipleship is free in no religion I know of, other than maybe Scientology. :bunny:

So when the average non-scholar Christian reads "Do not judge lest you be judged," is there an overwhelming chance that they will not understand what is really being said?

On that particular there is a small, not overwhelming, chance of being misled because of the way Matt. 7:1 is abused today by i.e., defenders of Clinton's White House sex scandal. But the chance for misunderstanding of course varies, and the impact of course varies by verse. Once again the core is most clear and the chance of misunderstanding and danger as a result is less. And on such things as i.e., what "love" means, what is needed is more fine-tuning than full correction.

Would they not be better of by simply allowing Jesus' holy spirit to communicate to them without such obstruction?

No, because that is not an option. The Spirit is not a tutorial but is more of a moral conscience.

What if they are an indigent working family in Mexico with no access to a library or the Internet, let alone the education to understand advanced studies?

Is there a church nearby? Note that I also think churches have not met their responsibility to disciple.

What if they work full time and have a family, and don't have the time necessary to do the research?

Do they watch TV?

It seems from the onset that the Bible does more harm than good, seeing as so many people don't understand it, but we shall see.

Ignorance always does more harm than good. That much is true.

BeHereNow

September 5th 2003, 06:04 PM

So, if I read correctly, what you're both saying is that the Bible is useful for at least conveying the basic understanding of salvation if nothing else. And that deeper study, which is recommended in the Bible, is something that needs to be undertaken. Correct?

So the churches and leadership aren't holding up their end of the bargain by instructing people on how to study, and more of the responsibility for misunderstanding lies there rather than with the Bible?

Is there, then, no consequence in the layperson giving the Bible a topical reading and thus misunderstanding certain parts?

In supplicium-

Be Here Now

jpholding

September 6th 2003, 11:33 AM

So, if I read correctly, what you're both saying is that the Bible is useful for at least conveying the basic understanding of salvation if nothing else. And that deeper study, which is recommended in the Bible, is something that needs to be undertaken. Correct?

:thumb:

So the churches and leadership aren't holding up their end of the bargain by instructing people on how to study, and more of the responsibility for misunderstanding lies there rather than with the Bible?

:thumb: 2 for 2. To be fair, some do, but not many.

Is there, then, no consequence in the layperson giving the Bible a topical reading and thus misunderstanding certain parts?

Perhaps the same consequence as for one for the first time reading a history of Rome by Tacitus or Livy. Depth only comes by learning, but even on first read you can get broad outlines of what's going on.

Robert's s/n

September 7th 2003, 12:59 PM

[/QUOTE] There are levels of understanding. The very basic understanding, with which salvation may be obtained, is open to all[/QUOTE]

I disagree. To grasp how to be saved takes an incredible amount of study. Check out "Four Views on Eternal Security" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310234395/102-0069311-8714527?v=glance

Are you saying that ANYONE could pick the right doctrine without an in-depth study? And what about historically verifying the Resurrection, the only crux for the atonement? It's clear that nothing could be properly understand in the Bible by anyone without a few degrees under their belt.

[/QUOTE]Note that I also think churches have not met their responsibility to disciple.[/QUOTE]

Then I guess God did a lousy job putting together an organization. Look at this way. When I call someone and tell them about an investment oppurtunity I'm offering, their first questions are alway "What's the security?" or "How do you know the investment will pay off?" If I failed to adequately answer those questions, I can kiss their money good bye. But yet the church expects intelligent individuals to invest everything they own in a fairy tale wonderland without adequately assuaging the concerns of potential investors. :hrm:

So not only is the Bible too complex to understood by laypersons, but the association that venerates the Bible as INERRANT refuses to educate the very souls they're trying to save. How can anyone believe the Bible and still feel confident about their decision? :huh:

chsalvia

September 7th 2003, 02:37 PM

So not only is the Bible too complex to understood by laypersons, but the association that venerates the Bible as INERRANT refuses to educate the very souls they're trying to save. How can anyone believe the Bible and still feel confident about their decision?

Well...evidently somebody's doing something right. After all, there are over one and a half billion Christians in the world. :smile:

sandlewood

September 7th 2003, 02:39 PM

09-05-2003 @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203850#post203850)
jpholding:
A deeper appreciation of what is there -- which requires discipleship (something the text ITSELF mandates) -- does require time (not that much, actually; far less than most spend watching football) but discipleship is free in no religion I know of, other than maybe Scientology.

Do you mean to say there that one is unable to understand the Bible correctly unless one already believes it to be fact that god exists and is the creator of the universe?

It’s evident to me that many Christians come up with different interpretations. Some say Hell exists and is fire and brimstone, some say it exists but is not fire and brimstone, and some say it doesn’t exist at all. And all of these interpretations are backed up by the Bible, albeit different interpretations. All can site verses for support. Some regress to the actual Greek words to explain how black really means white and up is really down. The only answer I’ve ever heard to explain these differences of opinion is that the other person is misinterpreting the Bible and needs to do more study to get themselves straight.

If it is the case that we always need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to see what the Bible is really saying, doesn’t that mean that the Bible was not translated so well to begin with? Or rather, shouldn’t someone now re-translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew to modern English so it can be understood by all more easily?

But more study does not seem to satisfy people either. Many Christians will in fact not abide unquestioningly by the teachings of those who are more scholarly. I have devout Christians in my own family who choose their church depending on what the church teaches. If the pastor does not teach what they already have decided is true, they will debate it with the pastor or find another church. But it seems to me that you should be attending church to learn from the pastor, since he is the one spending the most time studying the Bible.

The complexity of something like the Bible seems to come from the reader himself. I have no doubt that if one wants to study the Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh in depth and in the context of the history of the English language, one could write volumes about the “actual” deeper meaning of what is said. The amount of complexity can be a reflection of the reader and not of what is actually contained within.

What I always find strange is that saying “maybe God does not really exist” is never an option, even though this case seems to better fit the facts. If God wanted us to understand Christianity, he would have made it plain instead of releasing an ever-misinterpreted Bible. That this has not happened should count for evidence that no god actually exists. If he does not exist, we’d have exactly the problems we have now. But such evidence is never counted by Christians. They just continue on trying to make sense of the Bible.

John Powell

September 7th 2003, 04:28 PM

SANDLEWOOD:
What I always find strange is that saying “maybe God does not really exist” is never an option, even though this case seems to better fit the facts.

POWELL:
"Seldom, or ever, an option." It was an option for me. That's one of the reasons I'm now an atheist.

SANDLEWOOD:
If God wanted us to understand Christianity, he would have made it plain instead of releasing an ever-misinterpreted Bible.

POWELL:
He would have surely or probably made it plain . . .

SANDLEWOOD:
That this has not happened should count for evidence that no god actually exists.

POWELL:
It does count as evidence, but seldom persuasive enough to persuade Christians. It helped to persuade me.

SANDLEWOOD:
If he does not exist, we’d have exactly the problems we have now.

POWELL:
If He did not exist, I would expect that we'd . . .

SANDLEWOOD:
But such evidence is never counted by Christians.

POWELL:
Such evidence is seldom counted. It counted as evidence for me. Some Christians at TWEB have entertained the possibility that God does not exist for the sake of argument.

SANDLEWOOD:
They just continue on trying to make sense of the Bible.

POWELL:
I concur with the sentiments, but not the exaggerated claims.

If I were God I believe that I would not require people to depend so much on credentialed experts to explain such things to them. I would be more like a father who speaks directly to his children helping them to understand what they need to understand. I believe that I would be a better God than the one Christians believe in.

John Powell

BeHereNow

September 7th 2003, 08:12 PM

I have another question, kinda off-topic, for you, JP(H).

jpholding:

Would they not be better of by simply allowing Jesus' holy spirit to communicate to them without such obstruction?

No, because that is not an option. The Spirit is not a tutorial but is more of a moral conscience.

Does this tie in to what you say about about ancient cultures not having individual consciences? Can you go into this a bit? Thanks~

John Powell:

Keen corrections as usual, Powell the Powerful. You set a good model for the rest of "us" (Team No-Wheh). :smile:

sandlewood

September 7th 2003, 09:14 PM

Today @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205368#post205368)
John Powell:
"Seldom, or ever, an option." It was an option for me. That's one of the reasons I'm now an atheist.

Your point is taken. A few like you have considered that God might not exist. There’s no doubt about that.

The sprit of what I was meant, though, was that in the minds of many people is it never an option, not that it’s never an option for all people.

He would have surely or probably made it plain . . .

Being that God is defined as omnipotent, if he wants people to understand Christianity, they will. There is no “probably” about it if God is omnipotent. Perhaps I could have worded it “If God wanted us to understand Christianity, we would all understand it.”

As for the word “surely”, am I wrong or is there no significant difference between the two phrases “He would have made it plain” and “He would have surely made it plain”?

If He did not exist, I would expect that we'd . . .

When a writer makes a statement, it’s usually understood that it’s the writer’s opinion. He doesn’t need to preface each sentence with “It’s my opinion that...”.

LGM

September 7th 2003, 09:49 PM

Today @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205530#post205530)
sandlewood:
Your point is taken. A few like you have considered that God might not exist. There’s no doubt about that.

actually its quite more than "a few", but I get your point....

you can read some of their stories here:
http://www.exchristian.org/

from the exchristain website...
The bible is clear about why people leave the faith, or refuse christianity in the fist place. According to 2 Peter chapter 2, the only reason people leave is because they want to sin. According to John 3:19, the only reason anyone is not a christian is because their deeds are evil. According to the bible, non or ex-christians are bad people with bad motives and destined for hell - "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly".

There is another point of view, of course. That these passages were written by men attempting to frighten their congregations away from pursuing difficult questions. For the most part, it works. Most christians only ever think about their faith from within the framework of christian belief. But every now and then, one will go, "hey - wait a moment! What if it were all false?", and the game will be up. Because when you look at christianity "from outside", just for a moment, it swiftly becomes obvious that it doesn't really hang together. A christian must dedicate their life to bringing every thought into captivity to avoid such moments of illumination.

Being that God is defined as omnipotent, if he wants people to understand Christianity, they will. There is no “probably” about it if God is omnipotent. Perhaps I could have worded it “If God wanted us to understand Christianity, we would all understand it.”

If you think of YHWH more as a comedian, than an omnipotent creator of the universe, it all starts to make sense.

When a writer makes a statement, it’s usually understood that it’s the writer’s opinion. He doesn’t need to preface each sentence with “It’s my opinion that...”.
If only everyone who reads the bible and Christian apologetics would make such an assumption!
:lol:

LGM
...and don't call me Shirley...

John Powell

September 8th 2003, 02:29 AM

POWELL:
"Seldom, or ever, an option." It was an option for me. That's one of the reasons I'm now an atheist.

SANDLEWOOD:
Your point is taken. A few like you have considered that God might not exist. There’s no doubt about that.

The sprit of what I was meant, though, was that in the minds of many people is it never an option, not that it’s never an option for all people.

POWELL:
Unfortunately perhaps, the audience can't read your mind, but only what you write. I know it takes longer to add qualifiers, but it may reduce misunderstandings. I omit them too, but try to keep enough.

POWELL:
“ He would have surely or probably made it plain . . . ”

SANDLEWOOD:
Being that God is defined as omnipotent, if he wants people to understand Christianity, they will. There is no “probably” about it if God is omnipotent. Perhaps I could have worded it “If God wanted us to understand Christianity, we would all understand it.”

POWELL:
You may be right for an omnipotent God, but not all Christians believe in an OmniGod. For example, I didn't.

SANDLEWOOD:
As for the word “surely”, am I wrong or is there no significant difference between the two phrases “He would have made it plain” and “He would have surely made it plain”?

POWELL:
Perhaps you are right. I've been using it in place of "very probably" (as opposed to "absolutely for certain.").

To me the proposition "Certainly (or without a doubt), God will not lie" is stronger than the vague "God will not lie" which is stronger than "Surely, God will not lie" which is stronger than "Probably, God will not lie." To me the use of the modifier "surely" implies a very slight possibility of error and perhaps an expression of hope that it's not false. Maybe this usage is wrong since the dictionary seems to equate "surely" with "certainly."

POWELL:
“ If He did not exist, I would expect that we'd . . . ”

SANDLEWOOD:
When a writer makes a statement, it’s usually understood that it’s the writer’s opinion. He doesn’t need to preface each sentence with “It’s my opinion that...”.

POWELL:
Certainly. I thought that particular statement was controversial enough that clarification was in order.

John Powell

John Powell

September 8th 2003, 02:33 AM

SANDLEWOOD:
When a writer makes a statement, it’s usually understood that it’s the writer’s opinion. He doesn’t need to preface each sentence with “It’s my opinion that...”. ”

LakeGeorgeMan:
If only everyone who reads the bible and Christian apologetics would make such an assumption!

POWELL:
Shirley, that's a good point. I mean LGM.

John Powell

jpholding

September 8th 2003, 04:18 PM

Robert's s/n:

I disagree. To grasp how to be saved takes an incredible amount of study. Check out "Four Views on Eternal Security"

Silly man. That's not "how to be saved" but "how to stay saved, if necessary". :smile:

Are you saying that ANYONE could pick the right doctrine without an in-depth study?

In some cases, yes; in others, perhaps not, depending on contexts. The Trinity would be easy to grasp if you were a Jew of the first century. If you are in our modern world, those who abuse the doctrine make it more difficult.

And what about historically verifying the Resurrection, the only crux for the atonement?

What about it? Can we put a leash on that elephant?

Then I guess God did a lousy job putting together an organization.

Then I guess you want to blame God for free choices made by free beings. Awesome. Did God make you watch TV last night?

But yet the church expects intelligent individuals to invest everything they own in a fairy tale wonderland without adequately assuaging the concerns of potential investors.

And the investors in this case fail to care. Sounds a lot like "human nature"....

How can anyone believe the Bible and still feel confident about their decision?

When you get a chance, look up the word RESPONSIBILITY. :thumb:

sandlewood:

Do you mean to say there that one is unable to understand the Bible correctly unless one already believes it to be fact that god exists and is the creator of the universe?

No.

It’s evident to me that many Christians come up with different interpretations.

Their mere existence, however, hardly affords any validation.

The only answer I’ve ever heard to explain these differences of opinion is that the other person is misinterpreting the Bible and needs to do more study to get themselves straight.

Correct. And you have proved this wrong, I assume?

If it is the case that we always need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to see what the Bible is really saying, doesn’t that mean that the Bible was not translated so well to begin with?

It means languages all have limits. There are is a South American language with 28 words that all mean "carry" depending on whether you do it i.e., by fingertips, on the shoulder, etc. If you don't know the language you'll end up saying dumb stuff like, "I carried my suitcase by my nose."

Or rather, shouldn’t someone now re-translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew to modern English so it can be understood by all more easily?

That's what many modern versions are all about.

If the pastor does not teach what they already have decided is true, they will debate it with the pastor or find another church. But it seems to me that you should be attending church to learn from the pastor, since he is the one spending the most time studying the Bible.

Not always. Many pastors got a degree in counseling at seminary. Thanks much to a society riddled with disorders.

I have no doubt that if one wants to study the Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh in depth and in the context of the history of the English language, one could write volumes about the “actual” deeper meaning of what is said.

Then do so and prove a point to me. Merely stating "I could" is not a reply.

What I always find strange is that saying “maybe God does not really exist” is never an option, even though this case seems to better fit the facts.

That question is rather outside the scope of this thread (Biblical interpretation) and could technically not even be dealt with.

If God wanted us to understand Christianity, he would have made it plain

There is no amount of stupidity and arrogance that even the most "plain" text can resolve. Besides, how do you know that it is not plain and that your education is below par? :smile:

[QUOTE]BeHereNow:

Does this tie in to what you say about about ancient cultures not having individual consciences? Can you go into this a bit?

It surely would tie in. If what I read in the sociologists is correct, the source of all conscience for these people was what other people thought. That would make the Holy Spirit (in this theology) an agent of conscience, one who reminded the people of what was right.

Robert's s/n

September 8th 2003, 05:58 PM

Yesterday @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205300#post205300)
chsalvia:

Well...evidently somebody's doing something right. After all, there are over one and a half billion Christians in the world. :smile:

LOL. Probably because it's appealing at an emotional level. I think you'll agree that modern churches don't satisfy the intellect.

Robert's s/n

September 8th 2003, 06:56 PM

[QUOTE]Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206108#post206108)
jpholding:
Silly man. That's not "how to be saved" but "how to stay saved, if necessary". :smile:

Those categories seem to overlap. To "be" saved, one must "stay" saved. So, it still seems like intense study is needed to even understand the basics of salvation.

[QUOTE]Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206108#post206108)
jpholding:

And what about historically verifying the Resurrection, the only crux for the atonement?

What about it?

It takes a tremendous amount of study to validate it historically. Therfore, salvation is NOT so easy obtain for the average Joe after all.

[QUOTE]Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206108#post206108)
jpholding:

<<<Then I guess God did a lousy job putting together an organization.

Then I guess you want to blame God for free choices made by free beings. Awesome. >>>

When a soul's eternal destiny is at stake, I think that manifests a need to be on track. Maybe God should intervene especially when his free creatures are erring so badly. The Creator's lack of involvement in this area indicates to me that the Christian God is only concerned about the incredibly credulous. So, if you can, answer why such carelessness is allowed to continue in God's body of believers.

[QUOTE]Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206108#post206108)
jpholding:

<<<Did God make you watch TV last night?>>>

I'm not a huge fan of TV. But sometimes I feel an uncontrollable urge to watch the Simpsons which is probably either divine or propelled by my sinful nature. = p

Most of my time IS spent studying, however. I've been studying independantly now for a few years and still have a long way to go before I can accurately assess the evidence. Maybe this issue is so simple in your eyes because you've dedicated the necessary amount of time and effort. How long were you wavering between theories before you settled with your current position?

[QUOTE]Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206108#post206108)
jpholding:

<<<<And the investors in this case fail to care. Sounds a lot like "human nature"....>>>>

I'm not sure I follow. Are you insinuating that Biblical faith is a natural response to the gospel? I thought the heart was deceitful above all things, so one would figure a more objective factor would be utilized(ie historeography).

[QUOTE]Today @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206108#post206108)
jpholding:

<<<<When you get a chance, look up the word RESPONSIBILITY.>>>

When you get a chance, look up the word EQUALITY. Intelligence varies from person to person, so certain demands should be met to ensure equal oppurtunity to access the kingdom(ie a church that's concerned about truth as opposed to dogma).

In summary, salvation is NOT as easy to understand as you propose, and God and his church do NOT fulfill their inherent responsibities.

BeHereNow

September 9th 2003, 09:42 AM

/ot Someone needs to learn how to use the [quote] function lol..

Robert's s/n

September 9th 2003, 11:58 AM

Well, at least I'm making progess. :metro: My reply to ChSalvia came out perfect [hold the applause] :dufus:

jpholding

September 9th 2003, 01:33 PM

Azwah,

Those categories seem to overlap. To "be" saved, one must "stay" saved. So, it still seems like intense study is needed to even understand the basics of salvation.

Nope, you're just making a false step to cover your error. The means to "be" saved is split into only two possibilities:

1) Faith alone.
2) Works needed too.

The matter is simply and easily resolved by understanding that the Jews saw no essential distinction between belief and action. On the other hand, "stay saved" is a much broader question with issues like:

1) Can God willfully drop you?
2) Can you leave of your own accord?
3) What does it take to be "de-saved"?
a) bad works?
b) intellectual decisions?
c) using the express lane with more than 10 items?
4) Do such people exist or is it that they were never saved at all?

Etc. :thumb: Now tell us, did you read that book or just the title? In that series the difference between positions is often rather minute.

It takes a tremendous amount of study to validate it historically.

Tremendous? I did it in only a few months.

When a soul's eternal destiny is at stake, I think that manifests a need to be on track. Maybe God should intervene especially when his free creatures are erring so badly.

Why? And who are you to decide this? And if laziness is the problem, why does God need to step in and wipe our mouths? Will you next ask God to pass you the remote?

The Creator's lack of involvement in this area indicates to me that the Christian God is only concerned about the incredibly credulous.

How so? That makes no sense at all; you simply assert it as though obvious.

How long were you wavering between theories before you settled with your current position?

Theories of what particularly? I was able to decide for example on TULIP in only about a month's worth of study.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you insinuating that Biblical faith is a natural response to the gospel? I thought the heart was deceitful above all things, so one would figure a more objective factor would be utilized(ie historeography).

No...I'm indicating that Biblical faith is something you have to want and be interested in. Faith means loyalty (per my article at the front of TWeb this month). As for Jer. 17:9, you may want to be careful about using proverbial commentary from an ANE writer, but I do use historiography in my approaches.

When you get a chance, look up the word EQUALITY. Intelligence varies from person to person,

Barring the mentally ill or otherwise physically impeded, I have my doubts of that. Laziness is the only "non-equalizer" I have seen when all else was equal. It's not coincidence that all the failing students I knew were also deep into i.e., KISS and D and D when I was in school and seldom if ever did their homework. Besides, as noted, the level needed for basic salvation is not that difficult-- it follows after all what is not much different than a parental model of guidance.

In summary, salvation is NOT as easy to understand as you propose, and God and his church do NOT fulfill their inherent responsibities.

In summary, you have yet to show that salvation is not easy to understand (having not even given examples of how, other than a false equation with eternal security issues) and while the church is lax, God has no responsibility to kiss butt as a reply to our laziness. You have to prove that your position has not simply moved the goalposts so that what was once "dumb and lazy" is now "average".

Robert's s/n

September 9th 2003, 05:59 PM

[QUOTE]Today @ 06:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206785#post206785)
jpholding:

<<<<Azwah,>>>>

What?

<<<<Nope, you're just making a false step to cover your error.>>>

It COULD be a false step because I believe it to be a logical one, goofy. = D Proceed but try not question my motives.

<<<<The means to "be" saved is split into only two possibilities:

1) Faith alone.
2) Works needed too.

The matter is simply and easily resolved by understanding that the Jews saw no essential distinction between belief and action. >>>>

So according to Jewish understanding, once a heathen converted, he was required to renounce all sin and habitually practice NO sin. This isn't so clear to me. Is an heroine addict required to repent immediately or else still be subject to condemnation? If this is a permitted exception, where is the line drawn? How much sin is one allowed to have in one's life before God chooses to expel the person?

In regards to eternal security, to be saved entails an eternity in the kingdom. Therefore, the topic of salvation includes everything involved in getting from point A(earth) to point B(heaven) and would include how one could be removed from that path. Again, it seems a little more complex than what you're allowing.

<<<<Etc. :thumb: Now tell us, did you read that book or just the title? In that series the difference between positions is often rather minute.>>>>>>

The book. I thought the differences to be notable. If losing salvation is a possibility, a clear definitive point of rejection needs to be manifested. And this is where it gets complicated.

<<<Tremendous? I did it in only a few months. >>>

It's hard for me to imagine that you were able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion in a matter of months when the event emanates such diverse positions from PROFESSIONALS in the field. Additionally, my personal experience relegates your "quick quest to conclusion" as a distortion. Now, did you engage in collegiel or independant study? And what books did you study that enabled you to grasp the data so quickly and thoroughly?

When a soul's eternal destiny is at stake, I think that manifests a need to be on track. Maybe God should intervene especially when his free creatures are erring so badly.

<<<<Why? And who are you to decide this? And if laziness is the problem, why does God need to step in and wipe our mouths? Will you next ask God to pass you the remote?>>>>

Insulted, JP? = D You're just gonna have to come to grips with the fact that God would rather sit idlely by and watch MILLIONS of souls march away from the church and salvation than step in and force his organization to institute quality apologetics ministries and remove pedafile sickos( and other hypocrites) from among the leadership.

God is supposed to be a father, right? If my child's laziness was harming other children, you'd better believe I'd intervene ESPECIALLY if he wasn't living up to his responsibilities! But where's God to correct the errors of his children? So much has been placed on the shoulders of the church(getting the gospel message across CLEARLY and removing all barriers to the salvation), so where's God to help out? Of coarse if you could prove the message of salvation and the historical validity of the resurrection could be plainly understood by all regardless of educational background, the force of this point is sufficiently curtailed.

<<<<How so? That makes no sense at all; you simply assert it as though obvious.>>>

A god concerned about truth would ensure his ONLY representatives were concerned about truth too(if the US ambassador deviates from the position of the US government, guess what, the PROBLEM IS CORRECTED). The church has deviated from a bona fide concern for truth. God does NOT and has NOT corrected the problem. Therefore, God condones ignorance and would rather exclude interrogatory persons from paradise than assuage their legitimate concerns.

<<<<Theories of what particularly? I was able to decide for example on TULIP in only about a month's worth of study. >>>

Theories of the Resurrection, the historical Jesus, and how to maintain salvation. You seem to learn quite quickly. Perhaps you're more privelaged than most people.

<<<<No...I'm indicating that Biblical faith is something you have to want and be interested in. >>>>

Similiar to how an investor must be interested in the product or program. The problem arises when the sales person refuses to properly educate the prospect(EXACTLY what we find in the church). And this is where I believe God and his church have failed miserably.

<<<<Besides, as noted, the level needed for basic salvation is not that difficult-- it follows after all what is not much different than a parental model of guidance.>>>>

The level needed for basic salvation is not so simple to me. Under what conditions is the covenant rendered void and how is this easy to understand?

<<<In summary, you have yet to show that salvation is not easy to understand (having not even given examples of how, other than a false equation with eternal security issues)>>>

My point still stands. Eternal Security is to be regarded as part of being saved, and it is too complex of an issue to be understood by anyone without detailed study.

<<<<and while the church is lax, God has no responsibility to kiss butt as a reply to our laziness. >>>>

Not "kiss butt", but correct the blunders of his ambassadors.

<<<<You have to prove that your position has not simply moved the goalposts so that what was once "dumb and lazy" is now "average".>>>>

My personal experience and the vast majority of scholars who are NOT orthodox believers prove that the Resurrection is NOT so easy to verify.

My personal experience and the varied positions held by theologians on how to maintain salvation indicate to me that the basic message of salvation is NOT as simple as you would have us believe.

jpholding

September 10th 2003, 01:32 PM

What?

How about, Oongawa?

It COULD be a false step because I believe it to be a logical one, goofy. = D Proceed but try not question my motives.

OK, Donald. How did you come to believe it was logical? :teeth:

So according to Jewish understanding, once a heathen converted, he was required to renounce all sin and habitually practice NO sin.

No, once a heathen converted he would AUTOMATICALLY renounce all sin and habitually practice none. As a man thinks, so he is.

This isn't so clear to me. Is an heroine addict required to repent immediately or else still be subject to condemnation?

No -- he certainly should want to quit if his repentance is genuine. (You seem here to be using "repent" to mean "quit taking the drug".) Of course the added difficulty of physical addiction runs into play, but implementation is a matter of individual concern no matter what ethical system we adhere to.

How much sin is one allowed to have in one's life before God chooses to expel the person?

Given that this is not the issue, the question is misdirected and backwards. It is not of how much is allowed but how much one WILL have if one holds a certain belief.

Therefore, the topic of salvation includes everything involved in getting from point A(earth) to point B(heaven) and would include how one could be removed from that path

Not at all. What you call "salvation" is what is actually sanctification. Salvation involves only one (or at most two, if anti-eternal security folk like me are right) moments of decision.

The book. I thought the differences to be notable.

What were they, specifically?

If losing salvation is a possibility, a clear definitive point of rejection needs to be manifested. And this is where it gets complicated.

Depends again on how willing you are to explore. :teeth: I found it quite clear once I linked together the principles of Semitic Totality (as above) and the Jewish understanding of a covenant relationship, and the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship.

It's hard for me to imagine that you were able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion in a matter of months when the event emanates such diverse positions from PROFESSIONALS in the field.

Why? It's not that hard once you realize that even professionals don't cover every bit of ground. A theory of textual criticism can be undermined by a simple observation from Greco-Roman rhetoric....I have seen it happen. It's often not so much less than knowing where to look.

Additionally, my personal experience relegates your "quick quest to conclusion" as a distortion. Now, did you engage in collegiel or independant study? And what books did you study that enabled you to grasp the data so quickly and thoroughly?

Independent but using the resources available from and to collegiates. If you want books I will have to prepare topical bibliographies.

Insulted, JP?

Nope. Just finding your attempt to spin it out to being God's fault that we are lazy rather amusing. Reminds me of the child who says it's mommy's fault she put the cookie jar where he could reach it. :huh:

God is supposed to be a father, right? If my child's laziness was harming other children, you'd better believe I'd intervene ESPECIALLY if he wasn't living up to his responsibilities!

As far as I can see God has intervened more than amply. What you are asking is for God to wipe noses and tie shoes and coddle and burp. The ability to do what is needed is there. The errors have been corrected.

Of coarse if you could prove the message of salvation and the historical validity of the resurrection could be plainly understood by all regardless of educational background, the force of this point is sufficiently curtailed.

I think it is, actually. We are discussing one above....what about the other?

A god concerned about truth would ensure his ONLY representatives were concerned about truth too(if the US ambassador deviates from the position of the US government, guess what, the PROBLEM IS CORRECTED).

That's silly. :tongue: Somneone not concerned with the truth is de facto NOT God's representative. I think what you mean is, God would step in and stop all false religious beliefs. Of course if that's so, aside from that it's another "please wipe my nose and kiss my butt" request, I wonder if you're squeaky clean enough to want God running interference everywhere else the same way. And why not? Why should it be restricted to just these issues? Be careful what you ask for. If you want God to fix things, you might be first on his list.

Theories of the Resurrection

That took maybe a month. The lit on it is vast but often repetitive.

the historical Jesus

Bare existence, or....?

, and how to maintain salvation.

Couple of days. Dahl's classic work explaining Semitic Totality made that easy.

You seem to learn quite quickly. Perhaps you're more privelaged than most people.

I do know how to use a library better than most, and do know better than to waste time with sources like The Christ Conspiracy. But I don't think I'm special in that regard. Anyone cando it if they want to.

The problem arises when the sales person refuses to properly educate the prospect(EXACTLY what we find in the church). And this is where I believe God and his church have failed miserably.

The church, yes. God? Yet to be demonstrated. What if the prospect throws the prospectus back in the salesman's face and says, "I don't feel like reading this. Your explanations bore me and The Simpsons is on. I'll just shoot dice to decide what to do"?

The level needed for basic salvation is not so simple to me. Under what conditions is the covenant rendered void and how is this easy to understand?

Rather easily. A covenant is a contract. How do you back out of a contract? You tear it up. You throw it back at the other party. You reject its terms. Now how hard was that? :smile: You don't even need to be a lawyer. And a couple of hours of knowing how the ANE people regarded covenants and/or the Grco-Roman client-patron relationship seals the matter. It's not a whole lot different than modern contracts of law.

My point still stands.

Your point has yet to get up. :brow: And its past noon.

Not "kiss butt", but correct the blunders of his ambassadors.

Assuming they ARE his ambassadors. Tell me, do you support the ideals that were part of the Reformation?

My personal experience and the vast majority of scholars who are NOT orthodox believers prove that the Resurrection is NOT so easy to verify.

HOOOONOKKK....an elephant just hurled by overhead...I'm sorry, your "personal experience" cannot be universalized. And the vague spectre of unnamed "scholars" whose arguments are not here presented says nothing to us. :smile:

Oongawa.

Robert's s/n

September 10th 2003, 05:46 PM

OK, Donald. How did you come to believe it was logical?

Based on how salvation is defined.

No, once a heathen converted he would AUTOMATICALLY renounce all sin and HABITUALLY PRACTICE NONE(emphasis mine). As a man thinks, so he is.

This seems to fly in the face of Paul's struggle in Romans 7.

No -- he certainly should want to quit if his repentance is genuine. (You seem here to be using "repent" to mean "quit taking the drug".)

Hmm, I thought repentance was defined as the act of turning completely from sin. How would you define it?

but implementation is a matter of individual concern no matter what ethical system we adhere to.

Unless there's a chart that details exactly what is expected from each person, how does one know if the standard of decent behavior established for the individual is being met? This seems highly subjective and would open wide the door for obfuscation.

It is not of how much is allowed but how much one WILL have if one holds a certain belief.

According to the New Testament, one could desire to do good, but still disobey(Romans 7). And the way one thinks is not developed over night, and, therefore, can not be expected to change over night. A thirty year old man will probably have more difficulty changing his thought process than a thirteen year old boy who is trying to "find himself". Given these factors--and many more-- there must be some divine, objective scale that weighs the sincerity of each reputed convert or else each believer remains lost in a sea of uncertainties or blinded by a false sense of security.

Not at all. What you call "salvation" is what is actually sanctification.

Would you define both of those, please?

Salvation involves only one (or at most two, if anti-eternal security folk like me are right) moments of decision.

Choice one would constitute a prayer that sincerely expresses belief in Jesus as Savior and a commitment to remain loyal to him as Lord. What's the second one?

What were they, specifically?

Is a sinner secured as a redeemed saint simply by experiencing one moment of sincerity? Is salvation a gift that could never be returned or is it a process? Is it a covenant that requires activity on both ends?

I found it quite clear once I linked together the principles of Semitic Totality (as above) and the Jewish understanding of a covenant relationship, and the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship.

So an understanding of those three concepts will suffice to determine how much repentance is needed to remain on the road to the pearly gates? As for the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship, if the recipient of God's grace on earth repeatedly denies Christ and his work publically, does that cut him off from future blessings(ie eternal life since it has yet to given)?

It's not that hard once you realize that even professionals don't cover every bit of ground.

And your study covered all of the relevant ground( linguistics, literature, historeography, psychology, and sociology) while spanning only a few months? I'm eager to ascertain what literature equiped you to accurately assess the evidence in such a short period of time. Notice, also, that I took the germane areas of study from your list here http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

that describes the necessary implements for understanding the Bible. That's an awful lot of material to grasp.

I have seen it happen. It's often not so much less than knowing where to look...If you want books I will have to prepare topical bibliographies.

If it's not too much trouble. Last name and the title of the book will be just fine. If you'll endorse the corpus as an efficient approach to understand the record, I'll review it piecemeal.

As far as I can see God has intervened more than amply.

I think it's because you have a clouded point of view(ie :bow: ) :rofl: . How has God corrected the inadequacy of his ONLY delegates?

I think it is, actually. We are discussing one above....what about the other?

That would be interesting. Please present a cogent arguement that delivers what you promise.

Somneone not concerned with the truth is de facto NOT God's representative.

Then are you prepared to dismiss the majority of church goers as spurious ambassadors to God?

I think what you mean is, God would step in and stop all false religious beliefs

Nope. I mean that ambassadors represent the view of another and if they deviated from that view, the dispatcher would correct the problem. Since God's alleged ambassadors tend to sweep detailed apologetics under the carpet, God is NOT concerned about proof and would rather torture interrogatory persons for eternity than assuage their legitimate concerns.

Of course if that's so, aside from that it's another "please wipe my nose and kiss my butt" request, I wonder if you're squeaky clean enough to want God running interference everywhere else the same way.

No, not everywhere. I'm not advocating denying man their free will. I just believe it's God's responsibility to ensure that he is being properly represented by his delegates.

Why should it be restricted to just these issues?

Because the everyday pagan is not required to teach about God, present the message of salvation, and remove all barriers to salvation.

Be careful what you ask for. If you want God to fix things, you might be first on his list.

I would LOVE a visit from God as long as there's no book containing a list of my poor decisions in one hand and a lightning bolt in the other :eek: . If he wants to stop by and give me clear, practical aadvice, I'll fold out my sofa bed for him.

How do you back out of a contract? You tear it up. You throw it back at the other party. You reject its terms. Now how hard was that?

Please elucidate the terms exactly.

the historical Jesus

Bare existence, or....?

Actually, I was refering to Jesus as divine, but bare existence would be included in the search.

and how to maintain salvation.

Couple of days.

Again, you seem to pick up things quite quickly.

What if the prospect throws the prospectus back in the salesman's face

This is exactly the problem. The church does NOT present a prospectus.

and says, "I don't feel like reading this. Your explanations bore me and The Simpsons is on. I'll just shoot dice to decide what to do"?

Dice shouldn't be needed. The choice is easy. Watch the Simpsons and read during commercials. Best of both worlds. :wink:

Assuming they ARE his ambassadors. Tell me, do you support the ideals that were part of the Reformation?

As far church doctrine goes, yes, I'd side with the Protestants. Why?

I'm sorry, your "personal experience" cannot be universalized.

It is applicable evidence nonetheless.

And the vague spectre of unnamed "scholars"

Do you think the majority of classical historians believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

whose arguments are not here presented says nothing to us.

Their arguements don't need to be presented for me to illustrate my point. If the reality of the resurrection were as clear as you think, there would not divergant positions held by experts.

dizzle

September 10th 2003, 06:20 PM

:eek: Robert, can you please use the quote function? I can instruct you how to... for instance... instread of using ">>>" to mark off quotes do this:

insert quoted text here

And it will appear on the post as a quote.

Robert's s/n

September 10th 2003, 06:45 PM

Robert, can you please use the quote function? I can instruct you how to... for instance... instread of using ">>>" to mark off quotes do this:

insert quoted text here

And it will appear on the post as a quote.

No prob. :thumb: Thanks for the tip!

jpholding

September 11th 2003, 02:31 PM

Scooby Dooby Doo,

Based on how salvation is defined.

Er, which is?

This seems to fly in the face of Paul's struggle in Romans 7.

Ooops. Bad news, esp. since you appeal to this a coupla times below. You're reading Romans 7 as though Paul were describing his own present experience, but what Paul is actually doing here is engaging in a typical Greco-Roman rhetorical practice (also found in Jewish literature, including the Qumran Pslams) in which the personal "I" and the present tense is used as a literary convention. Where the personal "I" is combined with the present tense, the author is utilizing a practice called "speech in character" to represent a universal experience. Here, Paul is bringing out the universal experience of those who do not know Christ (and that did include him, at one time) and their struggle with moral law and sin. He is not giving a biographical account of his present experience. But don't feel bad, it's a common mistake...

Hmm, I thought repentance was defined as the act of turning completely from sin. How would you define it?

That works. But it does not preclude giving in to the temptation to take one step backward after two steps forward.

Unless there's a chart that details exactly what is expected from each person, how does one know if the standard of decent behavior established for the individual is being met? This seems highly subjective and would open wide the door for obfuscation.

Hmph. Is it a subjective matter to discern between a Mother Theresa and a Genghis Khan? Pro rata I don't think that many people would live lives of such ambivalence that it would be hard to say one way or the other where their hearts lay. None I know at any rate. How about you?

According to the New Testament, one could desire to do good, but still disobey(Romans 7). And the way one thinks is not developed over night, and, therefore, can not be expected to change over night.

As noted, you're using Romans 7 in error, but you can certainly expect a significant change in mental orientation at once. I don't see what "finding yourself" has to do with it -- this is a matter of a way one looks at the world, not one's personal development (which, at any rate, is a product of modern individualism; the ancients did not go on personal journeys to "find themselves").

there must be some divine, objective scale that weighs the sincerity of each reputed convert or else each believer remains lost in a sea of uncertainties or blinded by a false sense of security.

There surely is such a determination, but any believer that is lost in a sea of uncertainty likely just needs more data (as I have found with some who write to me).

Would you define both of those, please?

Salvation I regard as the state of being saved from damnation. Sanctification is the process of becoming more holy as one comes to terms with one's salvation.

Choice one would constitute a prayer that sincerely expresses belief in Jesus as Savior and a commitment to remain loyal to him as Lord. What's the second one?

If I am right in my position against eternal security, it would be a decision to become disloyal to God and work against His purposes.

Is a sinner secured as a redeemed saint simply by experiencing one moment of sincerity?

A little loaded as a question. I don't see sincerity as an "experience" but as a decision. And if what one decides has long-term implications, one becomes a redeemed saint by nature.

Is salvation a gift that could never be returned or is it a process?

The process is sanctification. Salvation is a gift that I think CAN be returned.

Is it a covenant that requires activity on both ends?

Yes. God of course provides eternal life. And we have obligations to be disciples. No La Z Boy Christianity allowed.

So an understanding of those three concepts will suffice to determine how much repentance is needed to remain on the road to the pearly gates?

"How much"? I never figured repentance to be something measured...the initial repentance of the convert establishes an orientation which makes repentance from later sins a preferred mode of operation.

As for the Greco-Roman client-patron relationship, if the recipient of God's grace on earth repeatedly denies Christ and his work publically, does that cut him off from future blessings(ie eternal life since it has yet to given)?

By the view I have, yes.

And your study covered all of the relevant ground( linguistics, literature, historeography, psychology, and sociology) while spanning only a few months? I'm eager to ascertain what literature equiped you to accurately assess the evidence in such a short period of time.

Such as was needed. Of couse for that issue some of that (like historiography) is not strictly applicable. It does help to have one of the best-equipped seminary libraries nearby.

Notice, also, that I took the germane areas of study from your list here <http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html>

If it's not too much trouble. Last name and the title of the book will be just fine. If you'll endorse the corpus as an efficient approach to understand the record, I'll review it piecemeal.

You can start with Dahl's Resurrection of the Body, if you can find it. There are other books I list at http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html that have bits and pieces, but Dahl is a foundation here with the most info in one place.

I think it's because you have a clouded point of view(ie ) . How has God corrected the inadequacy of his ONLY delegates?

By making the truth plainly and readily available. And by providing people with the ability and desire to correct them.

That would be interesting. Please present a cogent arguement that delivers what you promise.

You will find on my front page a link to an article called The Impossible Faith. Also Kyle Gerkin and I had some discussions on it you can find in the TWeb archives.

Then are you prepared to dismiss the majority of church goers as spurious ambassadors to God?

If needed. I obviously do not have a poll handy.

Nope. I mean that ambassadors represent the view of another and if they deviated from that view, the dispatcher would correct the problem.

That's what I'm here for, eh? :brow: If God provides JPHs, Glenn Millers, William Lane Craigs, JP Morelands, etc, does that do the job?

Because the everyday pagan is not required to teach about God, present the message of salvation, and remove all barriers to salvation.

Yet isn't everyday bad behavior a barrier to salvation? So why should God not step in, by this logic, when you're about to kick your dog?

I would LOVE a visit from God as long as there's no book containing a list of my poor decisions in one hand and a lightning bolt in the other

Precisely my point. You won't get one without the other of you insist that God blow every nose and correct every false (alleged) ambassador.

. If he wants to stop by and give me clear, practical aadvice, I'll fold out my sofa bed for him.

Please elucidate the terms exactly.

1) Recognize God as supreme authority in your life.
2) Recognize Jesus as the broker for his patronage.

That's it. All else follows naturally.

Actually, I was refering to Jesus as divine, but bare existence would be included in the search.

Bare existence was quick and painless, maybe a few hours of work. On divinity there are two issues:

1) The nature of Jesus' claims -- this was a big one, I'd say it took weeks of research to get ALL the claims down in meaning, but some are more obvious than others.
2) Was he divine? -- this goes in with study of the Resurrection, since that is the "proof" of divinity. Assuming you don't count "Jesus was an alien" alternatives. :teeth:

Again, you seem to pick up things quite quickly.

The right sources help.

This is exactly the problem. The church does NOT present a prospectus.

What is the Bible, then?

Dice shouldn't be needed. The choice is easy. Watch the Simpsons and read during commercials. Best of both worlds.

I hope you're kidding! :teeth: The mental state an average episode engenders is hardly conducive to serious study, is it?

As far church doctrine goes, yes, I'd side with the Protestants. Why?

The Protestants stood for each man doing his own research. In short, the opposite of the paradigm you wish to see God impose.

It is applicable evidence nonetheless.

To a very limited circle of one, perhaps!

Do you think the majority of classical historians believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

I think the majority admit that SOMETHING caused the apostles to believe they saw the resurrected Jesus. They will however refrain from speculating on the causes since the current paradigm is that the miraculous is beyond historical consideration. Michael Grant is an example of this.

Robert's s/n

September 11th 2003, 05:44 PM

Based on how salvation is defined.

Er, which is?

Transporting a sinner from point A(earth) to point B(heaven) which entails maintaining salvation.

You're reading Romans 7 as though Paul were describing his own present experience, but what Paul is actually doing here is engaging in a typical Greco-Roman rhetorical practice...Where the personal "I" is combined with the present tense, the author is utilizing a practice called "speech in character" to represent a universal experience.

How is this different from how one would communicate an action, executed by "I", occuring in the present(eg "I want to do good but I can't")? If there's no difference, the critics preference is dictating whether or not a literal interpretation ought to be employed.

Is it a subjective matter to discern between a Mother Theresa and a Genghis Khan?

Not discerning between individuals, but between one's former life and the "new life" allegedly received at conversion. Is there sufficient change and sufficient progress being made so as to comfortably rest in the assurance that the individual's salvation is secured?

Pro rata I don't think that many people would live lives of such ambivalence that it would be hard to say one way or the other where their hearts lay. None I know at any rate. How about you?

Yep and judging by a later comment, it seems you have encountered similiar people.

I don't see what "finding yourself" has to do with it -- this is a matter of a way one looks at the world, not one's personal development (which, at any rate, is a product of modern individualism; the ancients did not go on personal journeys to "find themselves").

Whether or not the ancients went on personal journeys or not is irrelevant. Modern kids try to find a social identity- and yes, this IS related to the teenager's worldview- during their adolescent years. They are more open to change whereas a grown adult would be more difficult to change. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, not even Toby! How would a new convert know FOR SURE that they were on their way to heaven when they still carry some bad attitudes that are difficult for them to shake? How does a new convert know that they have jettisoned enough inappropriate habits to be granted eternal life?

There surely is such a determination,

And what is it exactly?

but any believer that is lost in a sea of uncertainty likely just needs more data (as I have found with some who write to me).

How much more data? Goodness! I thought this was supposed to be simple to understand.

Salvation I regard as the state of being saved from damnation. Sanctification is the process of becoming more holy as one comes to terms with one's salvation.

Sanctification is part of salvation.
Titus 2:14
...Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Therefore, one must understand how much sanctification in their OWN INDIVIDUAL CASE is needed to maintain the "state" of being saved.

I think I can reword the point I'm trying to get across. How much sin will a believer consciencley commit if the person is a genuine convert? He will obviously commit more as a spiritual babe, but how is his sincerity measured as time progresses? The new Christian will be challenged to live a life that is beyond their ability and will never meet the requirements. The inabiliity to define the exact measure of obedience needed for salvation signifies a complex issue that is more difficult to grasp than what you're allowing.

I never figured repentance to be something measured...the initial repentance of the convert establishes an orientation which makes repentance from later sins a preferred mode of operation.

Would you say that this new orientation prohibits the believer from sinning?

By making the truth plainly and readily available.

This is news to me. I certainly have not had that experience. Unfortunately, the colleges in my area only permit students to use their libraries so I'm limited to a tiny public library and Barnes and Noble. :uneasy: So you can see the truth is not plainly and readily available for all. As a side note, the large church in my area won't permit laypersons to study what's in the seminary library. What's up with that?

And by providing people with the ability and desire to correct them.

Desire, not everyone desires to know who Jesus was. Ability, not necessarily.

Then are you prepared to dismiss the majority of church goers as spurious ambassadors to God?

If needed. I obviously do not have a poll handy.

I think the overall credulousness of the church siffices to show that contemparary believers are not too concerned about the validity of their faith and would thus render themselves spurious ambassadors.

That's what I'm here for, eh? If God provides JPHs, Glenn Millers, William Lane Craigs, JP Morelands, etc, does that do the job?

Apologists don't seem to be having any affect on the churches in my neighborhood. But providing independant educators, even though they may ignored by most leaders, would suffice. The problem, then, is limited to knowing where to look for detailed presentations. :hrm:

Yet isn't everyday bad behavior a barrier to salvation? So why should God not step in, by this logic, when you're about to kick your dog?

God already intervenes, according to your logic. The church provides numerous counselors and services to help angry, abusive people.

Precisely my point. You won't get one without the other of you insist that God blow every nose and correct every false (alleged) ambassador.

Not every ambassador. Just those with leadership positions. However, I've already noted that I agree with your arguement that God's substitute for smart pastors and leaders is the presence of apologists, although they're not an official extension of a church's ministry(at least none that I know of). If apologists are the result of God's activity, it shows he's still trying to preserve free will while providing necessary services. Makes sense to me.

1) Recognize God as supreme authority in your life.
2) Recognize Jesus as the broker for his patronage.

That's it. All else follows naturally.

Naturally? It seems pretty difficult to meet the first criteria. As I understand it, "recognition" constitutes near perfect behavior since the convert is freed from the powers of sin and death. So struggle with evil reveals a spurious conversion experience.

Bare existence was quick and painless, maybe a few hours of work.

Hold on. After a few days of study, you were equipped to tackle Doherty's and G.A. Wells' theses!? I think you'll even agree that that's far fetched.

1) The nature of Jesus' claims -- this was a big one, I'd say it took weeks of research to get ALL the claims down in meaning, but some are more obvious than others.

Just a few weeks? The "Son of Man" sayings alone seem like it would've taken up more time than that. Also, you would have to verify the gospels(or at least the Synoptics) historically which would entail establishing the genre of the gospels, whether or not oral tradition is reliable, early dates of compisition, solving the Synoptic Problem, and the textual condition of the gospels. I think you may have gone into the study with a substantial amount of background knowledge.

I hope you're kidding!

Yep. But I would find a way to do both. Everyone needs a break. :smile:

The Protestants stood for each man doing his own research. In short, the opposite of the paradigm you wish to see God impose.

No, I don't agree with what you're implying. An "everyone fend for yourself" attitude I believe is inappropriate. Laypersons cannot be expected to evaluate the Bible without proper training. If one is going to ask for an investment of any kind, the prospectus needs to be properly explained. Since the church doesn't provide that kind of service, it would be helpful if the leaders point curious believers toward prominent apologists. I am, again, speaking of my own experience with prominent churches in my area. Furthermore, if you want to take it to an extreme, there shouldn't be Sunday morning services. Let everyone study independantly and figure things out for themselves.

To a very limited circle of one, perhaps!

I seem to have misplaced the video tape that surveilanced my study and the document that charted my effort, time, and learning achievement. Ah well. :smile:

Robert's s/n

September 12th 2003, 12:23 PM

You can start with Dahl's Resurrection of the Body, if you can find it.

Doesn't seem likely. I can't order it off Amazon and no library that I have access to has it. Maybe Barnes and Noble will be able to order it. :shrug:

You will find on my front page a link to an article called The Impossible Faith. Also Kyle Gerkin and I had some discussions on it you can find in the TWeb archives.

This arguement only works if you accept the Gospels as genuinely reliable from the outset. I'm trying to figure out whether or not the gospels were intended to be read as history. According to G.W. Bowersock

"But there can be no denying that the explosion of fiction in the Roman empire represents something quite new... The beginning of the massive proliferation of fiction can be assigned pretty clearly to the reign of the emperor Nero...Rewriting the Homeric stories was to become a fad."

Bowersock indicates that one of the more noticable features of this genre was a bodily resurrection. According to the scholar, the Gospels pioneered this genre and sparked the subsequent fictional narratives. Why would we read Jesus' bios different from the others that followed the Gospels as a model?

There are other books I list at http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html that have bits and pieces,

I'll read this when I get home from work tonight. I'm running late as it is. :eek:

jpholding

September 12th 2003, 12:42 PM

Buzzah,

Transporting a sinner from point A(earth) to point B(heaven) which entails maintaining salvation.

Never heard that one in the theology workbooks. :huh: Salvation is viewed more as a state one enters, not a process.

How is this different from how one would communicate an action, executed by "I", occuring in the present(eg "I want to do good but I can't")?

Simply put, it's different because it speaks of an experience beyond just what the one man experiences. If you want the details of how to discern rhetorical functions, that I'd have to go back to the library for. I don't consider that knowledge useful for the average person and don't keep it with me. :smile:

Is there sufficient change and sufficient progress being made so as to comfortably rest in the assurance that the individual's salvation is secured?

That is indeed what has to be determined. And that is what Paul means by "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

Whether or not the ancients went on personal journeys or not is irrelevant.

It's VERY relevant. All the hocus pocus you describe wasn't endured by the teenagers of the ancient world.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, not even Toby!

Ironically enough as old as Toby is (11) he is a very bright little doggie who learns tricks easily. In part because he is loving and eager to please. I trained him recently to jump into his bed (our laundry basket!) on the command, "Go to bed, Toby."

How would a new convert know FOR SURE that they were on their way to heaven when they still carry some bad attitudes that are difficult for them to shake?

The simple answer: Because he regrets those bad attitudes where before he did not. As I tell people, if you are worried about your sin and not pleasing God, that's prime evidence of your saved state. Just as you can tell a true citizen of America by his own concern for whether he breaks America's laws. Maybe ask yourself this: How do we know a person is a loyal and patriotic American?

How much more data? Goodness! I thought this was supposed to be simple to understand.

It is. Why isn't it?

Sanctification is part of salvation.

Sanctification is a RESULT of salvation. That is what Titus 2:14 indicates. Saying "part of" is an act of linguistic equivocation.

Therefore, one must understand how much sanctification in their OWN INDIVIDUAL CASE is needed to maintain the "state" of being saved.

None, actually. Remeber Semitic Totality: and as a man thinks, so he is. If you're looking at "how much to maintain" you're on the wrong track.

How much sin will a believer consciencley commit if the person is a genuine convert? He will obviously commit more as a spiritual babe, but how is his sincerity measured as time progresses?

A general and obvious reply is to correlate occurrences statistically over time. Of course you must also ask, What is conscious sin and what is sin of passion? We should see a gradual decerase in both in thr true believer. If we do not, what has happened?

1) They did not truly believe.
2) They did, but abandoned it.
3) They did not come to terms with what they believed.

The first two would be unsaved. The third however is not -- and that is where we come to the concept of rewards:

1 Cor. 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

In this light "am I saved" is less a worry than you may think. The person you describe should probably be worried rather about whether they will enter eternal life smelling like smoke.

The inabiliity to define the exact measure of obedience needed for salvation signifies a complex issue that is more difficult to grasp than what you're allowing.

For some perhaps, but not for me. Is this a limitation on the ability to measure or on our ability to comprehend?

Would you say that this new orientation prohibits the believer from sinning?

No. It makes them sorry or sorrier when they do, however.

This is news to me. I certainly have not had that experience. Unfortunately, the colleges in my area only permit students to use their libraries so I'm limited to a tiny public library and Barnes and Noble.

You may wish to learn the magic of *poof* INTERLIBRARY LOAN. (thunder, lightning, etc.) :smile: Now you have no excuses. :teeth:

As a side note, the large church in my area won't permit laypersons to study what's in the seminary library. What's up with that?

Bunch of snots, maybe. Care to tell me where and who (by PM)? I can check it out.

Ability, not necessarily.

No argument there. Those with the desire fool themselves if they think that is all they need.

Apologists don't seem to be having any affect on the churches in my neighborhood.

Of course the church is not the only place you can go. And you ARE here with a link to my material available. :teeth: And I'm telling you all this NOW. So....

The problem, then, is limited to knowing where to look for detailed presentations.

How do you go shopping for a car?

God already intervenes, according to your logic. The church provides numerous counselors and services to help angry, abusive people.

Exactly. :thumb: We also provide numerous resources for those needing education. Touche. (As an aside, though, a friend in seminary tells me that a huge percentage of the people in his class are going for degrees in counseling! The church if anything is top-heavy in that area.)

Not every ambassador. Just those with leadership positions.

But isn't a one to one conversation one person leading another?

presence of apologists, although they're not an official extension of a church's ministry(at least none that I know of).

Some churches do have apologetics ministries. It's become more prominent since Lee Strobel. I hope it continues. BTW if he has anything to do with it, it will. I've met him for lunch -- a very eager counselor.

As I understand it, "recognition" constitutes near perfect behavior

Not under Semitic Totality and the idea of substitionary atonement. With the latter, consider the crucified Jesus as a sort of pair of spectacles God puts on when looking at you. God no longer sees the convert who sins, but the perfect Jesus. (You can probably see how this might fit in with the persistent "body of Christ" metaphor.)

So struggle with evil reveals a spurious conversion experience.

Struggle, no, reveals a likely genuine one. A spurious conversion would not struggle at all but give in (barring such things as outside recompenses; i.e., being arrested).

Hold on. After a few days of study, you were equipped to tackle Doherty's and G.A. Wells' theses!? I think you'll even agree that that's far fetched.

Nope. I mean, good heavens, the Christ-myth is such a minority view that the professional historians almost never bother with it; when they do, it's accompanied by a laugh. The methodology of Mythers is flawed; such methodology is never used by professional historians (all mythers so far have been outside that field; not even Doherty is that qualified); it involves incredible complexities of explanation to excuse away positive evidence; it requires seriously begged questions; and most recently, I found, it is just a product of low-context expectations on a high-context text. Believe this, the same tricks were used to try to render Buddha and Zoroaster mythical, and the scholars in those fields made the same jokes.

Just a few weeks? The "Son of Man" sayings alone seem like it would've taken up more time than that.

Not really. There are only so many options.

Also, you would have to verify the gospels(or at least the Synoptics) historically which would entail establishing the genre of the gospels, whether or not oral tradition is reliable, early dates of compisition, solving the Synoptic Problem, and the textual condition of the gospels. I think you may have gone into the study with a substantial amount of background knowledge.

Yep. In fact I covered all those topics too. A few weeks each. Well worth the investment and far more entertaining that The Simpsons or even Sanford and Son. :thumb:

Yep. But I would find a way to do both. Everyone needs a break. :smile:

I'll grant that. But I prefer the sort where one thing at a time is done. Read a few chapters of a scholarly book; read another on a different subject after that; then take a break with some ficiton...

No, I don't agree with what you're implying. An "everyone fend for yourself" attitude I believe is inappropriate.

Then in fact you DO disagree with the principles of the Reformation. And in what you say thereafter, you mirror the view of the Catholic Church (which, basically, DOES claim to provide such service).

I am, again, speaking of my own experience with prominent churches in my area.

Any of them Catholic?

Furthermore, if you want to take it to an extreme, there shouldn't be Sunday morning services. Let everyone study independantly and figure things out for themselves.

Ha! You don't know how right you are. In the early church such meetings were for fellowship more than anything else.

I seem to have misplaced the video tape that surveilanced my study and the document that charted my effort, time, and learning achievement. Ah well. :smile:

I think I have it. Good grief, is that YOU watching Bonanza??? And on a Sunday, too! Tsk tsk. :poke:

Robert's s/n

September 12th 2003, 03:26 PM

Never heard that one in the theology workbooks. Salvation is viewed more as a state one enters, not a process.

OK, but the condition still has to be maintained. Judging by your interpretation of "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling", self-examination and remorse are products of salvation, and the presence of those two elements signifies a bona fide conversion, right?

Simply put, it's different because it speaks of an experience beyond just what the one man experiences.

Gotcha. :thumb: You've earned a couple of pearls for that one.

If you want the details of how to discern rhetorical functions, that I'd have to go back to the library for. I don't consider that knowledge useful for the average person and don't keep it with me.

Na, no need to retrieve the info. But it certainly clears up Romans 7! :smile:

It's VERY relevant. All the hocus pocus you describe wasn't endured by the teenagers of the ancient world.

You've already successfully refuted my objection, but I still think this point is irrelevant. Here's what I originally wrote:

And the way one thinks is not developed over night, and, therefore, can not be expected to change over night. A thirty year old man will probably have more difficulty changing his thought process than a thirteen year old boy who is trying to "find himself". Given these factors--and many more-- there must be some divine, objective scale that weighs the sincerity of each reputed convert or else each believer remains lost in a sea of uncertainties or blinded by a false sense of security.

The question was pertaining to assurance regarding one's salvation when some improper attitudes/worldview/whatever maybe more difficult for some to jettison than for others. Whether or not ancient's experienced the same psychological development has no bearing over the experience of moderns.

Ironically enough as old as Toby is (11) he is a very bright little doggie who learns tricks easily. In part because he is loving and eager to please. I trained him recently to jump into his bed (our laundry basket!) on the command, "Go to bed, Toby."

:rofl: Maybe Toby and my dog should hang out. She needs a positive influence in her life. :rofl: My pups 12 and will NOT move unless there's food or nature's call to motivate her. :rofl:

Just as you can tell a true citizen of America by his own concern for whether he breaks America's laws. Maybe ask yourself this: How do we know a person is a loyal and patriotic American?

That's a good analogy.

It is. Why isn't it?

Because I didn't hear the "patriot test" analogy yet. :teeth:

What is conscious sin and what is sin of passion?

I didn't think there was a difference. I thought all sin was conscience.

Is this a limitation on the ability to measure or on our ability to comprehend?

Rather an inability to find intelligent theologians in local churches. Your explanations make sense; I just wonder why the reputable churches around me could not offer the same clear and accurate explanations. For instance
1) How do we measure whether or not a convert is maintaining the state necessary for salvation?
You responded: How would you measure whether or not a person was an American patriot? By respect for the nation manifested by a concern for the laws of the land. And while disobedience coupled with genuine remorse equates to a loss of rewards, it does constitute a loss of salvation. But salvation can be lost if the convert chooses to neglect the demands of the ruler as if they were non-existant. Give me two thumbs up I hit the nail on the head. :help:
So I think it's pretty simple to understand. The hard part is finding someone who is willing to and able to explain it.
2) Next on the agenda is whether or not the resurrection is easy to verify. Did you read my remarks about gospel genre above?
If this is easy is to tackle--and that's a BIG IF!-, Christianity at it's lowest common denominator is made available to all regardless of educational background.

You may wish to learn the magic of *poof* INTERLIBRARY LOAN. (thunder, lightning, etc.) Now you have no excuses.

No good. The local libraries have snipers stationed on their roofs looking for me. I was two weeks late returning around 10 books last month. I was planning on entering under the guise of an elderly man and read the books in the library. But if I need to request a book to be shipped, they'll find out it's me and I'll be ambushed.

Yep. In fact I covered all those topics too. A few weeks each.

No way! :poke: Perhaps you READ the material in a few weeks, but I doubt you LEARNED it. That's a lot stuff, JP.

I prefer the sort where one thing at a time is done. Read a few chapters of a scholarly book; read another on a different subject after that; then take a break with some ficiton...

There's no way you could retain all the information you read. There's a HUGE difference between studying and reading.

Then in fact you DO disagree with the principles of the Reformation.

Then, apparently, modern Protestant churches disagree with them as well. Why meet on Sunday to learn how to apply the Bible if everyone's supposed to it independantly?

I am, again, speaking of my own experience with prominent churches in my area.

Any of them Catholic?

Nope.

In the early church such meetings were for fellowship more than anything else.

So would agree that Protestant churches have strayed from the ideals of the Reformation? If practical instruction is given, why not instruction that meets educational needs? I still think the church has goofed on this part, but the efforts of apologists seem to be an attempt to correct their blunder.

I think I have it. Good grief, is that YOU watching Bonanza??? And on a Sunday, too! Tsk tsk

Bonanza's a GREAT studying aide! My only choice to avoid boredom is to focus intently on the reading in front of me. Now that's incentive. :rofl:

jpholding

September 12th 2003, 03:51 PM

Surprise! :eek: I'm still online. Finished some other stuff early, goldurn it...

OK, but the condition still has to be maintained. Judging by your interpretation of "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling", self-examination and remorse are products of salvation, and the presence of those two elements signifies a bona fide conversion, right?

AMEN! :thumb: As an aside "work out" there means accomplish, finish or perform.

Whether or not ancient's experienced the same psychological development has no bearing over the experience of moderns.

OK, I'll buy it that way. My point was more than it would be injudicious to expect the Bible to account for such things in its presentation, being that no one back then had them. Is that acceptable?

:rofl: Maybe Toby and my dog should hang out.

He volunteers. He is a eunuch for the kingdom of dogdom so he won't cause any problems unless you leave him alone. Then he starts pushing his water dish all over the place in protest.

That's a good analogy.

I appreciate that!

I didn't think there was a difference. I thought all sin was conscience.

Are sins of passion "conscious"? Some argue that they are not -- that some lesser function of the brain takes over. I have to admit I'm not sure. I don't experience much in that way.

I just wonder why the reputable churches around me could not offer the same clear and accurate explanations.

Suggestions:

1) They only give parishoners "what they want". Someone recently stumped to have me speak at a church near here and they were turned down because they felt people didn't "want" or "were ready for" apologetics. Yeah, right! So they keep 'em on the Twinkie and Ding Dong diet.

2) There is a current of anti-intellectualism based on questionable exegesis of passages like Col. 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit..." My fave example of anti-apologetic nonsense. You have to explain to these people that it KJV English "philosophy" meant things like magic and occult theory. (Like the "philosopher's stone"...I hear in the UK the Harry Potter book about the "Sorceror's Stone" is named "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone").

3) They don't get it in seminary either because, as noted, too many of them go into counseling or are more concerned with that aspect. I once tested a candidate for education pastor by commenting on Deuteronomy as a suzerainty treaty. His eyes glazed over immediately. I voted no on him. But he still got in, of course. Also my current church (thankfully!) did not pick up a pastoral candidate whom I asked, "Who is your favorite scholar?" -- and he said, "Warren Wiersbe." GAG! (If you don't "get it" -- Wiersbe is a pastor of a mega-church who writes books...NOT a scholar!)

Needless to say your average pastor doesn't know Semitic Totality from McDonald's fries. Ironically some Reformed scholars DID more or less come to a conclusion that matched Semitic Totality in a major study on this issue, but the conclusion was "accidental" and just their way of trying to resolve faith vs. works by slicing down the middle.

The hard part is finding someone who is willing to and able to explain it.

Oh yes. I agree. Or who CAN.

2) Next on the agenda is whether or not the resurrection is easy to verify. Did you read my remarks about gospel genre above?

I'm not sure which in particular you mean. In terms of genre, the Gospels are ancient biographies -- others include Tacitus' Agricola and the bios of Socrates by Xenophon, etc. -- so if anyone wants to discuss their purpose, it is clearly to present a life of Jesus by the normal means of the day (snapshots of words and deeds). Obviously accuracy is another issue, but one that we face with all such documents, and the tests are found in standard works of historiography. (Which is how I found out that many people do not treat the Gospels "fairly" in this regard!)

No good. The local libraries have snipers stationed on their roofs looking for me.

Well dang it, you only need to read Green Eggs and Ham once, right? I know I did! :smile: Let me guess, is Conan the Librarian in charge?

No way! :poke: Perhaps you READ the material in a few weeks, but I doubt you LEARNED it. That's a lot stuff, JP.

By "learned" you mean what?

There's no way you could retain all the information you read.

You're right, and I don't. I just retain broad points with the greatest application and take notes for the rest, incorporating material in my writings. If I need the specifics I just get the book again. You may find this hard to believe but I have 1300 articles on Tekton and I know 99% of the time when someone asks me, "Do you have an article on...?" whether I do or not.

Then, apparently, modern Protestant churches disagree with them as well. Why meet on Sunday to learn how to apply the Bible if everyone's supposed to it independantly?

To schnozz with everyone. :rofl: There is a huge home church movement that doesn't like the model. But there should be teaching; it should just be interactive, not with one person booming from an inaccessible pulpit.

So would agree that Protestant churches have strayed from the ideals of the Reformation?

To varying degrees, yes. Mine not so much; and in some cases Sunday School classes fit the ideals better and meet educational needs. Not enough IMO though, espeically based on the teaching material, which is often too simple, repetitive, and too concerned with personal needs/counseling matters. I can tell you that I teach maybe every 2 months when I'm needed for it, and usually the folks are delighted to hear all the background material I bring in. I really think if we fed the flock meat they'd mostly eat it and abandon the Twinkies.

Bonanza's a GREAT studying aide

OK, Hoss is a role model, I admit it! :rofl:

Oops, back to some I missed --

Doesn't seem likely. I can't order it off Amazon and no library that I have access to has it. Maybe Barnes and Noble will be able to order it.

Not at that age. But 400 libraries nationwide have it. Should be a snap by ILL.

"But there can be no denying that the explosion of fiction in the Roman empire represents something quite new... The beginning of the massive proliferation of fiction can be assigned pretty clearly to the reign of the emperor Nero

Yeah....may adhere as long as you date the Gospels and their origins AFTER Nero... :smile: And if they were written in bioi format.

Bowersock indicates that one of the more noticable features of this genre was a bodily resurrection.

If he defines "bodily resurrection" properly (a glorified body) I have my doubts about that.

According to the scholar, the Gospels pioneered this genre and sparked the subsequent fictional narratives. Why would we read Jesus' bios different from the others that followed the Gospels as a model?

Hmm. So how about all these novels and movies spawned by historical current events? And WERE these others bios?

See ya. :wink:

Robert's s/n

September 13th 2003, 10:04 PM

My point was more than it would be injudicious to expect the Bible to account for such things in its presentation, being that no one back then had them. Is that acceptable?

Sure. No harm no foul. :teeth:

He is a eunuch for the kingdom of dogdom so he won't cause any problems unless you leave him alone.

I dunno. My pups a sweet talker. My money's against Toby. :brow:

Are sins of passion "conscious"? Some argue that they are not -- that some lesser function of the brain takes over.

This could certanly serve as a convenient excuse. One could conceivably justify adultury or drug abuse in this fashion.

Suggestions:

1) They only give parishoners "what they want".
2) There is a current of anti-intellectualism based on questionable exegesis of passages like Col. 2:8:
3) They don't get it in seminary either because, as noted, too many of them go into counseling or are more concerned with that aspect.

Clergy who do not overcome these obstacles are simple, psuedo-truth seekers, and therefore, are NOT heaven's delegates. :whack:

Needless to say your average pastor doesn't know Semitic Totality from McDonald's fries.

So I guess the "average" church is led by persons who aren't even familiar with elementary social concepts of the documents they've studied at the collegiate level. Thus, they risk improper exegesis AND they make their flock more vulnerable TOOO(insert theme music from "Halloween" ) LIBERAL SCHOLARSHIP! :eek: So you've just provided more evidence as to why most pastors should be ignored as phonies.

The hard part is finding someone who is willing to and able to explain it.

Oh yes. I agree. Or who CAN.

So would you agree that critical prospects have to do more work than the average Church goer in order to convert? :brow:

Well dang it, you only need to read Green Eggs and Ham once, right? I know I did!

No not that. I think they deliberately left Waldo out of the picture to irritate me. :teeth:

Let me guess, is Conan the Librarian in charge?

Na. Just an old lady who won't hesitate to jab me with her pointy umbrella. Conan's in the bunker outside waiting for the call to dispatch his troops. But I should be able to pay the fine soon, and everything SHOULD return to normal.

By "learned" you mean what?

Able to recall and present the info you just read in a cogent arguement.

You may find this hard to believe but I have 1300 articles on Tekton and I know 99% of the time when someone asks me, "Do you have an article on...?" whether I do or not.

That is hard to believe, but I guess doing this for a living doesn't hurt.

But there should be teaching; it should just be interactive, not with one person booming from an inaccessible pulpit...in some cases Sunday School classes fit the ideals better and meet educational needs.

So, once again, we find the church has "missed the mark", no pun intended. :teeth: And this association is supposed to be divinely inspired? What gives?

In short, although one could conceivably argue that Christian apologists are God's attempt to counter the stupidity in the church, the definition of ambassador THAT YOU YOURSELF PROVIDED renders all churches spurious representatives UNLESS they extend to the community an apologetics ministry that proves the claims of the Bible. Swoosh!

Robert's s/n

September 14th 2003, 04:28 PM

quote] But 400 libraries nationwide have it. Should be a snap by ILL. [/quote]

If I try without any money, I should hear a "snap" coming from Conan's bunker. :rofl:

Someone recently stumped to have me speak at a church near here and they were turned down because they felt people didn't "want" or "were ready for" apologetics. Yeah, right! So they keep 'em on the Twinkie and Ding Dong diet.

Sounds familiar. :ahem:

jpholding

September 15th 2003, 02:19 PM

Yo!

I dunno. My pups a sweet talker. My money's against Toby.

You got it. Only surd is that Toby's usual reaction to other dogs (and cats) is to just ignore them.

This could certanly serve as a convenient excuse. One could conceivably justify adultury or drug abuse in this fashion.

I was thinking more along the lines of say manslaughter.

Clergy who do not overcome these obstacles are simple, psuedo-truth seekers, and therefore, are NOT heaven's delegates. :whack:

I'll agree, adding that there are surely degrees of such resistance.

. Thus, they risk improper exegesis AND they make their flock more vulnerable TOOO(insert theme music from "Halloween" ) LIBERAL SCHOLARSHIP! :eek:

Well, fortunately, liberal scholarship is seldom encountered except through PBS specials, but that's bad enough. Add the cults in there, too.

So you've just provided more evidence as to why most pastors should be ignored as phonies.

Perhaps at the extreme. I'd prefer not to use "phonies" as that implies a willful disregard, and that is not always the case. Maybe a word that implies carelessness or negligence would be better for most. How about "klutzes"?

So would you agree that critical prospects have to do more work than the average Church goer in order to convert? :brow:

Ironically, yes, but such people are also as a whole more willing to do work.

I think they deliberately left Waldo out of the picture to irritate me. :teeth:

Check behind Hoss. :shrug:

Able to recall and present the info you just read in a cogent arguement.

Yes, I do that well. I also am able to perceive new applications easily. A good example was how I immediately saw the application of Malina and Rohrbaugh's comments on high and low context societies to Earl Doherty's Christ-myth thesis. I guess you could say I think more like a web than like a straight line.

And this association is supposed to be divinely inspired?

So likewise it is said that painting of Mary using elephant dung....

PROVIDED renders all churches spurious representatives UNLESS they extend to the community an apologetics ministry that proves the claims of the Bible. Swoosh!

Adding that "apologetics" also include things like background info that most would not think of that way, it certainly does not add to their credibility as viable representatives, or at least shows that they do not do their full job.

Try ILL anyway. I'll provide a reference if needed. :poke:

BeHereNow

September 15th 2003, 10:21 PM

Are sins of passion "conscious"? Some argue that they are not -- that some lesser function of the brain takes over. I have to admit I'm not sure. I don't experience much in that way.

This could certanly serve as a convenient excuse. One could conceivably justify adultury or drug abuse in this fashion.

I was thinking more along the lines of say manslaughter.

I was also thinking about manslaughter when I read that, JP. Although I haven't specifically researched this, my understanding is that most murders aren't premeditated (which is why capital punishment doesn't deter). They are, rather, "cimes of passion" as you say, which of course means one is not using one's rational or logical capabilities at all.

Regarding the hindbrain-forebrain caveat, there is an August article of Scientific American which states that the hind-brain actually does perform complex functions, as opposed to the old model which says hind brain is motor and reflexive skills. I haven't read the whole article yet, but here is the intro (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=0004DB32-AC6D-1F09-97AE80A84189EEDF) if you're interested. (whole article not online)

Sorry for the tangent. Please, continue...

:bunny:

Jezz

September 16th 2003, 05:36 AM

BeHereNow:
I was also thinking about manslaughter when I read that, JP. Although I haven't specifically researched this, my understanding is that most murders aren't premeditated (which is why capital punishment doesn't deter). They are, rather, "cimes of passion" as you say, which of course means one is not using one's rational or logical capabilities at all.
I think you might be confusing manslaughter and 2nd-degree murder.

The differences between manslaughter, 2nd-degree murder, and 1st-degree murder are as follows:

-Manslaughter is when your reckless behaviour results in the death of another, but the death was a side-effect rather than an intended result.
-Murder is when your intent was actually to kill the person.-2nd-degree is when the murder is done on the spur-of-the-moment.
-1st degree is when the murder is not done on the spur-of-the-moment, but is instead premeditated.Thus, 2nd-degree murder is murder done in the heat of passion. Conversely, 1st degree murder is not done in the heat of passion, when the blood is running hot - hence it is also known as "cold-blooded murder". It is also called "calculated".

1st degree murder is regarded as the most serious, because it is reflects a decision to kill arrived at after some introspection and chance to change your mind. I'm not an expert on US law, but I believe that of the US states that support the death penalty, it is only 1st-degree murder that attracts it. I think that 2nd-degree murder has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion. :smile:

Robert's s/n

September 16th 2003, 05:47 PM

Only surd is that Toby's usual reaction to other dogs (and cats) is to just ignore them.

Ah, a pampered poochie who pushies away playful puppies in pompity. Not Sandy's type anyway. :wink:

I was thinking more along the lines of say manslaughter.[quote]

Of coarse, but are drug addiction, fornication, and in some cases adultury considered sins of passion? Is so, it would be quite easy to construct a rational response to erase the stigma.

[quote] [quote] I'll agree

You agree that when a church refuses to prove their system of belief, there are NOT God's representatives?? So should Christians just stop going to church altogether? :shrug:

adding that there are surely degrees of such resistance.

True, there are degrees, but substituting dogma for a clearpresentation of the truth smears mud all over God's reputation. Maybe it's time for another Reformation? :huh:

Well, fortunately, liberal scholarship is seldom encountered except through PBS specials

You can try this at home. First, get off the pot, out the front door, and over to Barnes 'n Noble. Take a look at the books on the bookselves in the "Christianity" section. What do you see? Spong? Yes, there's a few actually. Crossan? Yep, he fills a fair amount of space. Freke and Gandy? Yea, I see a few books for sale. Marcus Borg, Michael Martin, Burton Mack....And the list goes on and on(and on). And where are the evangelicals to combat this sespool of free thought on the shelves? Dun-dun-dunta JOOOOOSH Mc-DOOOOOWELL :no: In all seriousness, the common bookstore is ripe for steering curious Christians to 'Crossan and Cronies' for clarification.

My initial point was that because most pastors are unfamiliar with Semitic Totality, an elementary concept of the social worlds of the New and Old Testaments, most pastors are ill equiped to guide the fledgling apologist or his counterpart, the young critic, to germane works no further than general interest books intended for laymen. Luke 6:4 A student is NOT above his teacher.

And remember the investment analogy? If the salesperson cannot or will not address the prospect's concerns, he can kiss the sale goodbye. It's not the prospect's responsibility to search out the data, the salesman should be well prepared. I just don't understand how such blatant disregard for evidence is allowed to continue in God's reputed body of believers.

Add the cults in there, too

Sure, add some more wolves that God's shephards refuse to guard against.

I'd prefer not to use "phonies" as that implies a willful disregard, and that is not always the case. Maybe a word that implies carelessness or negligence would be better for most. How about "klutzes"?

How about instead of calling John Geoghan a disillusioned pervert, we just call him "hungry"? John knew better and did it anyway and hurt hundreds of little children that looked up to him as their pastor and friend. Similiarly, I truly believe the church knows better(1 Peter 3:15), and thousands of souls will torture in eternity partly because THEY(the church) didn't do their job. To call it a careless boo boo undermines the serious consequences engendered by their actions.

Ironically, yes, but such people are also as a whole more willing to do work.

If they have to work harder, doesn't that indicate God would rather have credulous people? He sure makes it easier for them. And judging by your last comment, we could add that the lethargic and gullible enter the kingdom before the critical man with a good work ethic. This doesn't even sound right.

Yes, I do that well. I also am able to perceive new applications easily.

Then I'd say you're probably one of the more sharpened crayons in the box. Most learn by repition. If you can read a few chapters and recall it a month later in a cogent debate, I'd say God made you smarter than most.

So likewise it is said that painting of Mary using elephant dung....

Are you implying that sometimes inspired persons do stupid things? :huh:

Adding that "apologetics" also include things like background info that most would not think of that way

To understand the Bible, you have to understand the context in which it was written. I believe this to be a requisite area to study.

it certainly does not add to their credibility as viable representatives, or at least shows that they do not do their full job.

Allow me to refresh your memory :bonk:

Robert
A god concerned about truth would ensure his ONLY representatives were concerned about truth too(if the US ambassador deviates from the position of the US government, guess what, the PROBLEM IS CORRECTED).

JP
That's silly. Somneone not concerned with the truth is de facto NOT God's representative.

The church reveals a disinterested stance on the veracity of their faith by their consistant disregard of proving and defending their faith against criticism(ie apologetics). Therefore, such churches are "de facto" NOT God's representatives.

Why don't you found a movement, JP? The time is ripe for another Reformation! :solly:

Try ILL anyway. I'll provide a reference if needed

Thanks for the offer, but I went to the library this morning. After Conan loosened the handcuffs and removed the bag from around my head, I paid the $6.80 and ordered the book. The librarian said it may take a few months to get here though.

Socrates

September 16th 2003, 07:55 PM

09-13-2003 @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210484#post210484)
jpholding:

1) They only give parishoners “what they want”. Someone recently stumped to have me speak at a church near here and they were turned down because they felt people didn't “want” or “were ready for” apologetics. Yeah, right! So they keep 'em on the Twinkie and Ding Dong diet.

:argh: :eww: :metro: :saywhat:

2) There is a current of anti-intellectualism based on questionable exegesis of passages like Col. 2:8: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit …” My fave example of anti-apologetic nonsense.

:dunce: Another one is claiming Paul was too intellectual in his Mars Hill speech which is why he got so few converts. He should have preached like Peter in Acts 2. But these anti-intellectuals, who also have to expunge “Love the Lord your God with all your … mind” from their Bibles, forget that Peter was preaching to Jews who already had the prepared ground of knowledge of God, creation, sin and the coming Messiah. The Athenians had none of this, so Paul had to prepare the ground.

You have to explain to these people that it KJV English “philosophy” meant things like magic and occult theory. (Like the “philosopher's stone” … I hear in the UK the Harry Potter book about the Sorceror's Stone is named Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone).

Indeed, it is the original title, since JKR is British. How crazy that the American sellers decided to change it. :dunce:

BeHereNow

September 17th 2003, 12:07 AM

I hate to sidetrack too much, so I'll make this brief.

Jezz:

I think you might be confusing manslaughter and 2nd-degree murder.

The differences between manslaughter, 2nd-degree murder, and 1st-degree murder are as follows:

<snip>

1st degree murder is regarded as the most serious, because it is reflects a decision to kill arrived at after some introspection and chance to change your mind. I'm not an expert on US law, but I believe that of the US states that support the death penalty, it is only 1st-degree murder that attracts it. I think that 2nd-degree murder has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Good information, but I don't see where we disagree. Most murders are "passion" or spur-of-the-moment decisions (check here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm
) for statistics), placing them squarely in the category of hind-brain activity.

If you wanted to talk more about how this relates to capital punishment, check out this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8619).

:hi:

BeHereNow

September 17th 2003, 12:11 AM

Robert's s/n:
Then I'd say you're probably one of the more sharpened crayons in the box. Most learn by repition. If you can read a few chapters and recall it a month later in a cogent debate, I'd say God made you smarter than most.

Rarely does rote reap rewarding recall function. (:smile:) If you read a book with a pen and highlighter in hand, highlight all important information, take notes in the text, and recap each chapter or section, you'll retain a good bit of it.

Just a little study tip. :bunny:

TenDimensions

September 17th 2003, 10:02 AM

09-07-2003 @ 02:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205300#post205300)
chsalvia:
Well...evidently somebody's doing something right. After all, there are over one and a half billion Christians in the world. :smile:

That number isn't really as relevant as the number of conversions would be. One most admit that the vast majority of Christians are Christians mainly because they grew up in a Christian family.

Give me any child and with better than 90% accuracy I can predict what religion they will be when they die based on looking at their family.

If one is looking at the ability for the layperson to "understand" the Bible, one would need to look at the number of conversions. And even then, a conversion probably has more to do with person-to-person relationships rather than just reading the Bible by themselves and having an epiphany.

Robert's s/n

September 17th 2003, 12:19 PM

If one is looking at the ability for the layperson to "understand" the Bible, one would need to look at the number of conversions.

Not really. Undertstanding doesn't necessarily entail agreeing with the content. One can understand the Homeric epics and still not pay homage to Zeus.

Robert's s/n

September 17th 2003, 12:44 PM

Rarely does rote reap rewarding recall function.

Sure it does. The question, though, is which method is most efficient.

If you read a book with a pen and highlighter in hand, highlight all important information, take notes in the text, and recap each chapter or section, you'll retain a good bit of it.

Recapping IS the rote method. You review the material over and over until you finally grasp it. Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

FirstSunday33ad

September 17th 2003, 01:27 PM

Today @ 10:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=213630#post213630)
TenDimensions:

That number isn't really as relevant as the number of conversions would be. One most admit that the vast majority of Christians are Christians mainly because they grew up in a Christian family.

Give me any child and with better than 90% accuracy I can predict what religion they will be when they die based on looking at their family.

If one is looking at the ability for the layperson to "understand" the Bible, one would need to look at the number of conversions. And even then, a conversion probably has more to do with person-to-person relationships rather than just reading the Bible by themselves and having an epiphany.

You would lose.

Beliefs are first formed independently between the ages of about 8 to 13 – the ages of the first inklings of sceptism and “rebellion”. It is between these ages that children begin to doubt the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and other fables from childhood. It is also at this age that they begin to see their parents in a different, more jaundiced, light. Firstly they realize Mom and Dad could be wrong and secondly that they as individuals have an opinion too and that this opinion should matter.

This “rebellious” period will last for most children into their teen years and they will begin to form beliefs, attitudes and ideas separate from their parents. They begin to seek like-minded individuals to spend time with and they begin articulate – either verbally or actively – their disagreement (and displeasure) with the norms of their society. It is usually at this period that children will begin to read books that espouse beliefs that are the opposite of their parent’s beliefs. Children of conservative parents have a tendency to gravitate towards the left wing in politics and begin to adopt a more “flamboyant” taste in clothing, whereas children of more liberal parents have a tendency to move towards the right and conservatism.

Now in a free society such behaviour is allowed and even encouraged. We regard individualism as a sign of maturity and growth. We temper this individualism by reminding the maturing child of their social responsibilities – obey the law, be tolerant of differences, respect others, etc – but we do not attempt to force them to “believe as we do” when it comes to such questions as politics, religion, etc. That such friction might exist inside the family unit itself is not repeated in the wider community or society.

As a result, it is impossible to tell with any degree of accuracy what a person living in a free society will believe in when they die. Using myself as an example, I grew up in an non-religious, social-democratic household, never believed in Santa or the Easter Bunny, accepted my parent’s word as law and had no early “traumatic” experiences – ie, early death of a parent, horrible accident etc.

Today I am a conservative Christian, with liberal politics but conservative opinions in some areas. Had you known me 15 years ago when I was an agnostic Marxist-Leninist you would never have guessed I would become a conservative Christian. My opinions changed as my level of understanding and acceptance changed. Once I allowed myself to accept the possibility of God’s existence, other changes of opinion were permitted later on.

Now suppose my parents had been conservative Christians. You would conclude that my beliefs were nothing more than a reflection of theirs, but you would be wrong. That my religious beliefs were in some way shaped by my parents is undeniable – we are all influenced to some degree by the people who raise us - but to claim that my beliefs are the result of my parents is to ignore all of the thousands of influences, experiences and opinions I was subjected to during my maturity. It also ignores the influences, experiences and opinions I have yet to encounter.

It is simplistic to state that as the family goes so goes the child. Were this true there would never be any social change or religious development. The wide difference of opinion in areas of politics, religion, dress, language, etc, clearly demonstrates that people are not as influenced by the opinions of their families as much as is supposed.

jpholding

September 17th 2003, 02:09 PM

Yuzzah,

You agree that when a church refuses to prove their system of belief, there are NOT God's representatives??

Not in that respect, certainly.

So should Christians just stop going to church altogether?

I did for a while. It's up to each person to decide according to their needs and relationship with God.

Maybe it's time for another Reformation?

Actually there are some who say so. I would be among them.

You can try this at home. First, get off the pot, out the front door, and over to Barnes 'n Noble. Take a look at the books on the bookselves in the "Christianity" section. What do you see?

Not quite the same as you, which is odd as I know we are geographically close. I actually find Strobel, but not as much Crossan, no Freakin Gandy, maybe a Borg (resistance is futile!), no Martin and no Mack except where there are books on trucks. I also see Billy Graham (at least he wouldn't object to what I do!) and a lot of neutral stuff plus so much Left Behind crap you could burn down the entire mall. No McDowell either, oddly.

And remember the investment analogy? If the salesperson cannot or will not address the prospect's concerns, he can kiss the sale goodbye.

Unless the buyer is also content to remain willfully stupid? :smile: I think it boils down to that in freedom God allows people to be satisfied with the least common denominator if that's all they want. As noted, this does not affect salvation (but rewards) so there is not any pressing reason in those terms for God to make any special corrections (assuming you don't think folks like apologists are part of that, which you did allow). But God could clone a William Lane Craig for every church in the world and that would still not force anyone to listen.

How about instead of calling John Geoghan a disillusioned pervert, we just call him "hungry"?

I don't know who that is. But I don't think we can compare that to motives in the case of those who do not keep their congregation educated. Some churches can survive with a pastor who is more concerned with spiritual than mental, because of insulation from the world. Ironically this has produced fideistic believers who would whack Dennis McKinsey with an umbrella. Which ensures their salvation...but will make their rewards limited to what they accomplish in their own sphere.

Similiarly, I truly believe the church knows better(1 Peter 3:15), and thousands of souls will torture in eternity partly because THEY(the church) didn't do their job.

Possibly, but it is my inclination to disagree. I think what will be missed is only rewards and richness of life in Christ.

If they have to work harder, doesn't that indicate God would rather have credulous people? He sure makes it easier for them.

In that sense I would say it is like saying it is "easier" to get down into a deep hole by jumping in rather than using rope. Easier? Sure. As long as you don't mind bruises and contusions. They may enter "before" but the quality of their descent won't be as good.

Then I'd say you're probably one of the more sharpened crayons in the box.

Call me ecru. I do also learn by repetition....to this day I still remember the Greek alphabet from when I recited it in seventh grade...

Are you implying that sometimes inspired persons do stupid things?

Yes. When they decide not to adhere to their inspiration.

The church reveals a disinterested stance on the veracity of their faith by their consistant disregard of proving and defending their faith against criticism(ie apologetics). Therefore, such churches are "de facto" NOT God's representatives.

I think you are reading what I said too broadly. Obviously it is possible to be concerned with some truths and not others, and for various reasons.

The librarian said it may take a few months to get here though.

That's sad if true. Maybe they are playing "Scotty" and saying that so you'll be impressed when it arrives in a few weeks. :bonk:

BeHereNow

September 17th 2003, 03:41 PM

Robert's s/n:

Recapping IS the rote method. You review the material over and over until you finally grasp it. Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

Let's take an example: vocabulary. The best way to learn vocabulary words (in English) is to understand basic greek and latin roots, not by memorizing a list of English words.

To take notes while reading, whatever the topic, helps hold together your understanding, which results in better recall.

Just a study tip. Take it or leave it. :bunny:

Robert's s/n

September 17th 2003, 06:21 PM

To take notes while reading, whatever the topic, helps hold together your understanding, which results in better recall.

No arguement here. I would only add that the notes need to be reviewed for quality understanding, a step that I think JP is able to skip.

Robert's s/n

September 18th 2003, 11:05 AM

Yuzzah,

Speaking in tongues? :smile:

You agree that when a church refuses to prove their system of belief, there are NOT God's representatives??

Not in that respect, certainly.

I think we differ on how truth ought to be defined.

So should Christians just stop going to church altogether?

I did for a while.

Really?! Doesn't this violate keeping the Sabaath holy and Hebrews 10:25?
Let us not give up meeting together, as some in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another- and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Not quite the same as you, which is odd as I know we are geographically close.

I remember seeing Strobel at the store, but the amount of EXTREME liberal jibberish was plentiful. This is odd.

Unless the buyer is also content to remain willfully stupid? I think it boils down to that in freedom God allows people to be satisfied with the least common denominator if that's all they want.

I'll buy that. But the problem lies in what is attracting the buyer? Then, I think, you'd have to delve into the axiomatic existance of God and objective morality, a complex category of it's own.

As noted, this does not affect salvation (but rewards) so there is not any pressing reason in those terms for God to make any special corrections (assuming you don't think folks like apologists are part of that, which you did allow). But God could clone a William Lane Craig for every church in the world and that would still not force anyone to listen.

True, no one would be forced to listen, but I think it should be a requisite facet of the ministry. I did agree that Christian apologists could conceivably be viewed as God's response to man's demand reason, but the question is, does the absence of an apologetic ministry render the church in question psuedo-truth seekers? If so, does this imply that they are NOT God's delegates since they are not concerned about truth. A claim without support is merely an opinion; not truth.

I don't know who that is

John Geoghan is a pedaphile priest that was murdered in prison.

But I don't think we can compare that to motives in the case of those who do not keep their congregation educated

Right, I don't think their motives are analogous either, but this IS evidence of someone who knows better and does it anyway despite the people that were hurt in the process. The church obviously knows it takes the knowledge of truth to be set free, so they should know that they need to support their claims. Their negligence in this area is a real turn off especially when passionate dogma is substituted in its stead. Would you agree that the stereotype the church has EARNED(gullible, willing to hide facts to preserve doctrine, hypocritical, purveyers of unsubstantiated dogma, etc) has made it understandably difficult to willingly identify with those quacks? And one could argue if Christian doctrine is true, many of the leaders that run from scholarship, wouldn't. If eternal destinations are determined based on how one views the central claim of the church, support should be provided or else go out of business as God's organization and operate only as a group that admires Jesus' moral teachings.

Ironically this has produced fideistic believers who would whack Dennis McKinsey with an umbrella. Which ensures their salvation...

So, if Christianity's true, running from scholarship does have it's advantages(ensuring salvation with least amount study or knowledge), but this comes with a cost. There appears to be too many of these kinds of churches-and those that offer apologetics do it half arse-, and as a result Christians have earned the stereotype described above and have also aroused suspicion as to why they are not willing to address legitimate concerns. Apologists COULD be God's reps to the critical, but the damage has already been done by ignorant leadership. What motivates a seeker to put forth that extra effort when God's official club house won't do it?

Similiarly, I truly believe the church knows better(1 Peter 3:15), and thousands of souls will torture in eternity partly because THEY(the church) didn't do their job.

Possibly, but it is my inclination to disagree. I think what will be missed is only rewards and richness of life in Christ

I don't think I was clear. I meant that many OUTSIDERS will burn partly because of the church's carelessness.

In that sense I would say it is like saying it is "easier" to get down into a deep hole by jumping in rather than using rope. Easier? Sure. As long as you don't mind bruises and contusions. They may enter "before" but the quality of their descent won't be as good.

What do you mean by bruises and contusions?

Are you implying that sometimes inspired persons do stupid things?

Yes. When they decide not to adhere to their inspiration.

They are hardly comprable, however. The consequence engendered by that painting is hardly analogous to truth bearers who refuse to bear truth.

I think you are reading what I said too broadly. Obviously it is possible to be concerned with some truths and not others, and for various reasons.

Define truths.

That's sad if true. Maybe they are playing "Scotty" and saying that so you'll be impressed when it arrives in a few weeks

Let's hope so. It seems like an awfully long time to ship something.

jpholding

September 18th 2003, 01:40 PM

Weevah,

Speaking in tongues? :smile:

Yes. I speak 16 languages badly.

I think we differ on how truth ought to be defined.

Perhaps we differ in viewing it as a collective versus as a sum of parts.

Really?! Doesn't this violate keeping the Sabaath holy and Hebrews 10:25?

Not really. I have an essay on the Sabbath; Sunday is not really a "Sabbath" despite the rhetoric. As for Heb. 10:25, it hardly applies in a crisis situation (not what Luke was speaking to).

I'll buy that. But the problem lies in what is attracting the buyer?

Good question, and how much of the answer is related to expectations we are raised with? How many think church is gone to for the purpose of getting a spiritual buzz?

Then, I think, you'd have to delve into the axiomatic existance of God and objective morality, a complex category of it's own.

Bring that up and the little old ladies will think you're talking dirty. :brow:

man's demand reason, but the question is, does the absence of an apologetic ministry render the church in question psuedo-truth seekers?

If they are aware of the deficiency and ignore it, a strong case can be made for that, yes. If they are not aware, I would be hesitant to engage a classification that assumes "pseudo".

John Geoghan is a pedaphile priest that was murdered in prison.

Bravo, then, to the inmates!

Would you agree that the stereotype the church has EARNED(gullible, willing to hide facts to preserve doctrine, hypocritical, purveyers of unsubstantiated dogma, etc) has made it understandably difficult to willingly identify with those quacks?

Sure. But I don't see that as an excuse to not look beyond stereotypes, of course. Certainly there is no excuse in a society that values looking "beyond" stereotypes of race and culture in other venues.

And one could argue if Christian doctrine is true, many of the leaders that run from scholarship, wouldn't.

One could? How, then? I see two surds in that: 1) their understanding of doctrine; 2) the satisfaction of their clientele to remain spiritual babies.

There appears to be too many of these kinds of churches

No argument from me on that.

What motivates a seeker to put forth that extra effort when God's official club house won't do it?

In ancient times the very pursuit of truth was enough for a seeker to make an effort. These days? I guess you have to offer money or coupons or dancing bears or gimmicks. I don't see much concern to make "extra effort" outside the church, either.

I don't think I was clear. I meant that many OUTSIDERS will burn partly because of the church's carelessness.

That was understood. I just don't see that anyone will be saved or not on intellectual grounds. I honestly know of only two people who can claim to have been convinced by arguments.

What do you mean by bruises and contusions?

It was a metaphor for those who take the easy jump into the pit and end up smelling like smoke per loss of their works by fire. Yes, a metaphor to illustrate a metaphor. Wondrous, no? :lol:

The consequence engendered by that painting is hardly analogous to truth bearers who refuse to bear truth.

And thus indeed the refusers will bear a heavy price in the end, if Paul is right.

Define truths.

Truth is that which is. But to illustrate my point, we could have a pastor who is sound on teaching about the Trinity but doesn't even know anything about Hebrew culture.

Beam it up! :bunny:

Robert's s/n

September 18th 2003, 03:12 PM

Perhaps we differ in viewing it as a collective versus as a sum of parts.

But isn't each part dependant on reason?

Sunday is not really a "Sabbath" despite the rhetoric.

I'm tempted to call you a heretic, but I guess I'll read the essay first. :smile:

As for Heb. 10:25, it hardly applies in a crisis situation (not what Luke was speaking to).

What passage in Luke are you referring to? It's interesting that you view the current condition of the church as a "crisis situation".

But the problem lies in what is attracting the buyer?

Good question, and how much of the answer is related to expectations we are raised with? How many think church is gone to for the purpose of getting a spiritual buzz?

Probably a healthy amount. That sure was my presupposition, but not my experience. Interestingly enough, Luke Timothy Johnson believes that the only way to authenticate religious claims is through experience.
...Christianity has never been able to "prove" its claims except by appeal to the experiences and convictions of those already convinced...The claims of the gospel cannot be demonstrated logically. They cannot be proved historically. They can be validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship.(The Real Jesus, 168)

So, if an experience doesn't authenticate Christian reality, is one justified in ceasing the search for its authenticity?

Then, I think, you'd have to delve into the axiomatic existance of God and objective morality, a complex category of it's own.

Bring that up and the little old ladies will think you're talking dirty.

Agreed :lol:, but seriously, what should motivate a person to look into the validity of this particular religion when the stereotypes attributed to the group by society are confirmed in most churches by the behavior they exhibit?

If they are not aware, I would be hesitant to engage a classification that assumes "pseudo".

It's kinda hard to ignore "Love the Lord...with your mind", "Test everything and hold onto the good", and "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." :smile: Perhaps subconsciously they disregard the clear demand for a logical investigation of the faith, but realistically, they still are not truth seekers. I'm back to my previous objection: All claims need support to be considered truth.

Certainly there is no excuse in a society that values looking "beyond" stereotypes of race and culture in other venues.

How about confirming the stereotype through personal observation? You agreed that most churches appear to keep modern scholarship in dark, so you're experience has also confirmed the stereotype. Excluding apologists from the equation as they are not typically an extension of a church's ministry, what is supposed to motivate someone to investigate the claims of this religion when witnessing such ignorance and such blatant disregard for facts displayed by the group?

And one could argue if Christian doctrine is true, many of the leaders that run from scholarship, wouldn't.

One could? How, then? I see two surds in that: 1) their understanding of doctrine; 2) the satisfaction of their clientele to remain spiritual babies.

Even if it is their understanding of doctrine, they are still failing to explain the security pertaining to the prospect's investment. If someone called you on the phone, and promised you eternal life if you donated everything you own(including your right to think and act) to a sort of bank account in a distant, invisible land, would you take their word for it or ask for proof? This is very suspicious behavior indeed.

Option 2 doesn't seem plausible to me at all. The clientele could hardly be responsible for their own spiritual development from babes to maturity. Is a toddler required to learn etiquette on his own?

I guess you have to offer money or coupons or dancing bears or gimmicks. I don't see much concern to make "extra effort" outside the church, either.

How about new smilies as motivation? :lolo: Most people I guess aren't concerned about truth since only a limited few could actually (intelligently) defend their beliefs against determined criticism. I doubt the average skeptic could stand their ground against William Lane Craig nor the average christian against Robert Price. So it's obvious the absence of understanding permeates all faiths, I would just expect more from God's organization. I wouldn't fault God here since apologists could be seen as his attempt to provide rationale, but that doesn't excuse the church's stance on this issue. :idea: Halloween's coming up. Where are you gonna post your theses?

I just don't see that anyone will be saved or not on intellectual grounds. I honestly know of only two people who can claim to have been convinced by arguments.

So you agree that most Christians converted because of emotional/spiritual reasons? This doesn't seem right either. The heart is deceptive above all things, therefore the mind and logic must be employed to touch base with reality. Your point seems to be evidence for either predestination or gullibility. Hmm...

It was a metaphor for those who take the easy jump into the pit and end up smelling like smoke per loss of their works by fire. Yes, a metaphor to illustrate a metaphor.

:haha: :lolo:

And thus indeed the refusers will bear a heavy price in the end, if Paul is right.

There's the Christian God's way of doing things, and then there's my way. I prefer my way. But God is probably bigger than I am, so I guess his decision still stands. :shrug:

Truth is that which is. But to illustrate my point, we could have a pastor who is sound on teaching about the Trinity but doesn't even know anything about Hebrew culture.

But you'd have to assume that the Trinity exists to describe its nature. One is dependant on the other, no?

Origen

September 19th 2003, 10:41 AM

Sorry to jump in on you guys, but I have some thoughts on this -
Robert's s/n:

Interestingly enough, Luke Timothy Johnson believes that the only way to authenticate religious claims is through experience.
...Christianity has never been able to "prove" its claims except by appeal to the experiences and convictions of those already convinced...The claims of the gospel cannot be demonstrated logically. They cannot be proved historically. They can be validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship.(The Real Jesus, 168)

I would have to disagree with Johnson on this one...Although "personal experiences of Jesus" are only able to be existentially proved, I don't see how the veracity of the claims of the gospels cannot be logically or historically proved (i.e. the textual/historical accuracy of Luke, contrapositive reasoning for miracles, etc.).

So, if an experience doesn't authenticate Christian reality, is one justified in ceasing the search for its authenticity?

No, because experience is not the only way to demonstrate the authenticity of the Christian faith. Which part of Christianity would need to be verified - the existence of God, the gospel accounts, the existence of Jesus, others, or all of the above?

Agreed :lol:, but seriously, what should motivate a person to look into the validity of this particular religion when the stereotypes attributed to the group by society are confirmed in most churches by the behavior they exhibit?

That's like saying, "The stereotype of apple trees is that they produce apples, due to the fact that I have personally experienced eating bad apples. Thus, I will no longer try to find an apple tree that produces good apples." (I know that's a poor comparison, but bear with me...)

It's kinda hard to ignore "Love the Lord...with your mind", "Test everything and hold onto the good", and "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." :smile: Perhaps subconsciously they disregard the clear demand for a logical investigation of the faith, but realistically, they still are not truth seekers. I'm back to my previous objection: All claims need support to be considered truth.

I would agree with that.

How about confirming the stereotype through personal observation? You agreed that most churches appear to keep modern scholarship in dark, so you're experience has also confirmed the stereotype.

Personal observation limits the test group. Since you're not omniscient :doh: you will only be able to observe a small number of churches in a limited area. Of course if you're only talking about proving "yes, this is a stereotype" rather than "the stereotype is true," disregard the above.

Excluding apologists from the equation as they are not typically an extension of a church's ministry, what is supposed to motivate someone to investigate the claims of this religion when witnessing such ignorance and such blatant disregard for facts displayed by the group?

I suppose it depends on the desire of the person and the circumstances. If one has a desire to add some future meaning to their life or they admire a particular Christian due to their moral character (excluding their blatant disregard for investigation, which is almost a sin to me! :wink: ), then they will be motivated to investigate for themselves. Yeah, that brings it back to experience. :huh:

Even if it is their understanding of doctrine, they are still failing to explain the security pertaining to the prospect's investment. If someone called you on the phone, and promised you eternal life if you donated everything you own(including your right to think and act) to a sort of bank account in a distant, invisible land, would you take their word for it or ask for proof? This is very suspicious behavior indeed.

Your analogy is pretty loaded - you yourself quoted the verses encouraging believers to think and act.

Option 2 doesn't seem plausible to me at all. The clientele could hardly be responsible for their own spiritual development from babes to maturity. Is a toddler required to learn etiquette on his own?

I don't think one can compare spiritual development to toddlers learning etiquette. Christians have developed minds just like any other human beings (okay, there are definitely exceptions...), and thus should have an innate desire to know why they believe in something. If they don't have that desire, they have the instructions to test everything in the Bible itself .

So you agree that most Christians converted because of emotional/spiritual reasons? This doesn't seem right either. The heart is deceptive above all things, therefore the mind and logic must be employed to touch base with reality. Your point seems to be evidence for either predestination or gullibility. Hmm...

The point of conversion itself comes down to emotional/spiritual reasons, but the sustaining of faith and the pre-conversion experience requires some inquiry as to the veracity of the faith for the authentic believer.

But you'd have to assume that the Trinity exists to describe its nature. One is dependant on the other, no?

Not necessarily, as it is systematically arrived at through study of Scripture.

This is only my second post - so bear with my newbie qualities!

- Origen -

Robert's s/n

September 19th 2003, 12:27 PM

[Sorry to jump in on you guys, but I have some thoughts on this[/quote]

Terrific!

I don't see how the veracity of the claims of the gospels cannot be logically or historically proved

He argues because historical knowledge is VERY limited, incapable of substantiating religious claims. He argues that the historical method cannot surface "real" events, only "historical" ones. Not every event is recorded, and not every record is preserved. And not every preserved record is properly understood. The evidence is too sparse to depict a "real" event. He also details three factors that make it difficult to prove Christianity in an historical sense.

1) So little evidence has survived from outside observers concerning Christianity in the earliest period. And the evidence that has survived is chronologically late and was probably information repeated by Christians.

2) The insider literature is extremely biased. Though this does not automatically equate with untruthfulness, it is an important factor that must be considered.

3) "The writings now found within the New Testament are, for the most part, IMPOSSIBLE to locate precisely either geographically or chronologically"(The Real Jesus,89 emphasis mine).

Which part of Christianity would need to be verified - the existence of God, the gospel accounts, the existence of Jesus, others, or all of the above?

I'd say the Resurrection.

That's like saying, "The stereotype of apple trees is that they produce apples, due to the fact that I have personally experienced eating bad apples. Thus, I will no longer try to find an apple tree that produces good apples." (I know that's a poor comparison, but bear with me...)

I'm trying to bear with you, but I don't think it explains too much. :hrm: I think a better analogy would be the following:
-The stereotype for tree X is that it produces Y
-My personal experience has confirmed this stereotype.
-What should motivate me to put forth extra effort to look beyond this stereotype?

All claims need support to be considered truth.

I would agree with that.

So would you also agree that if a church does not substantiate their dogma with facts and reason, they are NOT God's representatives?

Personal observation limits the test group. Since you're not omniscient you will only be able to observe a small number of churches in a limited area.

Are disagreeing with the stereotype I've offered? If so, you're left with the propisition that the majority of churches teach their flock how to historically evaluate the observations of the authors of the Bible. That seems pretty far fetched.

Yeah, that brings it back to experience.

So, then, do you believe in predestination? This is what it looks like to me. One's conversion is dependant on external circumstances that are beyond his ability to control.

Your analogy is pretty loaded - you yourself quoted the verses encouraging believers to think and act.

But they don't! :bonk: If a person has no knowledge of a particular investment program, and the salesman WILL NOT or CANNOT explain it, this person will NOT invest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If something's too good to be true, it probably is. It is the salesman's burden to prove that this investment opportunity is worth the prospect's time,effort, and other resources. :poke:

Christians have developed minds just like any other human beings (okay, there are definitely exceptions...), and thus should have an innate desire to know why they believe in something. If they don't have that desire, they have the instructions to test everything in the Bible itself .

New converts are considered spiritual babes, correct?
If a child's guardian sees the child refusing to do what is proper for quality development, will not the guardian intervene?
Therefore, it's the leaders' responsibility to motivate these babies. But, ironically, it seems like the leaders are the ones who need the most motivation.

but the sustaining of faith and the pre-conversion experience requires some inquiry as to the veracity of the faith for the authentic believer.[/quote}

It requires no such thing. JP indicated earlier that one of the reasons it is so simple to be(and stay) saved is to allow people to be satisfied with the "least common denominator" if that's all they want.

[quote] Not necessarily, as it is systematically arrived at through study of Scripture.

And the veracity of Scripture, and thus the Trinity, is dependant on the veracity of each book involved in the analysis.

BTW your newbie qualities aren't bad all. I just learned how to use the quote function maybe four days ago and I signed up in the beginning of July!

jpholding

September 19th 2003, 03:06 PM

Whazzup,

But isn't each part dependant on reason?

Yes, but what does that have to do with what I'm saying? :huh:

“As for Heb. 10:25, it hardly applies in a crisis situation (not what Luke was speaking to).”

I view Hebrews as a Lucan product, sorry for the confusion. Yes, I see it as a crisis of sorts.

Probably a healthy amount. That sure was my presupposition, but not my experience. Interestingly enough, Luke Timothy Johnson believes that the only way to authenticate religious claims is through experience.

I remember that, and I substantially disagree with him of course.

So, if an experience doesn't authenticate Christian reality, is one justified in ceasing the search for its authenticity?

If you mean "if a particular experience..." then yes, I'd say so.

Agreed , but seriously, what should motivate a person to look into the validity of this particular religion when the stereotypes attributed to the group by society are confirmed in most churches by the behavior they exhibit?

I can only appeal to a concern for truth and an ultimate reality as a motivation. Which again is not a concern of the average "Simpsons" crowd (no offense!). Let's ask this question (based on this and a later repeat): What would truly motivate Homer Simpson to look into the validity of this particular religion? Free beer at church? Ned's being nice to him?

It's kinda hard to ignore "Love the Lord...with your mind", "Test everything and hold onto the good", and

Yes; but they would argue that that is what they are doing. It's like someone who can't see past an illusion, and doesn't try because they think the illusion is real and have seen no reason to test it. We are taught by our social context NOT to ask for proof (why? because all religions are equally valid; because experience, as Johnson implies, is what matters....).

If someone called you on the phone, and promised you eternal life if you donated everything you own(including your right to think and act) to a sort of bank account in a distant, invisible land, would you take their word for it or ask for proof? This is very suspicious behavior indeed.

To you and I it is. To the people who must fall for these sucker emails I get all the time from "Sese Mkumbo" and his $25 US MILLION he needs to transfer, obviously "asking for proof" is not a premium. That's an extreme example of course, but the principle is the same.

Option 2 doesn't seem plausible to me at all. The clientele could hardly be responsible for their own spiritual development from babes to maturity. Is a toddler required to learn etiquette on his own?

No, but they are not toddlers in every sense. They have the ability to know that growth is a component of any commitment: In marriage, in business.

Halloween's coming up. Where are you gonna post your theses?

A thesis on Halloween? CRI has probably done enough on that....and I plan to go out that night to eat and avoid the kiddies.

So you agree that most Christians converted because of emotional/spiritual reasons? This doesn't seem right either.

I agree, and I agree it is not right, and proverbial though it is they could stand to heed Jeremiah a little bit more.

There's the Christian God's way of doing things, and then there's my way. I prefer my way. But God is probably bigger than I am, so I guess his decision still stands.

I prefer his way myself. How would you compare this to say the business world and the uses of raises and promotions?

But you'd have to assume that the Trinity exists to describe its nature. One is dependant on the other, no?

Yes, but that is not the point I was making. I am merely saying that compentenices do vary.

:thumb: