| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-14, 3:55 am |
|
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:DZIsj.71421$vt2.11245@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> You don't have to know all the Bible to be a Christian! All you have
> to know is enough to have faith in Jesus Christ. Knowing more is
> about becoming a more mature Christian. All Christians are equally
> acceptable to God, because God has "accounted to them" the
> righteousness of Christ, because of their faith in Jesus; not any works.
>
>
> Knowing God's will better allows one to better obey God. You can't
> obay what you don't know.
>
>
> Never said that. I said the Bible is the ultimate authority in knowing
> who God is, what He requires of us, how we are to be saved, etc.
> A person may come to knowledge of Jesus through any number of
> ways, but the ultimate reliability of the efficacy of their belief rests
> in
> the authority of God's Word, the Bible. Not knowing this does not
> change the reality, any more than not knowing the law changes the
> reality of the law (man's law or God's law).
But you CANNOT know it unless you either learn the original language or
trust translations which may have been subtly changed or misinterpreted by
multiple scribes. You are therefore only marginally better off than some
illiterate person who can't read it in ANY language.
And yet, despite this stumbling block, people still come to faith. You
already allowed that it happens, but you say they cannot grow in faith and
are like babies unless they do as you do and study the Bible and take it as
the literal Word of God.
My point is that you have no right to say this because YOUR way is no
better. Reading an English translation is NOT necessarily giving you the
exact original meaning.
I speak four languages and understand (can read) 7; I know very well how
essential nuances can be lost in even the best available translation.
Language can be translated, but culture and idiom very often can't. When you
are dealing with a culture and idioms 3500 years old, it is fair to suppose
that we may no longer be privy to every nuance of the language at the time.
I was surprised at how you reacted to HeyBub when he suggested that the
commentaries of scholars could be valuable in understanding the true meaning
of the text, and suggesting alternatives that are possible. You dismissed it
loftily because you believe that what you read, and how you interpret it, is
correct, and infallible. It isn't. And this is before we even start to look
at the actual content and debate that.
>
>
> You have had practice seeing physical things. How much experience
> do you have in seeing spiritual things? God is Spirit. (John 4:24)
A lot more than you can imagine. Enough to persuade me that spiritual
phenomena can largely be explained by bad perception of what is actually
natural, rather than supernatural. However, I also realise that spiritual
phenomena are much more real for many people than they are for me.
>
>
> I don't doubt that Buddhist monk had a spiritual experience. God is not
> the only spirit. Satan and demons are also spirits.
If you had ever bothered to discourse with such people and seen their
gentleness, compassion, and calm dignity, you would never ascribe demonic or
Satanic possession to them. Then again, you being you, perhaps you
would...:-)
Tell you what, Judson, if I had to choose, I'd take his "demonic possession"
against your "belief system as described here", in a heartbeat.
Fortunately, I don't have to choose.
>
>
> Because Satan would never glorify the name of Jesus Christ. The
> Spirit living in me does glorify the name of Jesus. Did the spirit in
> the Buddhist monk glorify Jesus? :-)
I didn't ask him (I had limited time and there were much more important
things to discuss, connected with the questions I have outlined here
before.) However, I believe he would 'glorify' any of the great Teachers,
and Christ would not be excluded. I've discussed belief with a number of
such people and they are consistent in their compassion for Human Beings and
the Human condition. They (for the most part; opinions differ there just as
they do in Christianity) do not consider the Buddha to be God, and they take
responsibility for their own actions, so the idea of 'glorifying' in the
sense that you mean it is not really relevant.
>
>
> Faith is belief without physical proof, not belief without logic.
If faith were based solely on abstract ideas, that might be true.
Physical proof represents a logic value of 1. It's true. If there is no
physical proof, the logical value is simply indeterminate. Faith without
physical proof cannot have a valid logical proof; it can only be logically
indeterminate. Faith trumps this impasse by being ...Faith.
In this case there IS a physical "proof" (Scripture) but it is arguable. I
argue the physical proof is invalid and therefore the Faith is invalid if it
is based solely on that; you argue that the physical proof is valid and no
further argument is needed, Faith must follow as the only possible
consequence. Your position requires no logical proof; mine does. The whole
reason for this discussion (at least as far as I'm concerned; you may have
other Evangelical Agendas...) is summed up in the above paragraph. I can't
find the logical proof I need to be persuaded by your argument. That's
because there isn't any; it comes down to faith in the Holy Bible (which I
don't have, and you have dismally failed to persuade me otherwise...).
>
>
> What others think is irrelevant. If there is a God, then the issue is
> between God and each individual.
So what are you doing here :-)?
>
>
> I appreciate that. I too have friends who are not Christians. :-)
Good. Balance in life is useful... :-)
>
> Please don't confuse LDS or Jehova's Witnesses with Christianity.
> They deny many basic tenets of Christianity, specifically who Jesus
> is and other related issues. You can't be a Christian and deny who
> Christ was; Jesus Christ is the essence of Christianity.
Yes, I was  over that. It was definitely the JWs who mentioned the
restricted nature of Heaven. (see below)
>
>
> My only responsibility is to bear witness of what I know. The
> responsibility for your decision is yours. :-)
>
I accept it gladly.
>
> You may not realize that I sometimes receive email from people who
> tell me that have benefitted one way or another from my commants in
> these threads. :-)
OK. Maybe you could encourage some of them to post?
>
>
> If it were only you and I involved here, that would have been quite a
> while back. :-)
Fair enough :-)
>
> I've been thinking about how best to disengage. Considering that from
> the beginning of these threads, I've been essentially only replying to
> others' comments or questions on my comments, I'm not sure how
> best to do that. Should I simply stop responding? A unilateral cease
> fire seems a bit one-sided, don't you think? :-)
Yes. The exchanges have become more civilised since you stopped posting long
passages of Scripture.
For myself, I'm not busy at the moment and will happily continue the
discussion as long as you like :-)
If you don't have someone to respond to, your lurkers won't get to see
much...
Maybe you could summarise your position, invite private email, and leave it
at that?
If you do, I'll summarise mine, and also leave it at that.(I'm not inviting
private mail on these matters, though...:-))
Of course, I can't speak for others... :-)
Alternatively, as you are only responding to questions, why not do so by
private mail? Or start a blog where you can post the questions and your
responses?
There are probably a number of ways to disengage from this thread, if that
is what you want to do. I hope you won't disengage from CLC completely; your
experience has earned your place here.
>
>
> That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm talking about the reliabilty of
> someone's source (authority) for their belief. A person who accepts
> a specific belief system does so in some context. For belief in Jesus,
> the context is the Biblical record of who Jesus is and what he did.
> That's not an opinion, that's a simple statement of fact. It is not
> logical to claim belief in a system defined by the Bible, then reject
> the Bible, or part of it, as an authority. It is oxymoronic - a house
> divided against itself. Failure to realize or believe that doesn't alter
> the reality of it. As I stated before, it is logically inescapable. But
> humans have a boundless ability to ignore logic.
Especially religious humans... :-)
>
>
> Faith does require a framework under which the faith is defined.
> Are you suggesting that faith can be undefined?
I am suggesting that people acquire faith in diverse ways. Once they have
it, they can define it; until then, they probably can't.
> Faith in what?
Well, that depends on what you have faith in and what is important to you.
For example: Which is more important: Faith in Jesus or Faith in the
inerrancy of the Bible? (There are people who have one without the other;
you say they are wrong, so which is most important to you?)
It isn't a fair question because there are a number of possible answers and
none of them is really satisfactory. You cannot answer it unless you choose,
and to choose is fatal because you consider both things critical. A logical
dilemma. (You had no such qualms about your "challenge" which was also a
completely unfair question, for much the same reasons...:-))
> About what? Concerning what?
Given this thread has gone on for a long time and you have been taking a
hammering, I can understand you have totally lost the plot, so, I'll remind
you...:-)
"About what?": Faith in whatever religious belief you adhere to. In your
case: "Jesus as Saviour and the inerrancy of the Bible as the Holy word of
God".
"Concerning what?": Redundant question already asked. See "About what?".
>Doesn't make sense.
There, there, rest your poor head... :-)
>
> My point is that, when someone suffers martyrdom rather than
> renounce their faith, that faith must be rock solid. You don't build
> a rock solid reliable construction on ambiguity, you must build it
> on something that is definite and solid (Matthew 7:26). A faith
> based on a patchwork of beliefs selected arbitrarily from a menu
> is the an of definite and solid.
(I'm substituting "antithesis" for "an" in the last sentence...OK?)
See you started off so well..."> My point is that, when someone suffers
martyrdom rather than renounce their faith, that faith must be rock solid."
Nothing to disagree with there. Even the second sentence is still pretty
right, (although it denies people who get faith through a flash of insight,
like your mate St Paul on the road to Damascus...:-)), but, come the third
sentence (admittedly I modified it as stated above), you've lost me. See, I
don't think people finding stuff in Scripture that they agree with IS "a
patchwork of beliefs selected arbitrarily from a menu". It isn't arbitrary;
they have accepted what they can go along with; it isn't a menu, because
they may have read the Bible extensively to find the parts that have most
meaning for them. I think they are entitled to do this. It is THEIR faith
that they are working out...
There is more than one way (you already acknowledged that, so I won't spell
it all out again) and they are not "knocking the basis of their faith" by
indulging in Bible study to find what works for them.
By all means, have what works for YOU, and if that means Bible inerrancy,
fair enough. But should you be disparaging people who DON'T see it that way?
I have no vested interest in bringing people to Christianity (God knows...
:-) [pun intended]) but I DO want to see people comfortable in what they
believe (that, for the most part, makes the world a better place) without
having it rubbished by someone who doesn't see it that way.
Maybe, as an atheist, I'm just more tolerant than you are... :-)
>
<snip>
>
> Selection implies rejection of that not selected.
No it doesn't, at all. I can take a chocolate from the box and reserve the
right to have another one later... :-)
You wouldn't expect a Pastor or Priest to cover the whole Bible every Sunday
morning (and again in the afternoon and evening (although that's one
service I'd definitely attend :-))
>God's Word is a whole,
> not a menu. Jesus said we live by "every word of God" not "some words
> of God" (Matthew 4:4).
But he didn't say we have to live by all of them at once...
<snip>
>
> Not "classes" in the sense of worthiness or acceptability to God. But
> surely even a non believer can see that not every Christian achieves
> the same degree of obedience to God.
Why would a non-Believer care?
>Obedience pleases God, it
> glorifies God, and brings reward for the obedient Christian. We are
> rewarded for obedience, but salvation comes only as a free gift we
> obtain through faith in Jesus. :-)
>
So, who wears the pants in your house, then... :-)
>
> I categorically deny that 'select few' comment! Christianity is as "non
> selective" as any religion could be! Anyone who is willing can become
> a Christian by believing in Jesus for their salvation. There is no other
> criteria! What could be less exclusive that that?
OK, I understand and accept your vehement denial. I have provided my basis
for these statements below.
>
>
> The Bible does not say how many will get into Heaven!
Yes it does. Revelation 7:1 - 8, amplified further in Revelation 14: 1 - 5
I was wrong about the "few hundred thousand"; it was a Jehovah's Witness who
told me that... (I'm so gullible sometimes...) I thought it was the LDS,
then Richard suggested it might be the Brethren (in another thread) and when
I sat down and thought about it, I remembered a conversation in Sydney some
years back with some JWs...(There are so many of these Christian Cults it
gets a bit difficult to keep up with them... I dunno why they can't all get
together and agree on ONE party line, it would make things so much
simpler...Ooops, that's Ecumenicism, and I don't think you'll be joining
that movement any time soon, Judson.)
Anyway, I thought I better check it out, and now I have.
It is pretty clear that 144,000 male virgins will get to Heaven. (I told you
St. John the Divine had probably been at the mushroms on the wall of the
cave...and he had definitely been living alone too long... :-))
>Where did you get such a number?
From your inerrant, inspired by God, Holy Writ. See above.
>The Bible does specifically say that *no one* will be
> turned away who comes to Jesus for salvation.
No! Gosh! Then the Bible is contradicting itself? Heavens!
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|