|
Solumin posted:Which of these does the SBC support, if any? Do you support any of these or find any of them particularly compelling? You will hardly find anyone who holds to "1. mechanical dictation" Most people will be a #2, with possibly some #3's. Now before 1979 and the conservative revival there were a lot of #4's and beyond, but we typically hold to a very high view of scripture, and make very carefuland conservative use of lower historical criticism. I was taught of the existence of many different kinds of views on in errancy in Hermeneutics, without coaxing at all to have to hold a particular viewpoint, while the professors generally were very conservative, they let you think for yourself. I tend to hold to #2.2 or so ( with the decimal my own addition I've never been taught a decimal system like that)
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Isn't Hell really bad though, and it goes on for eternity? Is freedom in this life really worth risking that? Personally I say no, I'm willing to be intimidated if it means I get some clarity on the God thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
The problem Hell is arguably the thorniest aspect of the problem of evil. Whereas the more general problem of evil challenges us to reconcile the existence of suffering and evil with the perfectly good, all knowing, all powerful God of Christian theism the problem of hell highlights the fact that the presence of suffering and evil may stretch everlastingly into the future. Now what? We cannot simply dismiss objections and challenges to Christian belief with the notion of blind faith, including when talking about hell. Lets take for instance Gandhi. Lets say your talking to an evangelical Christian and you an inquisitive person whose not sure what they believe say you really admire him (valid thing to do here). That person may respond to you with "reality check, hes in hell". From other people's world view that is a very antagonistic response to give (rightfully so) they seem to be a close minded person. After all he sought truth and practiced so much spirituality throughout his life. Lets look at the issue by categorizing the types of beliefs of Christians regarding damnation. Exclusivist - Anyone who fails to hold explicit Christian belief or to exercise explicit faith in Christ by the end of his or her life is eternally damned. The is the type exhibited by the theoretical person mentioned above condemning Gandhi, Santa Claus, and Adolf Hitler all to the same punishment. Exclusivist typically begin with the basic biblical truth that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23) Based on this, exclusivist argue that no one is deserving of eternal life. No human is worthy of heaven, and God's justice would remain wholly intact if every single person were condemned to hell. They will continue citing passages like Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else for there is no other name under heaven given by which man can be saved" so lets be straight here, many sense intuitively that something has gone wrong with this theological analysis Nevertheless, exclusivism gets some important things right. We are all sinners, no one is perfect, or even as good as someone like superman or batman really. God's perfect love is always present according to the bible. Indeed the love to which God calls us, a love which requires us to promote and pray for the salvation of even our enemies, is modeled after God's own love (Matthew 5:43-48, Eph 5: 1-1) Inclusivism is roughly the view that God's salvation can reach people even if they have not explicitly heard the Gospel such that some persons who fail to hold Christian belief by the end of their earthly lives will be saved. Let me be clear here that inclusivim is not pluralism. Authentic Christian inclusivist uphold that only through Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit are any unevangelized persons forgiven and transformed. This is not including other religons into the pot like universalism. Gandhi was not strictly speaking unevangelizd. In fact Gandhi was a friend of Methodist evangelist E. Stanley Jones. But mabye he never really had the chance for the idea to sink in, or he lacked a foundation of Christian role models that he identified with. So I don't really want to speculate on Ghandi's salvation to be honest, I prefer to present the evidence and let people decide for themselves what they think, and let God be their judge. So I dont want to judge people's souls but I will not call something not a sin that I think is a sin because that is a job I feel obligated to do. What is hell like? Well, the Bible isnt really too descriptive about what goes on in hell , and I could speculate but that is just me making stuff up I dont want to do that. Jesus did say it was better to lose your eye and stop the evil than your whole body to go into hell.. Its really not a desirable place if you enjoy light and love and peace and goodness, but if someone prefers strife and greed and hatred then they might not want to be with Jesus anyways, who pretty much doesnt tolerate hating and harming others. Also according to the book of Revelation, the devil isnt in the lake of fire yet. That happens at the end, even after the millennium with Christ after He returns (if your a premillennialist believer, I know of amillennialist evangelicals too) The lake of fire in Revelation 20 is the cornerstone for the hell fire and brimstone teachings of the revivalist, who would most likely fall into that first group, exclusivist Bibliography: "God and Evil" The case for God in a world filled with pain" Meister and Dew Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Isn't Hell really bad though, and it goes on for eternity? Is freedom in this life really worth risking that? Personally I say no, I'm willing to be intimidated if it means I get some clarity on the God thing. Well a lot of people will say "if im (the christian) is wrong, and nothing happens when I die / lose your soul, so what? But if your wrong (the atheist) its a lot worse!" But looking as faith like a type of "fire insurance" against hell is not really the right perspective. A lot of evangelicals don't look at sin as a benefit of not being a Christian but in fact as what really enslaves people in this life and distracts them from the goal, so its really the opposite of giving up your liberty (from a believers standpoint)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Isn't Hell really bad though, and it goes on for eternity? Is freedom in this life really worth risking that? Personally I say no, I'm willing to be intimidated if it means I get some clarity on the God thing. I can't find the quote, but as I recall either the Bible itself or some Christian authority said that God will punish insincere faith. So, if you're playing the part of a Christian to game it, whoops, it's off to the ovens with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well a lot of people will say "if im (the christian) is wrong, and nothing happens when I die / lose your soul, so what? But if your wrong (the atheist) its a lot worse!" But looking as faith like a type of "fire insurance" against hell is not really the right perspective. A lot of evangelicals don't look at sin as a benefit of not being a Christian but in fact as what really enslaves people in this life and distracts them from the goal, so its really the opposite of giving up your liberty (from a believers standpoint) I'm just saying why is faith even necessary? I'd prefer if God just told me in some definitive way that he exists and then I wouldn't have to go on faith. Seems like a pointless exercise when the stakes are eternity in hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'm just saying why is faith even necessary? I'd prefer if God just told me in some definitive way that he exists and then I wouldn't have to go on faith. Seems like a pointless exercise when the stakes are eternity in hell. It turns out Mother Theresa struggled deeply with the hiddeness of God. In a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet in September 1979 she said "Bust as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, Listen and do not hear, the tongue moves in prayer but does not speak, I want you to pray for me that I let Him have a free hand." The dilemma here is this. Either God can't make his presence known to all or wont do so. If God can't make his presence known to all, God must not be omnipotent. If God won't make his presence known to all, God must not be good and loving. But lacking either of these attributes compromises who Christians hold God to be. Bertrand Russel (an atheist) was once asked what he would say to God if after his death he had a divine encounter and was asked by God why he hadn't believed in him during his life. Russel's reply was "God, you gave us insufficient evidence." God's revealing himself to some people, at least vividly and obviously, may produce the wrong kind of belief or knowledge of God. It may be the wrong type of faith for us to have in Him. Its not that God's reality is entirely opaque, but God keeps hidden at least to the extent that his existence can be reasonably denied unless and until there is a proper and useful reorientation of will. Paul Moser has some things to say about this Divine hiding like everything else God does, seeks to advance God's good kingdom by promoting what is good for all concerned. So we must keep divine hiding in the context of God's main desire to have people lovingly know God and thereby to become loving as God is loving....God desires that people turn, for their own good, to the loving God in filial communion and faithful obedience, God's primary aim is not to hide but rather to include all people in God's family as beloved children under God's fatherly guidance. A loving filial relationship with God is God's main Goal for every human. Production of mere reasonable belief that God exists will not meet God's higher aim for us For our own good, God is after something more profound and more transforming than simple reasonable belief about God. Mere reasonable belief is no match for personal transformation toward God's loving character Blaise Pascal also commented on this Willing to appear only to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Concerning the flood of the whole earth, killing of the Egyptians firstborn, killing the entire Assyrian army, etc To me, this is a matter of perspective. Also, given human nature, we ourselves do far worse, I will create an illustration here that is of my own thinking, I encourage any criticisms of what I set forth briefly here. Lets start with a homeowner with a wife 2.5 kids a dog a parrot and Jason Alexander living in the house with you for some reason (hes rich so let him stay). You go out to inspect your front yard because as you have aged you have become more and more like Hank Hill. You observe a fire ant mound. You have complete domain over that mound according to a vast majority of peoples standards (I realize the Buddhist might disagree correct me if wrong). You get some ortho ant killer because the granules are pretty lousy really, ortho is expensive but better. You kill off all 1,543,234 ants in the mound and you really don't feel bad about it. Why? Because they bite you !!! They are without any usefulness in your grander scheme of things, and yes you have the right to allow them to migrate t your neighbors yard but thats not really the right thing to do either, by a vast majority of peoples standards. Bear in mind you did not create the ants, you cannot really save the ants and turn them into black ants and make them ok and not bite you, you have limited options as a human and limited in power. Lets say you originally did design them as black ants and they messed it up from the get go by eating after midnight and now they have conquered the entire southern half of the united states. So you offer them a choice, to either become black ants or to stay fire ants. You could just turn them all into black ants, but you decide to give them the free will to decide for themselves, because if you just turned them all into black ants there is still the possibility of them eating after midnight again and changing back into fire ants which would piss you off We humans are the ants that actually have the choice of being black ants or fire ants Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I appreciate the effort you're putting in to writing this stuff out, but to be honest it all makes God seem like a major dick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I appreciate the effort you're putting in to writing this stuff out, but to be honest it all makes God seem like a major dick. Think of your earthly father. Sometimes they can be harsh and seem mean, but when we become parents ourselves we might see it just like our parents did. In the case of God, maybe realize that our attitudes towards authority change as we grow older and to try and take that out of the picture because its a serious subject that requires are best thinking possible. Keep in mind their is the side of retribution and justice to God, but the New Testament message is pretty much the opposite of mean, its actually very positive and encouraging (grace, forgiveness, love, eternal life)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
What distinction would you make between higher and lower criticism, and why is there a need for caution in either? From my perspective, I've always heard "lower criticism" used to denote simple textual criticism, which seeks to establish, as far as is possible, the accurate original text of the Bible. "Higher criticism" denotes the attempt to separate out authors, chronologically date portions of the text, and generally establish how the original text itself came to be. Neither of these strikes me as something that would be dangerous or destructive to faith. Are those the definitions you've heard, or are you using the terms differently?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Think of your earthly father. Sometimes they can be harsh and seem mean, but when we become parents ourselves we might see it just like our parents did. In the case of God, maybe realize that our attitudes towards authority change as we grow older and to try and take that out of the picture because its a serious subject that requires are best thinking possible. Keep in mind their is the side of retribution and justice to God, but the New Testament message is pretty much the opposite of mean, its actually very positive and encouraging (grace, forgiveness, love, eternal life) All that makes sense for an authority figure who's actually around and makes their presence felt. If my father picked up and left when I was a baby I wouldn't try to imagine what he would have wanted me to do . I'd say gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:What distinction would you make between higher and lower criticism, and why is there a need for caution in either? From my perspective, I've always heard "lower criticism" used to denote simple textual criticism, which seeks to establish, as far as is possible, the accurate original text of the Bible. "Higher criticism" denotes the attempt to separate out authors, chronologically date portions of the text, and generally establish how the original text itself came to be. Neither of these strikes me as something that would be dangerous or destructive to faith. Are those the definitions you've heard, or are you using the terms differently? Higher criticism oftentimes leads to the severe devaluation of scriptures, in many many cases contradicting the internal evidence in the texts. Lets take what higher criticism does with the Pentateuch (books we hold are comprised largely by the writings of Moses with some obvious exceptions including his burial): the Yahwist source (J) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah. the Elohist source (E) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel. the Deuteronomist (D) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform. the Priestly source (P) : written c. 500 BCE by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon. This is just one example, there are far more that are not consistent with the internal evidence. I believe that something like this type of historical criticism used by Wellhausen is only as useful as todays broken version of the study is. What is not broken in my opinion is the Holy Spirit's superintendence that has maintained the integrity of the scriptures Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:- Many book- specific courses are offered for diving deeper into the nuances of the individual books (bible books) and there are several "great book seminars" featuring..well..great books!! (Plato's republic, Augustine's City of God, even a class devoted to C.S. Lewis)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:38
|
|
i like nice words
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Higher criticism oftentimes leads to the severe devaluation of scriptures, in many many cases contradicting the internal evidence in the texts. Lets take what higher criticism does with the Pentateuch (books we hold are comprised largely by the writings of Moses with some obvious exceptions including his burial): I'm not sure you're using "internal evidence" in the same way as professional textual critics. The sources are separated out based entirely on internal philological evidence, and then compared with other documents (primarily in vocabulary, but also in some cases in style) to develop a framework for comparative dating. It is extremely obvious to a Biblical philologist fluent in Hebrew that portions of the text date from wildly different eras, and the style is consistent with other documents that have been redacted from multiple sources. I'm still not sure how all this leads to devaluing Scripture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I'm not sure you're using "internal evidence" in the same way as professional textual critics. The sources are separated out based entirely on internal philological evidence, and then compared with other documents (primarily in vocabulary, but also in some cases in style) to develop a framework for comparative dating. It is extremely obvious to a Biblical philologist fluent in Hebrew that portions of the text date from wildly different eras, and the style is consistent with other documents that have been redacted from multiple sources. I'm still not sure how all this leads to devaluing Scripture. Sorry for the ambiguity of what I meant by internal evidence, what I refer to here is what the document plainly says about itself, not internal evidence as far as the style of writings etc. An example is of scholars that believe 2 Thessalonians to be inauthentic, despite the fact the document itself says its from Paul (obviously he dictated his letters to scribes often, not what I mean) based on supposed inconsistencies related to his other writings which is not conclusive enough for me to say that the author is lying. Obvious forgeries often had dates far too late to be written by the apostles, or were in conflict of the Gospel message, and were carefully examined and not put in the cannon because the Holy Ghost provided the discernment for which documents were to be preserved in the cannon which was closed by the end of the first century A.D (although not recognized by that early of a time, no document included in the list was dated after 100 A.D) If we are to doubt the Holy Spirits active involvement in the actions regarding the formulation of the cannon, then we are prone to start denying many things about the contents of the scriptures themselves, its what has happened in the past including in the Southern Baptist convention during the era of around 1900-1980, and I think anyone who holds to the Christian faith should examine it as a serious issue. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I'm not sure you're using "internal evidence" in the same way as professional textual critics. The sources are separated out based entirely on internal philological evidence, and then compared with other documents (primarily in vocabulary, but also in some cases in style) to develop a framework for comparative dating. It is extremely obvious to a Biblical philologist fluent in Hebrew that portions of the text date from wildly different eras, and the style is consistent with other documents that have been redacted from multiple sources. I'm still not sure how all this leads to devaluing Scripture. Adding on to this question, do you have specific problems with the methodology used by higher criticism? If so, what are they and what makes the way you study and analyze the Bible superior?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Mr. World posted:Adding on to this question, do you have specific problems with the methodology used by higher criticism? If so, what are they and what makes the way you study and analyze the Bible superior? Are we looking at the issue from a Christian worldview or a secular worldview? Either one is fine, but it matters what kind of presuppositions we are dealing with. Regardless of the outcome of the historical criticism are we are claiming a form of Christianity or no? I guess what I get at here is the ethics of it all.An in house debate is going to have a different set of priorities altogether from what a secular debate would. With tons of skepticism about the nature of the issue to begin with people are going to be heavily critical of everything mercilessly and favor given to materialism Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Are we looking at the issue from a Christian worldview or a secular worldview? Either one is fine, but it matters what kind of presuppositions we are dealing with. Regardless of the outcome of the historical criticism are we are claiming a form of Christianity or no? I guess what I get at here is the ethics of it all.An in house debate is going to have a different set of priorities altogether from what a secular debate would. With tons of skepticism about the nature of the issue to begin with people are going to be heavily critical of everything mercilessly and favor given to materialism This doesn't make a lick of sense. "Who wrote these books and when?" is a question that everyone, Christian or otherwise, can be interested in knowing the answer to. It's a deeply important question in the history of the formation of the Bible and the canon of scripture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Are we looking at the issue from a Christian worldview or a secular worldview? Either one is fine, but it matters what kind of presuppositions we are dealing with. Regardless of the outcome of the historical criticism are we are claiming a form of Christianity or no? I guess what I get at here is the ethics of it all.An in house debate is going to have a different set of priorities altogether from what a secular debate would. With tons of skepticism about the nature of the issue to begin with people are going to be heavily critical of everything mercilessly and favor given to materialism Given that Bultmann and his company were all Christians while doing their scholarship, I don't think the worldview really matters all that much. Even granting Presuppositionalist claims that logic can only be derived from God, my ability to reason would come from the same source as yours despite being a non-theist. In my experience, methodology is methodology. Either it's logically consistent and provides repeatable results or the method itself is faulty. If I grant you that a universal abstract truth exists, all truth must be derivable from that truth. As a result, if the conclusion of a specific methodology is inconsistent with that universal abstract truth, there must be some fault in the method. What is the fault in their specific reasoning that you take issue with?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
You avoided my question, probably because the second part sounded confrontational. I would still appreciate an answer to at least the first part: What is it about the Bible that makes you think that a supernatural being wrote or contributed to it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
The Issue: Higher Textual Criticism Bart Ehrman is a popular critic of the authenticity of the Bible. The conclusions he draws are in fact diametrically opposed to holding any faith in the reliability Scriptures. Here is a quote from him "If God had inspired the original words, we dont have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and in some cases lost...the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the bible would be so that his people would have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them. - in his book "Misquoting Jesus" I hold that Ehrman's interpretation is born out of an unduly skeptical approach that stands in direct conflict with many other scholars in the field and even some of his own conclusions. Ehrman himself admits that we have more manuscripts of the Bible than any other piece of literature from antiquity but nonetheless denies its reliability. (Ehrman actually denies the reliability of any book from antiquity as well) How much textual evidence would be enough for Ehrman to believe the text of the New Testament is sufficiently reliable? We have over 5,500 Greek Manuscripts, would 8000 be enough? or 10000? The New Testament boasts numerous remarkable early manuscripts compared to other similar ancient literature. The bar always seems to be set just a little bit higher than were the evidence happens to be like the Greek myth of Sisyphus who thought he had finally done enough to push the boulder to the top of the hill only to find it rolled back down again. Problem We don't have the original New Testament manuscripts. We only have copies of copies of copies,, so we have no idea if what we now have is what the original manuscripts said. -We know all ancient literature by way of copies not by way of originals. Ancient manuscripts of any kind are difficult to come by. Textual critics want as many manuscripts as possible in order to compare readings and then determine the correct wording, and that is precisely what we have here ) Also in regards to the field of study of historical criticism, different critics have come to many different conclusions. Many deductions about consistency are very subjective, and upon close examination the inconsistencies seem to often be resolved. That is why I place importance on the worldview of the critic, because this is not a purely empirical exercise. So often the case with heavy use of textual criticism people draw their own imperfect conclusions only to be refuted some years later and the stances to be modified. There is an element of faith involved with a high view of scripture, but with the irresponsibility of liberal theologians its a justifiable counter presupposition , we look at it from the point of view that the Holy Spirit has actively protected the writings just like He inspired the writings to begin with. Bibliography "Truth in a Culture of Doubt - Kostenburger Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
What's your favourite passage to masturbate to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
FabioClone posted:What is it about the bible that makes you think it contains a message from the actual creator of the universe? And given the number of christian denominations, why did it do such a sad job of communicating that message? Your point about their being a number of denominations being a downfall is not valid to me. We went through 1000 years of Catholic totalitarian practices, and the problems were staggering in regards to corruption, anti-scriptural practices, filthy lucre, etc. etc. Yes those are still problems but the faith functions a lot better under the umbrella of liberty. Many of the issues we disagree with each other are secondary issues, not primary ones (example, sprinkling vs immersion baptism) Why I believe it contains a message is that I start with the belief in a creator of the Universe and narrowing my way down to the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. I answered this question twice earlier in the thread if you desire to see my personal line of thinking on this which isnt perfect but it makes better since to me than any other way of looking at it and the promises are so great in regards to the covenant that it is the right thing to do
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Gibbo posted:What's your favourite passage to masturbate to? Leviticus 15:16 "'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Even if it's in a sheep?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Your point about their being a number of denominations being a downfall is not valid to me. We went through 1000 years of Catholic totalitarian practices, and the problems were staggering in regards to corruption, anti-scriptural practices, filthy lucre, etc. etc. Yes those are still problems but the faith functions a lot better under the umbrella of liberty. Many of the issues we disagree with each other are secondary issues, not primary ones (example, sprinkling vs immersion baptism) Okay, no offense, but as a Catholic myself, it sounds like you haven't made anything remotely resembling a serious study of the history of the Church (in the broadest sense). I would suggest reading a number of histories of the Reformation, particularly Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars. The situation of pre-Reformation Catholicism was far more diverse and complicated than it's usually made out to be in most accounts of the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Your point about their being a number of denominations being a downfall is not valid to me. We went through 1000 years of Catholic totalitarian practices, and the problems were staggering in regards to corruption, anti-scriptural practices, filthy lucre, etc. etc. Yes those are still problems but the faith functions a lot better under the umbrella of liberty. Many of the issues we disagree with each other are secondary issues, not primary ones (example, sprinkling vs immersion baptism) Thanks, this is interesting. I've never heard this kind of "democratic" approach to Christianity. It still doesn't make sense to me, since there are plenty of denominations that disagree about major things (free will and the nature of Jesus for example). And unlike the elements of a democratic society, you have the issue of all these denominations being factually correct or incorrect. However, if you are just looking at it with a utilitarian viewpoint, then I agree that Christianity does less harm when it is splintered than as one monolithic group. What does that say about Christianity, though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Okay, no offense, but as a Catholic myself, it sounds like you haven't made anything remotely resembling a serious study of the history of the Church (in the broadest sense). I would suggest reading a number of histories of the Reformation, particularly Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars. The situation of pre-Reformation Catholicism was far more diverse and complicated than it's usually made out to be in most accounts of the subject. Off the top of my head here are some serious issues the forgery of the donation of Constantine the selling of indulgences the Babylonian captivity of the papacy the refusal of printing Bibles in the people's vernacular Talking about works surrounding the Reformation, Martin Luther put it in no uncertain terms he believed the Papacy to be the antichrist, correct me if wrong on this. I realize there was a counter reformation, but that was in response to the liberation of the faith achieved by the Protestantism
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
FabioClone posted:However, if you are just looking at it with a utilitarian viewpoint, then I agree that Christianity does less harm when it is splintered than as one monolithic group. That is some interesting utilitarian math you must be doing, considering the splintering of Christianity caused some of the most brutal and destructive wars in Europe's history and continued to cause sectarian violence as recently as the second half of the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:That is some interesting utilitarian math you must be doing, considering the splintering of Christianity caused some of the most brutal and destructive wars in Europe's history and continued to cause sectarian violence as recently as the second half of the 20th century. I think that it is much like any scenario surrounding atrocities committed by Christians. For instance the devastation in Europe surrounding the 30 years war, the violence towards Anabaptists, St Bartholomew's day massacre all had to do with money, power, and control. The monarchs of Europe had long since used the Catholic church to establish domain over the poor folks through things such as lay investiture. The French, Spanish, and Holy Roman Empires power structures were linked to the Roman Catholic Church and protestantism threatened their hierarchy immensely. The teachings of Jesus in no way condoned this gratuitous bloodshed, it is the fault of the people who committed these heinous acts hardened harts, not Christ's instructions.As a Christian I believe the people responsible for this violence will have to face judgment for their actions, and that will bring justice ultimately. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:That is some interesting utilitarian math you must be doing, considering the splintering of Christianity caused some of the most brutal and destructive wars in Europe's history and continued to cause sectarian violence as recently as the second half of the 20th century. True, that is just an opinion since there's no way to know how history would have played out if the church had remained unified. I was thinking about the political and social power such a church would wield, and what kind of policies they would be able to enact. Basically, I was imagining the African Aids epidemic, but everywhere. Would more have suffered and died in that alternate history? Would we all live in a glorious, sin-free theocracy? Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I think that it is much like any scenario surrounding atrocities committed by Christians. For instance the devastation in Europe surrounding the 30 years war, the violence towards Anabaptists, St Bartholomew's day massacre all had to do with money, power, and control. yes of course religious motives are often used to justify these wars and acts as well as to motivate people to participate in them- that's hardly unique to Christianity. my point wasn't some sort of "Christianity bad" or anything to do with whether Jesus condoned the bloodshed. I'm questioning the claim that according to utilitarian calculation, Christianity would have done more harm had the Schism and Reformation never occurred. I don't really follow the logic to that. On the one hand, we know that a lot of devastation and violence was caused by these fragmentations, and on the other hand we have no idea what history would have looked like had those fragmentations not occurred. It's possible that an unfragmented Church that remained completely solid for its entire history would have somehow caused more destruction but I don't think we can say that as any sort of definite thing or even close. FabioClone posted:True, that is just an opinion since there's no way to know how history would have played out if the church had remained unified. I was thinking about the political and social power such a church would wield, and what kind of policies they would be able to enact. Basically, I was imagining the African Aids epidemic, but everywhere. Would more have suffered and died in that alternate history? Would we all live in a glorious, sin-free theocracy? Who knows? Certainly possible, though there's no certainty than an unfragmented Church would fail to develop internal reform movements addressing some of the problems with it. Though I do think we can say they would have developed much more slowly. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
The Anabaptists (double baptist- believers baptism to replace infant baptism) of Europe were the first Christians I know of to promote the idea of separation of church and state and I think its a great and necessary thing. Government and religion shouldn't be bedfellows. During the high day of the Roman Catholic Church (Innocent III era) it was unthinkable to separate the two. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Off the top of my head here are some serious issues -The Donation of Constantine was repeatedly contested within the Church from the year 1000 onward, and was definitively proven a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, who was himself a priest and never lapsed into heresy. -Selling indulgences was bad, yeah, which was why it was repeatedly condemned by popes prior to Tetzel and why Tetzel's selling of indulgence for sins not yet committed, much less pardoned, was a scandal. I would contend that in fact this was a problem connected with decentralization rather than the centralization of authority, and that this problem was in no way abated by the Reformation. Quite the contrary, the churches became more beholden to the local princes, and one saw flagrant abuses of royal power like the wholesale theft of wealth from English monasteries to fund Henry VIII's military campaigns. The practice of selling salvation is alive and well in modern America too: "prosperity gospel" churches are flourishing, and proving their preachers wrong is a game of theological he-said-she-said, with no authority able to make the call. These problems continue to this day and the Reformation didn't solve jack in that regard. -The Avignon Papacy didn't involve any questions of doctrine and I'm not sure why it's relevant, except to show that Popes are subject to political pressure in the same way as any other public figure, and sometimes they cave and do lovely things as a result. Popes have always done lovely things for political reasons and continue to do lovely things for political reasons. The longtime delay in the beatification and canonization of Blessed Oscar Romero was basically completely political. -They didn't print Bibles in vernacular because nobody even printed Bibles at all until 1440 when Gutenberg invented the printing press. Plenty of authorized translations of the Bible were made before then, including a translation of the Gospels into Old English by St. Bede, and a full bible translated into Old French in the 13th century. Unauthorized translations were, yes, banned, mostly because of the Cathars and Waldensians. After the promulgation of translations by the various factions in the Reformation, the Douay-Rheims Bible was circulated widely in the late 1500s. I should stress that I don't fully endorse all of these points myself, but frankly your grasp of the history of the period seems to consist almost exclusively of "these things were bad and thankfully we don't do them anymore," and your implicit contrast of the "totalitarian" practices of the Catholic Church with the "purified" practices of the Protestant Reformation betrays a really severe ignorance of the history of the medieval Church and of the Reformation itself. Please, for the sake of your future congregation, make a better study of these areas: it will only improve your ability to help your congregants and answer their questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:-The Donation of Constantine was repeatedly contested within the Church from the year 1000 onward, and was definitively proven a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, who was himself a priest and never lapsed into heresy. Regardless the scriptures were not given to the people to learn them; only the clergy were allowed to read the bible and the pope dictated the doctrine. Ordinary people were forced to go through the Roman church's hierarchy and could not get their Eucharist or other sacraments except by Roman Catholic approved clergy As far as unscriptural practices that the Reformation allowed denominations to choose for themselves whether to practice or not -the veneration of Mary -purgatory doctrine - praying to saints - forgiveness from only a Catholic priest / only official Eucharist The Roman Catholic Church upholds their traditions in equal respect to their scripture. Yet Mark 7:7-9 says They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” 9He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition. You disregard the obvious in favor of the obscure. Teaching the people the Word of God should be the priority of any church leader and not vein ceremony Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Your understanding of Catholicism is at best highly biased. I urge you to attend a Catholic service and speak to some Catholic priests. The faith of a Catholic is no less sincere and heartfelt than yours, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:Your understanding of Catholicism is at best highly biased. I urge you to attend a Catholic service and speak to some Catholic priests. The faith of a Catholic is no less sincere and heartfelt than yours, after all. Heartfelt and sincere are certainly virtues but they cannot replace scriptural truth in Christianity. I speak about the issue like I do out of love not hate. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
So, is there a specific event or date when Christ's Church became the apostate Roman Catholic Church?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Regardless the scriptures were not given to the people to learn them; only the clergy were allowed to read the bible and the pope dictated the doctrine. Ordinary people were forced to go through the Roman church's hierarchy and could not get their Eucharist or other sacraments except by Roman Catholic approved clergy The majority of people (especially non-elites) in Europe were illiterate, they couldn't have read the scriptures even if they had copies in their vernacular (which, as Bel Canto already pointed out, did exist). You seem to overlook the issue of *why* the institution of the Church existed. You had to go through the clergy to access the sacraments because they had the God-given authority (from Christ through Peter to the Church) to do so. Also, look at it from the Church's perspective. They believe they have the truth of the Gospel--why wouldn't they want to control who is allowed to teach, what they are allowed to teach, etc. in order to maintain its truthfulness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:33
|
|