God is Love

[PairTheBoard]

Notready -
"Since you rarely quote from Scripture, I could easily accuse you of "doing" theology."

Actually, I've either quoted from scripture with exact references or refered to scripture that you well know in most all of my posts. But as you say, you've only skimmed my posts so maybe you missed it. I suggest you go back and read all my posts on this thread carefully.

Of course I am doing Theology. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what Paul was doing as well. Sometimes theology assists people in drawing near Jesus and sometimes it hinders them. If my theology does not assist I'm glad to get it out of the way. Is Paul? Are you?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

udontknow -
"What does "serious lifelong damage" mean anyway? "

Maybe you should investigate further and find out. Talk to some people who are recovering from such damage. I don't think you will though. All you care about is your theology. I think this proves the condition of your heart.

Case Closed.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course I am doing Theology. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what Paul was doing as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the major differences between us. Paul wasn't doing theology. He was writing Scripture, God's Word.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course I am doing Theology. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what Paul was doing as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the major differences between us. Paul wasn't doing theology. He was writing Scripture, God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the time he was writing it he was doing theology. It was later proclaimed as scripture by other men. He was human and so were they. By the Christian Faith, Jesus was the Son of God and wrote nothing except his Life. Nobody writing "scripture" either in the Old Testament or the New was the Son of God, and if any scripture in the Bible is being understood in a way that conflicts with the Spirit of Christ it is either misleading or being misunderstood.

"God's Word" is not words. "In the beginning was The Word. And the Word was with God. And The Word was God." God is not words. In the Christian faith the Life of Jesus is God's Word. Yes we do differ on this point.



PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"udontknow -
"What does "serious lifelong damage" mean anyway? "

Maybe you should investigate further and find out. Talk to some people who are recovering from such damage. I don't think you will though. All you care about is your theology. I think this proves the condition of your heart.

Case Closed."

Wait a second. If udontknow is positive that certain things must be done and believed to avoid going to hell, then even if there is danger of emotional damage when you explain it to children, he must anyway.

The reason he shouldn't be telling this to children is not because it damages them or because it means he has a wicked heart. It is simply because he is wrong.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"udontknow -
"What does "serious lifelong damage" mean anyway? "

Maybe you should investigate further and find out. Talk to some people who are recovering from such damage. I don't think you will though. All you care about is your theology. I think this proves the condition of your heart.

Case Closed."

Wait a second. If udontknow is positive that certain things must be done and believed to avoid going to hell, then even if there is danger of emotional damage when you explain it to children, he must anyway.

The reason he shouldn't be telling this to children is not because it damages them or because it means he has a wicked heart. It is simply because he is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not from a secular point of view. How far would you let him go? How much damage would you allow him to inflict before you say he shouldn't do it for no other reason than it is simply wrong to do so?

His not caring about the damage he does certainly tells me something about the condition of his heart. That his theology tells him it's ok to damage people, even children, for the sake of the theology also tells me something's wrong with his theology.

PairTheBoard

[Girchuck]

Human being is the most complex system known to me.
I have a personal preference for increasing complexity.
Destroying a human being reduces the complexity of the part of Universe available to my observation.
I have emotions, which are hardly logical. Destruction of human life causes a strong emotional response in me, which I find very unpleasant.
I am a human being also. No man is an island, so don't ask for who the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee.
My personal preferences are just that, personal. Fortunately for me, they mostly agree with the society's preferences concerning human life. Unfortunately for me (from your theology's point of view), your god's preferences are very different.

Back to your theology.
You say, your theology is not perfect, but Scripture's theology is. However, apparently, it is extremely difficult for humans to extract that perfect theology, because so many people vehemently disagree on the meanings of the theology they find in the Scripture. For example, you find in the Scripture support for your concept of predestined salvation for the elect and predestined damnation for non-elect. Yet, others do not find support for these concepts.

About you being saved. You think it is a cinch? As far as I understand your theology, you are only a strong favorite to be among the chosen, it is not a lock. There is a possibility, however slight, that you change your mind about your faith at a later day. Then it will turn out, that, from your present theology's point of view, it was but an illusion that you were saved, and actually you were never saved. Do you agree? Even Saint Peter denied Christ thrice. What if he were to die before his denials stopped? Who would greet you at the pearly gates? I have known people who were maybe as steadfast and resolute in their faith as you were, yet were caused by a variety of reasons to abandon their faith. Don't say it cannot happen to you, for you cannot fathom god's will.

[Girchuck]

But our knowledge about the Universe is a very practical kind. All we know is the stuff that we can observe. We assume that our observations are valid, because otherwise we couldn't get anything done. We need to get stuff done, because we want to survive, and there are no ultimate reasons for our desire to survive. Sometimes we use models that summarize our observations, and even allow us to make predictions based on past observations. None of this knowledge or models is ever proclaimed as ultimate truth about the universe. Remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results. If someone comes up with observations that disprove commonly accepted models, than after confirming this observation several times, current modells will have to be modified.
Suppose you are hungry, and you see a fruit hanging high on a tree. Do you know that you have to climb the tree to get the fruit? How did you come to posess this knowledge?
All our knowledge is of the same kind that the knowledge that you need to climb the tree to get the fruit.

Since we have now capability to perform many more observations than we have in the past, and summarize them with better models faster, our knowledge is growing faster than it was growing in the past. It all comes down to improved technology.

Let me ask you. What new things did humans learn about god since the bible was written and read.

Everybody knows practically nothing about the Universe. This is directed to the whole of human race.

[Girchuck]

Your summary is very accurate. It was bad to go to war with Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, all of the alternatives were worse.
The problem with nazi version of justice is that the rest of the world disagreed. If most of the world agreed with nazis, their version of justice would become global. The problem is, nazis failed to convince the rest of the world that their version of justice is desireable, yet they wanted to impose it on the world by force. Therefore they caused a violent reaction that ultimately destroyed their society.
Our definitions of right and wrong are defined by popular agreement. Some mechanisms for protecting minority opinion is included, however, whenever a law is passed prohibiting something, it is assumed that popular opinion deems that something "wrong". In our system of justice, everything not deemed "wrong" is presumed "right" until there is a strong disagreement resulting in a change. On many issues, there is no popular agreement, and sometimes people simply agree to let individuals define what is right or wrong on these issues. You are free to disagree with popular opinion on what is right and what is wrong but be warned. The popular opinion is often enforced by violence or threat of violence. For example, 300 years ago, the popular opinion shared by many people who had theology similar to yours was that it is right for people to own other people with skin of different color. The slaves disagreed that it was right, but their opinion was disregarded. Eventually, popular opinion changed and owning people has become wrong. 200 years ago, it was a popular opinion that adultery is wrong and deserves punishment from society. Now, the popular opinion here is that adultery does not deserve punishment from society, and it is up to individuals to determine whether adultery is wrong. However, there are other societies where adultery is still considered wrong and deserving of harsh punishment. They do not force their views on us, and we do not force our views on them, however, there is a dialogue, and both sides are trying to persuade one another that their definitions of justice in this case are wrong. 75 years ago it was a popular opinion here that selling and consuming alcohol is wrong. Now, this has changed as well. If your personal definitions of right and wrong coinside with that of society you live in, you will have a relatively comfortable life. If your personal definitions of right and wrong disagree, you will have to either go against your personal definitions or change your personal definitions, or violate society's definition and face retribution. Or, you could try to convince popular opinion that your definitions are superior to what is commonly accepted. This is hard, but there are success stories.

[d_rod]

So I've been reading through this thread now for about 30 minutes, and whilst I don't claim to have read the entire thread, I think there's something worth bringing up that is applicable to the discussions on scripture. Please keep in mind, what I’m writing down is a bit hazy as I learned it 10 years ago in college. However, it is accurate nonetheless.

It is very important to examine the historical context that the books of the bible were written in. There is evidence by christian theologians as to the periods in time and locations that the gospels as well as other books in the new testament were written. There is also evidence that the authors (or compilers) of the gospels were influenced by their cultural surroundings and the events happening at the times. For example, the gospel of Matthew was written primarily to an upper class jewish audience. This was primarily because this gospel was being written during the same time and in the same city that the jewish scriptures were being gathered and organized together. There was a serious amount of competition and desire to convert people from the jewish faith to the "new" religion. The gospel of luke was written later than Matthew in a different city. This gospel addresses a lower class audience.

As a result, it is safe to say the authors of the gospels were influenced by their surroundings, correct?