Page 8 of 8 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

13 Apr 2010, 1:34 pm

Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
I find it fascinating that when I point out the irrational acceptance of belief in things that clear thinking has proved untrue, and research confirms in many ways it is untrue, this is taken as an insult. Perhaps it is taken as insulting because the believer is suddenly face to face with his or her gullibility and that is extremely uncomfortable.


Acceptance of Christ and the plan of salvation is not irrational at all. Early Christians had to think clearly when they made that decision. Being openly Christian meant a very real possibility of untimely death at the hands of your persecutors. Taking such a leap of faith could not be decided on a whim. My understanding of early church tradition is that some congregations, new converts had to wait at least a year before they could take part in church ceremonies like baptism and communion. I think the idea was to give a new convert enough time to change his mind or to see if he'd really thought things through and was friendly towards his brother Christians. I doubt these people could often distinguish between their friends and enemies within the church. For a new convert to officially, formally, publicly join a congregation, one had to be sure this person was a clear-thinker and rational. Otherwise, their persecutors could exploit his weaknesses and use him against his church.

Research neither "confirms" nor "denies" anything about faith. Your obsessive, irrational reliance on it does, however, bely your own misgivings on matters of faith. You cleverly use psychology to illicit irrational, emotional responses from believers, and then you hide behind your puny "science" and "research" as a way to conceal your guilt. Your self-righteous indignation towards believers reflects a closed mind and a shallow intellect. The only thing that makes what you say true is the fact that YOU say it; and what is truly sad, in my opinion, is that you'll just keep saying it until you make yourself actually believe it. A truly rational person, on the other hand, would trust in objective evidence to stand on its own merits--not set emotional traps for those you fear hold superior, objectively/subjectively more solid beliefs than yours.


That somebody should be using the internet and openly describes science as "puny" strikes me as weird.

I am also very curious about the guilt you seem to detect in me. What guilt might that be? I continuously attempt to correct people on their misconceptions. That is a form of psychological first aid. No guilt involved.




sand.... look at the bolded few sentences and then look at the bible verse (2nd Peter 3:3-4) and laugh.

also... the last sentence, specifically... in relation to the notion that "...you hide behind your puny "science" and "research"..." ...if only you could be as the "truly rational person" who "would trust in objective evidence to stand on its own merits--not set emotional traps for those you fear hold superior, objectively/subjectively more solid beliefs than yours," then you might not hide behind such "puny" things as "science" and "research"... instead, you could say that people who deny the authenticity of your invisible friend simply have "misgivings on matters of faith." oh yeah, and say they feel guilty. ...guilty that they don't agree with you. that way they can't get you with clever uses of psychology to illicit irrational and emotional responses from believers/nonbelievers.



seriously?

....like..........really?

2nd Peter 3:3-4 explains a lot, sand. you should read your bible again.

if you find the english versions boring, might i suggest http://www.lolcatbible.com.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Apr 2010, 1:53 pm

Sand wrote:
That somebody should be using the internet and openly describes science as "puny" strikes me as weird.


The words, "science" and "research", are in quotation marks to indicate the meaning of the Greek prefix pseudo in conjunction with your argumentation.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2010, 1:54 pm

I give up. These people don' even know what they're saying.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

13 Apr 2010, 2:44 pm

Quote:
The "rigid legalism" you mention came from men, not from Torah. So, that would not be a reason for dispensing with Torah (the law). The "intent of the Law" is something we might only speculate about unless we can read the mind of the One who created us, but I can say it has shown me a pathway to freedom from the enslavements of ego, fear, pride and ignorance.


Certainly. It's not dispensing with the law. It's dispensing with the man-made laws. I like to call them "laws about Laws" (the Law given to Moses as opposed to the additional laws concerning them). Different Jewish sects even disagreed on which law to follow, the oral laws AND the written law? Or just the written Law? I think Jesus is just telling people to love God and treat each other well, which is the intent and purpose of the Law to begin with. It's interesting that Moses had to SPELL OUT don't have sex with your mom, your sister, or your dog, for example, and you don't have to be brought up in Judeo-Christian tradition for that to make sense!

Quote:
Can you show even one saying we no longer need to be obedient? Grace and faith do not provide license, and neither do they remove the pain caused by sin.


Depends on what you mean here. Grace and faith do NOT provide license on which we agree. The pain caused by sin is that we all must face earthly death. But faith and grace do erase the stain of sin that ultimately results in eternal separation from God.

As far as actual Biblical references go, unfortunately all I have with me at the moment is a KJV Bible that I keep with me at my teaching studio, so trying to interpret this is going to be a little rough. I apologize for not getting more or better examples.

Acts 21:25--As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Just by coincidence, trying to find other verses in support of freedom from the Law, I found this:

Colossians 2:13-14--And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

Quote:
To me, that sounds like a man-conceived approach to something, but for what purpose would someone want to have "behaviors consistent with belief" other than to be accepted by mere men?


Primarily to glorify God through one's actions. The GREATEST commandment: Love God. Our actions are a means through which we love God. A corollary to that is that we love others. Jesus said that to love others is to love Him. Therefore, being good to others and genuinely loving them is also an act of loving God. The intent of the Law was to love God (Moses even said that), and the actions of the Israelites in keeping the Law served to show their love of God through obedience to Him. A sacrifice was not a perfect sacrifice without the heart of the believer.

Being acceptable to mere men "ought" to follow a as consequence of obedience to and faith in God. Of course we know that Christians had to hold out for a few centuries before their religion was accepted (the actions of the Roman Catholic Church is a completely different topic. Suffice it to say they were not always consistent with the kind of doctrine I'm talking about). My point is that you'd think someone who believed in Christ and sought to emulate Him at the very least would carry out those kinds of things (trying to be a good person, witnessing to unbelievers, and so on).

Intent of the Law is knowable because the Bible itself gives us insight to God's mind. Do we always know or understand God's will and purpose? No, otherwise we'd be better at doing it. The purpose of the Law was to show the Israelites as to how they may love and serve God through obedience. Of that the OT is clear. And if it wasn't, Jesus Himself clarified it for the Jews. And if His message isn't enough to clarify as to how these precept apply to Gentiles, you have the writings of Paul and other apostles.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

13 Apr 2010, 3:23 pm

waltur wrote:
oh yeah, and say they feel guilty. ...guilty that they don't agree with you. that way they can't get you with clever uses of psychology to illicit irrational and emotional responses from believers/nonbelievers.



Gee, waltur, I didn't realize you felt so strongly about it! I didn't really expect Sand to have any big reaction to it because he's to smart to fall for it. I figured that comment would have just been passed by and ignored, but thank you for helping me prove my point.

What I'm trying to get at here is certain things are bound to get reactions. I didn't say anything that was necessarily "wrong," so to speak, but I did just enough overstepping to get a psychological effect. I must have struck a nerve, because it seems waltur is beside himself.

Oh, just to clear something up: "Guilt" has two meanings. I never said Sand FELT guilty about anything. A criminal may be proven guilty of a crime in the sense that evidence shows that he did it, for example, with surveillance video, fingerprints, DNA, fibers that match clothes, and so on. That does not indicate that he FEELS any guilt, remorse, or regret. It remains true, however, that Sand does write those kinds of inflammatory remarks which have no more purpose than the opposite kinds of inflammatory remarks I used. Sand claims to use "psychological" first aid. Comments made with that kind of language do not serve as any kind of balm to a wound; it only aggravates the infection. Further, it only distracts from the real point, for which Sand doesn't have all the answers.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 Apr 2010, 8:18 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Just by coincidence, trying to find other verses in support of freedom from the Law, I found this:

Colossians 2:13-14--And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;


That only means exactly what it says, and it only says the writ against us, a record of offenses, was "nailed to the cross" (as if "paid in full" had been written across it), as was the legal practice of the day. That does not in any way include Torah.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

13 Apr 2010, 10:47 pm

leejosepho wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Just by coincidence, trying to find other verses in support of freedom from the Law, I found this:

Colossians 2:13-14--And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;


That only means exactly what it says, and it only says the writ against us, a record of offenses, was "nailed to the cross" (as if "paid in full" had been written across it), as was the legal practice of the day. That does not in any way include Torah.


I should probably study up more on the context of those verses. Like I said, I was going with only what I had available at the time, and I'm just not adept at King James English. And I'm not even saying that was the best supporting passage. I just thought it was interesting that I found it while searching for other NT verses and you'd mentioned the whole "nailed to the cross" thing that you'd grown up with.

The main point of contention for the Greeks was the issue of circumcision. It IS required in the Torah. The NT writers appear to refute that. I think the spirit of NT writers regarding the Law is that if you're going to rely on the Law for conducting your day-to-day life, you have to take ALL of it--no picking and choosing what suits you. I THINK I just read in 1 Kings that even Solomon recognized that NO ONE follows the Law completely. Even if we tried this today, the only proper place to sacrifice and atone for personal sin is at the Temple, which of course no longer exists. Why would God allow His people no recourse in the Law if He intended that the Law still be followed as it was in the OT? That means that the Jewish people no longer have ANY hope for mercy or forgiveness, much less Christians if we are also to follow the Law.

The only solution I see for Christians is that the Law be regarded as a general guide for morality, such as the 10 Commandments, rather than a legalistic checklist. If even Solomon could recognize that all fail to uphold the Law, then it follows that there is a need for some kind of redemption that is above the Law or supersedes the Law. While the Law can point out those things that specifically are detestable to God and must be avoided, such as murder, idolatry, adultery, lying, stealing, and so on, a Gentile is left with the task of discerning which laws pertain to the setting apart of the Israelites for God. Those things pertain to keeping Kosher dietary laws, certain codes of dress, circumcision, among others. If there's any doubt as to what Christians are to keep, we have the writings of Paul (keeping natural distinctions, such as hair length and gender-appropriate clothing). By extension, these kinds of codes are relative to various cultures of various times--for example, women these days can wear pants and still be "feminine," while Pentecostals insist on men wearing pants while women may ONLY wear long skirts at the very least. My agreement with some of these practices is irrelevant, because one only has his/her own conscience and the Bible to decide what exactly this means.

I don't see that as a rejection of the Law.