Evening and Morning before the sun....

[Ansgar Seraph]

For my part, anyone seeking truth and living for the good of others is a follower of the Way (or the Tao, as Lewis puts it in "The Abolition of Man").

Hi Sam,

If I have properly understood your meaning here, then I am afraid here we must part company a bit. Some of the more difficult sayings of Christ are the exclusivity of His provision for salvation. The Gospels speak many times things like "if you believe in me ...", the keyword being 'if'. 1 John 5:11-12 makes a very clear statement: "He who has the Son has the life, He who does not have the Son does not have the life.".

As I have said before, I have very clear reasons for seeing Genesis as some kind metaphor/symbolic text. It is not just that I do not like what it says, or feel more comfortable with it saying something else. Further, even if I thought the 6/6000 interpretation was correct, I would not play games trying to say that position can be supported scientifically - it can not.

But here we are talking about the direct words of Jesus concerning what He has come to do in terms of providing for the atonement for sin and how He provides access to that atonement. I see nothing in any of the text that mitigates that or softens it. Further, historically the Church has rejected any concept of a universal salvation not dependent on belief in Christ. Finally, if the basic teachings of Chirst as recorded in scripture are not themselves trustworthy, then indeed the foundation of our faith crumbles, for we have now no real reason to trust the scriptures as regards the Resurrection itself.

Jim,

Don't worry; I don't think we'll part company very much. It's a difficult topic and I didn't intend to propose universalism or try to mitigate Christ's words. As unorthodox as it may be, though, I have a great hope that our volition will not die with our physical bodies. In C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce," souls in Hell have a chance to come into a kind of ante-Heaven and be ministered to by the Solid People, those who are now in God. Lewis conjectures that Christ Himself descended into Hell itself, ministering to all who would listen.

As part of the Creed, those without Christ are lacking eternal Life (for what is life apart from its Source?). I do not think, though, that we must put a time limit on a person's choice to choose Him or not. Indeed, Christ Himself says that all who seek, find. It seems strongly plausible to me that people like Richard Dawkins really are seeking for Truth; if someone looks at Christianity, and our admittedly poor representation of Christ, and just can't accept it rationally, I can understand that. Hopefully, Reason Himself will personally minister to all of us in His unmitigated glory at some point. If the point of a philosophical/theological discussion is to bring the conversation to a razor's edge, where a person must choose which side he is on, I have great hope that Christ will be as forceful at some future point . . . when a person no longer "sees through a glass, darkly," he will then be truly free to choose and be fully responsible for his choice. Indeed, we have reason to believe that many who seemed to accept Him in their physical lives will not accept Him in their eternal lives . . . this may be a choice put to all men.

I agree completely that the historical accounts of Christ and His works are basically reliable, too. Without a reliable Gospel account, Christianity isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.

Hopefully, that cleared things up a bit. If it's still too unorthodox for you, I am very willing to drop it, should it prove manifestly inaccurate. If we just don't agree on this point, I'm cool with that—it's a tiny theory on Christianity which doesn't change the day-to-day duties of evangelism, so I don't expect people to use it if they don't need it.

—Sam

P.S. — Anybody the least bit interested should read "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis. It's crazy-good. My favorite book of all time.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Methinks you're reading into my words what you wish to read. My only point is that the AKJV1611 is the best that we have today and,
through serious in-depth study, I've found incontrovertible evidence that modern versions in one way or another corrupt that (best) version.

So you're contention is, then, that God preserved His Scripture in the original texts, knowing how it had to be worded for the 1611 interpreters to "get it right", while all of the modern interpreters, despite having a much more through grasp of Hebrew and Greek language and culture . . . got it wrong? If true, why did God not preserve the inerrant Scripture in all languages and translations? What was so special about 1611, when there are many people who speak English yet can't understand the AKJV?

"... scientifically been shown to be a figurative event ... a myth" ???

Thanks for proving my case, AS. When Scripture doesn't square with what secular
science has proclaimed as "gospel" then, but of course, dismiss Scripture!

WOW!!! WOW!!! WOW!!!

Maybe after you've meditated on the above for a few years you'll understand why we say that Christians like yourself harm Christianity.

Nice theatrics. Unnecessary, but cute.

Actually, Science doesn't proclaim "gospel", in the sense that you're using it; if it did, we would hold every theory as axiomatic and unalterable. A quick glance at any one of thousands of scientific journals will prove this not to be the case. Rather, reason prevents us from adhering to a specific interpretation of Scripture. I know of no Christian who "dismisses" the Genesis accounts . . . I know of many godly Christians who seek to find a great truth in its allegories, though. Divine grace has given us human reason—we can either use it and become more like God or not use it and become something less. If your reason prevents you from accepting any interpretation than the literal account, that's fine with me . . . it's not an axiom of Christianity one way or the other.

And now to the point about "harming" Christianity. I figure that after a good decade of careful thought and more philosophy courses than I care to elaborate on, I'm in a good position to defend myself . . . no waiting needed. You must mean that I am A) Harming Christianity Proper, B) Harming the essential doctrines of Christianity or C) Harming Christianity's great commission:

A) Christianity Proper is big enough and established enough that, whatever heretical ideas a particular Christian may harbor, it will not change the orthodox views of the Church. We've got enough books by ancient Christians, and enough people who read those books, that Christianity Proper will remain unscathed.

B) I am confident that my doctrine is defensible. In fact, I am willing to defend or abandon any point in doctrine that proves manifestly false or unreasonable. Of course, this conversation hasn't had anything to do with essential doctrine (what is contained within the Apostle's Creed), so that makes this argument silly.

C) This is what I took you to mean, that I am somehow harming the evangelical effort of Christianity. We probably just disagree on what face that evangelism should present to the world. Personally, I feel that if you tell people to believe something contrary to what they can scientifically observe (and then heckle them when they don't accept your belief), then you are missing the point. The essential Christian message necessitates observational truth, both in the wonder of nature and the poorness of our own souls.

Even though I disagree with you, though, I respect you enough to assume that you are honestly pursuing your faith and probably doing the best you can to reason and evangelize. As such, I doubt that you are harming Christianty much in any of these three senses. Christianity is harmed most when Christians refuse to act in charity, not when they disagree on doctrine.


—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

I am willing to defend or abandon any point in doctrine that proves manifestly false or unreasonable.

This was badly worded. It would be clearer to say:

"I am willing to defend any point in my doctrine and abandon doctrine if it proves to be manifestly false or unreasonable."

Sorry about that . . . carry on.

—Sam

[wattsr1]

Hey Jorge, are you a geocentricist?

If not, would you mind explaining to us (and Samurai) WHY you are not a geocentricist?

Thanks.

I am reposting Faid's question, just in case you are unable to see it Jorge.


Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

Hey Jorge, are you a geocentricist?

If not, would you mind explaining to us (and Samurai) WHY you are not a geocentricist?

Thanks.

I hope the mods don't mind, but I am doubling up on this.

Jorge, you clearly don't have me on ignore at the moment. I think Faid's question is very important - given what you and Samurai claim. However, his question is short. You may not be able to see it.

Thus, I am doubling up.

Rogue has his popcorn. So do I. Ditto Faid.

We are all waiting.


Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

Originally posted by wattsr1
<SNIP>
Rogue has his popcorn...
</SNIP>

Well, I've moved on to some gum drops because the popcorn has gone stale with the waiting.

[wattsr1]

Well, I've moved on to some gum drops because the popcorn has gone stale with the waiting.

Well I am still waiting to digest the box's cardboard before I move onto anything else.

[Jorge]

So you're contention is, then, that God preserved His Scripture in the original texts, knowing how it had to be worded for the 1611 interpreters to "get it right", while all of the modern interpreters, despite having a much more through grasp of Hebrew and Greek language and culture . . . got it wrong? If true, why did God not preserve the inerrant Scripture in all languages and translations? What was so special about 1611, when there are many people who speak English yet can't understand the AKJV?

VERY long answer to that and I'm not even going to try. The problem with these forums (at least for me) is that extremely complex topics cannot be properly covered. Why? To do so would take months or years of writing and even then there are no guarantees.

That said, a quick answer to your last question is this : if I'm going to be studying a book that claims to be of God then the first thing I'm going to do is find out as much as I can about that book. The Book of Mormon, for example, is man-made rubbish -- certainly not of God. In any event, if you speak English, you can understand the AKJV, period! Laziness is not an acceptable excuse.

Nice theatrics. Unnecessary, but cute.

I try to blend in 'cute' every now and then just to spice things up but in this case I wasn't being theatrical. I mean, when

"... scientifically been shown to be a figurative event ... a myth"

[referring to Scripture] is coming from a Christian, then I'm forced to ask what this Christian has been exposed to.

Actually, Science doesn't proclaim "gospel", in the sense that you're using it; if it did, we would hold every theory as axiomatic and unalterable. A quick glance at any one of thousands of scientific journals will prove this not to be the case. Rather, reason prevents us from adhering to a specific interpretation of Scripture. I know of no Christian who "dismisses" the Genesis accounts . . . I know of many godly Christians who seek to find a great truth in its allegories, though. Divine grace has given us human reason—we can either use it and become more like God or not use it and become something less. If your reason prevents you from accepting any interpretation than the literal account, that's fine with me . . . it's not an axiom of Christianity one way or the other.

Thanks for the lesson but I understand this stuff quite well. What apparently you don't understand is that the proclamations of "science" are de facto "gospel" in that people hold them as THE steering force and use those proclamations to make decisions -- even moral decisions.

For example, why do some Christians accept abortion and / or homosexual behavior? Well, hasn't 'science' shown that a child is nothing more than "tissue" ... a "potential human being" and "not a real human being"? Fine, so then abortion is not really killing, right?

And hasn't 'science' shown that homosexuals are that way due to genetic makeup? Fine, then homosexual practices are not immoral and certainly not the choice of the individual, it's a natural phenomena, right? Cool, let's listen to what SCIENCE says and not to what God says.

I'm sorry, AS, but you clearly either have no good Christian foundation or are thoroughly indoctrinated with worldly doctrine.

And now to the point about "harming" Christianity. I figure that after a good decade of careful thought and more philosophy courses than I care to elaborate on, I'm in a good position to defend myself . . . no waiting needed. You must mean that I am A) Harming Christianity Proper, B) Harming the essential doctrines of Christianity or C) Harming Christianity's great commission:

All of the above. Mind you, not necessarily intentionally. Many good Christians have harmed Christianity all with the best intentions.

A) Christianity Proper is big enough and established enough that, whatever heretical ideas a particular Christian may harbor, it will not change the orthodox views of the Church. We've got enough books by ancient Christians, and enough people who read those books, that Christianity Proper will remain unscathed.

I guess you haven't yet learned that one sub-microscopic virus entering the body has the potential of destroying the entire body.

B) I am confident that my doctrine is defensible. In fact, I am willing to defend or abandon any point in doctrine that proves manifestly false or unreasonable. Of course, this conversation hasn't had anything to do with essential doctrine (what is contained within the Apostle's Creed), so that makes this argument silly.

I'd have to see specifically what you mean here.

C) This is what I took you to mean, that I am somehow harming the evangelical effort of Christianity. We probably just disagree on what face that evangelism should present to the world. Personally, I feel that if you tell people to believe something contrary to what they can scientifically observe (and then heckle them when they don't accept your belief), then you are missing the point. The essential Christian message necessitates observational truth, both in the wonder of nature and the poorness of our own souls.

To a limited degree, I agree. But we are clearly told that we are not directed by 'sight' (as is the world) but by God's Word.

Secular 'science', for example, would ridicule anyone believing that dead bodies come back to life or that a human may walk on the waters of a stormy sea or feed many thousands with just a few fish. Sight / 'science' say one thing, God says another. Now, which do we accept?

You and people like you choose which of God's accounts you're willing to accept and which accounts from God you delegate into
the "... figurative event ... myth" category. I'd be very, very careful if I were practicing this. Fact is, I wouldn't dream of practicing that.

Even though I disagree with you, though, I respect you enough to assume that you are honestly pursuing your faith and probably doing the best you can to reason and evangelize. As such, I doubt that you are harming Christianty much in any of these three senses. Christianity is harmed most when Christians refuse to act in charity, not when they disagree on doctrine.

Again I question your understanding of Scripture. Charity is indeed very important but try checking up on the number of times that Christ Himself warns us against bad doctrine. Bad doctrine is like a cancer -- it starts small and slow and seemingly insignificant. Then it spreads and strengthens until the true faith is corrupted and watered-down, rendering said faith powerless against the enemy.

Just out of curiosity, may I ask what age group you're in (teens, twenties, thirties, etc)?


Jorge

[Jorge]

I am reposting Faid's question, just in case you are unable to see it Jorge.

Regards, Roland

I usually ignore Faid (he's a certified moron) just as I usually ignore you (DITTO). That's why I haven't responded to his / your nonsense.


Jorge

[rogue06]

Originally posted by Jorge
I usually ignore Faid (he's a certified moron) just as I usually ignore you (DITTO). That's why I haven't responded to his / your nonsense.

But it's such an easy and direct question Jorge. You support and praise Samurai's literal reading of the Scriptures, yet he finds evidence within them for a geocentric universe. Now, I'm pretty sure that you yourself aren't a geocentrist so this makes one wonder... Why do you and Samurai disagree about this if you are both employing a simple, literal, straight-forward reading of the Bible? Since you both can't be correct about this (and obviously you think you hold the correct view), where did Samurai go wrong?

[Jorge]

But it's such an easy and direct question Jorge. You support and praise Samurai's literal reading of the Scriptures, yet he finds evidence within them for a geocentric universe. Now, I'm pretty sure that you yourself aren't a geocentrist so this makes one wonder... Why do you and Samurai disagree about this if you are both employing a simple, literal, straight-forward reading of the Bible? Since you both can't be correct about this (and obviously you think you hold the correct view), where did Samurai go wrong?

*************************************************************************************************

I usually ignore Faid (he's a certified moron) just as I usually ignore you (DITTO). That's why I haven't responded to his / your nonsense.


Bluntly, you're not too far behind those other two buffoons, rogue06.

I do not know what Samurai's specific beliefs are regarding this matter and so I remain silent. Seem prudent enough?


Jorge

[rogue06]

Originally posted by Jorge
Bluntly, you're not too far behind those other two buffoons, rogue06.

I do not know what Samurai's specific beliefs are regarding this matter and so I remain silent. Seem prudent enough?

Jorge

Fair enough... But it does surely appear that not knowing specifics has ever stopped you before from commenting on a matter.

[Tiggy]

But it's such an easy and direct question Jorge. You support and praise Samurai's literal reading of the Scriptures, yet he finds evidence within them for a geocentric universe. Now, I'm pretty sure that you yourself aren't a geocentrist so this makes one wonder... Why do you and Samurai disagree about this if you are both employing a simple, literal, straight-forward reading of the Bible? Since you both can't be correct about this (and obviously you think you hold the correct view), where did Samurai go wrong?

But Jorge has told us there are more than one inerrant version of the Bible out there, remember?

Third, I certainly hold that the Bible is inerrant. However, the full, proper meaning of that must consider many things.

Finally, there are other "inerrant" versions of the Bible out there but this doesn't tell the complete story. If I took the AKJV1611 and deleted four Books from it, the remainder would continue to be inerrant but, as I hope is obvious, it's not kosher.

Sadly, Jorge refused to tell us what those other inerrant versions are.

Maybe Samurai's inerrant version is a different one that Jorge's inerrant version.

Is that it Jorge?

- T

[Jorge]

Fair enough... But it does surely appear that not knowing specifics has ever stopped you before from commenting on a matter.

That is blathering BS and you know it. You just can't pass up an opportunity to take a cheap shot even after you've been silenced.


Jorge

[Tiggy]

That is blathering BS and you know it. You just can't pass up an opportunity to take a cheap shot even after you've been silenced.


Jorge

Darn! There goes another Jorge Hypocrisy-meter melted into slag.

- T