.Well you said you agreed with the OP and that seemed to be what he is saying. Claiming liberal Christians are somehow less worthy of respect and less consistent than fundies is an error IMO and not an indication of reasoned judgement.
Another reasonable option is that God never intended for the scriptures to be in the place of authority that some men have given them. They were always a helpful guide and we were intended to commune with God directly.
Considering free will, or at least the illusion of it, it’s not surprising God allowed some men to make mistakes in understanding the message , just as he allows men to not believe at all.
It’s simply a matter of choosing a path for yourself and recognizing that the same path doesn’t work for everyone. I try hard to judge actions and attitudes rather than what they claim to believe or not believe.
If someone cultivates kindness and charity and humility through their religious faith then that’s a belief system I may not agree with completely but probably won’t critisize.
That’s because you are asigning some kind of authority to the Bible that those Christians may not. That’s what I find unreasonable and unfair.
Tons. Possibly genetic reasons also. That is true for practically all of our behaviors.
So, the HS was responsible for the Stonewall Riot and Rock Hudson? Interesting.
Your questions sound pretty good to me. I don’t think Bush’s holy guidance had any holy war as part of it. Iraq, relatively speaking, was a secular society. Just to be fair.
I didn’t get less worthy of respect. But less consistent is a given. Someone who says that he is going to follow all of the book is more consistent than someone who picks and chooses according to no given criteria. Now, consistency is not necessarily good, but it is consistent.
Go reread the Torah. It is in large part very specific rules to live by relevant for those living at the time it was written. It is less ambiguous than instructions for putting together Ikea furniture. I can understand saying the the NT, a collection of anecdotes and letters, is ambiguous. The passage quoted isn’t. Of course some Christians interpret it to mean something else, but the meaning was considered clear for about 1400 years.
I am reading the Confessions of St. Augustine and it does seem to give me the impression that faith in Christ is more of the attitude to life it gives you than the simple subscription of does and don’ts.
This is reflected in the early history of the Christian church. In very early days, any member of a Christian congregation could “prophesy.” They could channel (so to speak) the Holy Ghost, and make declarations of religious matters of faith.
The organized church quickly figured out how dangerous that way – anyone might say anything – and clamped down on individual declarations as forms of revelation.
The wide diffusion and variety of thought in Protestant denominations reflects a (slight) move back toward individual interpretation. Is there an item of dogma I feel strongly about? I can probably go church-shopping and find a nice minister who preaches exactly that.
That kind of thing is healthy, but as with anything, when what they are preaching goes directly against scripture, well, it is what it is.
IMO, there are only three choices that make logical sense: 1) unbelief, 2) belief, 3) belief with rebellion. Building a statue and worshipping it, whether you built it out of wood or in your mind, is idolatry, or if you prefer, an imaginary friend who endorses the morality which you have chosen for yourself.
I’m not going to condemn it, most people who believe in God do so in an a la carte fashion. We call those who take the whole thing seriously “fanatics” because they are the minority. But it seems to me that they have a better case. Their beliefs are supported by the text, whereas the beliefs of moderates are whatever they want them to be, even if they are directly at odds with plain language in the text.
Is that passage referring the Bible as we have it or just revelations, or maybe just the OT? How clear is it exactly?
Yup, he also said " and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." note, he doesn’t say infallible or always literal. If fact at one point he says. “I’m just giving my opinion” God breathed means inspired or influenced by. It doesn’t mean not at all influenced by the men that wrote it. Also he doesn’t say what qualifies as scripture, or that no other writings other than those selected for the Bible qualify. Ask the Mormons.
You’re doing it again. asigning beliefs to people you don’t know they actually have. The question is how exactly does inspiration work. How much influence does God have and how much does the human author have?pbody knows with any certainty, so people are free to decide where the lines are drawn that makes sense to them.
AS I said, I’m an agnostic so IMO the Bible has zero divine authority over me or anyone. I don’t believe it was ever intended to. That said, it can have a lot of practical use as a spiritual guide and tool for the journey, even if it;s just a good philosophy.
Hogwash. If one believes they are following the HS in their ongoing and sometimes changing understanding of the Bible then they are not, in their mind, being corrupted by society. They are simply on and life long journey.
A person who scrupulously follows the book is consistent in scrupulously following the book. That does not make anyone else less consistent. (It might appear that way to someone who places an extreme form of faith in the book, but that is not the problem of the person who is (consistently) following a separate tradition.)
There is more than ample evidence that the New Testament did not exist as a coherent “book” prior to around 150. Similarly, there is evidence that the the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms and other Writings were collated into “books” at different times by different people with different needs. It is only a matter of “consistency” if one begins with a Fundamentalist approach that the book, (in whatever form one reads it), was handed down directly by God as we find it.
If one sees the book as a series of efforts by humans interacting with God to write down the lessons of their interactions in ways that reflected that relationship at the time of writing while providing guidance for future people who will have different relationships with the Divine, then one simply follows a different consistent path.
You know and I know about the true origin of the Bible, but our hypothetical person who is consistently following it will probably not accept this.
The consistency I was referring to was consistency in following the Bible - no other. Now, since the Bible is morally inconsistent, I think it quite possible, even likely, that a moderate with a reasonable moral code could be more morally consistent picking and choosing parts of the Bible to accept than a fundamentalist who accepts the whole thing.
Now that is a selection criterion I can understand. Someone else might accept the J parts and reject the rest. Someone might accept Luke and not accept John. Someone might accept the parts Paul is thought to have actually written and not accept the parts ascribed to him. One might accept what the big guys in Rome say. All of those are quite reasonable, but all I’ve seen in this thread is that one part feels right and other parts don’t. Which at least is an answer. If someone has come up with a better one I missed, please give me a post number.
Forget about God. Much of the OT was a political document meant to centralize religion and support the priestly class. As such it was meant to have authority. That is clear even if you think there was zero divine inspiration. Otherwise, why all the rules?
If each person write their own Bible from the parts of the actual Bible they accept, for whatever reason, how much overlap do you think there would be?
I bet there would be massive differences even in which of the Ten Commandments you’d have in the personal Bibles.
We have as much reason to believe a religious or spirutal view can lead to personal growth as we do any secular one. It doesn’t ad any additional step, it is simply a different step. AS in, "what method do you prefer to become a better person. {assuming one has a goal like that}
That would only be the case if you assumed one life time was enough or was able to set some standard of what the HS ought to accomplish with a person. Nobody can do that. Not only that but personal growth is measured in all kinds of undocumented ways, not just in details of belief. What if someone simply becomes more patient , kinder, more forgiving. How do we measure that?
I don’t think age has anything to do with it. I think it has to do with intent and what the individual truly values, as opposed to what they give lip service to. remember the passage about people giving to the church in order to be seen by others, rather than with a sincere heart? Humans are multifaceted and nuanced and it can often be hard to discern real motives from the outside. Ultimately though I think each person has to decide what they value and where their priorities are , no matter if you are religious or not. One is not superior to the other in personal development in any way I’ve seen.
You’re talking about material testable things. I think more moderate or liberal Chrisitians would agree that facts and studies ought to be considered when seeking the truth.
Again you seem to be referring to material things. Since the subject is moderate or more liberal Christian I’m not sure your point applies. When it comes to personal growth I see no reason to think a secular path is somehow more effective than a religious one or that the path one person chooses is the correct one for everyone. People are to different for that to be the case IMO.
Brief anecdote; I vecame a Christian at 19 or 20. for a while my raised Catholic father attended with me , initially as just a show of support. Soon he found himself involved and believing more than he ever had. He started attending a church closer to his home because he craved more contact with other believers. Over time I left the church I was attending and eventually became an agnostic. In the meantime my Dad kept studying. He didn’t agree with everything the church he attended taught but that was okay. His belief and study led him to be kinder and more forgiving. It allowed him to let go of some past anger and resentment and have a better relationship with my Mom. Even though I didn’t share all his beliefs I could still appreciate the positive things this path had done for him and them. I’ll always be glad my limited time as a Christian helped his journey as well. So did I recover from Christianity or was it a nessecary part of my personal experience to get me from there to here? Who’s to say that the growth my Dad experienced could have been better accomplished without religion? Nobody can.
I realize that doesn’t prove anything, but I think we’re in an area where proof isn’t really available.
I think that depends on how much divine authority they claim the book has. A moderate or liberal Christian might see the Bible as an imperfect but still valuble guide and still be perfectly consistent. In their view , they are not picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow or ignore, but choosing to grant their internal guide, the HS, have the final authority. You may not agree , but it’s not inconsistent. I would say that any believer who does grant the words of the Bible some kind of divine authority, which is not the same as seeing it as inspired, might be seen to be inconsistent if they try to explain away and justify the verses they don’t want to follow. That’s especially true of those who insist the Bible is literally the word of God and infallible, and yet allow women to teach in church and attend with their heads uncovered.
Do I have to? Oh, no I don’t…whew!
I confess I have only read parts of the OT. I remember reading Leviticus and thinking that it looked like a bunch of rules made up to bring structure and discipline to an unstructured and undisciplined society. as in “If we tell them God said so they’re more apt to follow the rules”
I disagree. I think a viable alternative is deciding the HS has divine authority and the Bible is merely a helpful guide. IMO those who are more rigid and insist the Bible is the literal word of God a full of much more contadictions whan whose who accept we cannot know for sure but are still bound to do our best in sincrely seeking.
Personal growth - sure. Personal growth can come from any source at all, real or imagined. What could result in personal growth for one person could result in personal diminishing for another.
I was talking about truth, though, and that’s quite different.
Another reason to discredit potential HS, then. Not only do examples fail the “reasonable test” test, with reproducible answers - they don’t even necessarily give answers full stop!
And I think someone becoming more patient, kinder, and more forgiving would actually still be quite measurable by people changing denomination or religion en masse later in life.
But people absolutely do consider themselves superior in that regard, every day. A religious person has exactly the same level of evidence, and tools to examine that evidence, as another person with a completely different religion can have. It shows that, for the purposes of discerning truth - we can’t, by faith-based means. Yet, a religious person will go by their values and priorities, and not those of Joe down the street, not because they’re more accurate or more reasonable or more likely or more supported or more reproducible or more predictable; but because they’re personal. To quote Pratchett; personal isn’t the same as important.
I agree that they would. Except for the parts where they take stuff on faith.
Effective? No. A person could believe all sorts of utter nonsense - not that I am calling religion that, as I’m not - and be transformed into a great, humane person through that rubbish. Ultimately anything can probably change someone. Correct is a point of view, in the end, but I don’t disagree with you on that either.
There are already massive differences which IMO goes to my point. Even those who grant the Bible divine authority can’t agree on what that authority actually says. How is that more consistent in any way? IMO those who choose to be Christian as in disciples of Christ , and yet recognize that the Bible is merely a guide to help spiritual growth rather than an authoritative set of rules are being much more consistent. recognizing that humans are fallible and their relationship with God is an ongoing one is consistent.
John T. Sladek, in “The Mueller-Fokker Effect,” jokingly proposed a church based on the 128-fold path. He took seven principal tenets of the Nicene Creed – Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross, rose on the third day, ascended to heaven, etc. – and then allowed for the acceptance or negation of each tenet independently. This gives 128 different possible combinations, and each person is permitted to choose which of these variations he accepts.
Since the full Nicene creed has 23 terms, there would be 2^23 possible variants, some eight million or so, probably enough to find one suitable for nearly anyone, although not quite enough for every person on earth to have a unique one of his own.
Saying a supernatural entity is causing you to be inconsistent in your reading doesn’t make it less inconsistent. And the excuse for the inconsistency is that they have decided some parts have divine authority and some don’t. Unless they say why they’ve decided this, other than rolling metaphorical dice, it is no better.
Bingo. And the entire Bible can be explained the same way.
Now I’m confused. I thought the HS was telling you which parts of the Bible had divine authority, but now you are saying none do - since this is supposedly a direct statement from the old Son of God himself. And you are replacing it with something which might tell you to be tolerant or good, or might tell you to be a Wall Street trader or rob people blind. (Sorry, I’m repeating myself.) It wasn’t me, judge, it was my Holy Spirit.
(Granted, it was because the Romans were afraid he might try to overthrow the government but it amounts to the same thing)