G
- Status
D
Dokimas
Guest
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thank you, Ralph
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello Dokimas;
Your comments to my original post are above - with yours in blue. You missed my point. The “Church” is not simply a conglomeration of those who have trusted Jesus, etc. as you point out. The “Church” founded by Jesus had the authority to teach and declare doctrine, as evidenced by the Apostles in Acts, and the other actions of the early church recorded elsewhere. I think it is clear that the command to “take it to the church” has to do with taking a dispute to a body with authority to resolve the issue. That implies more than just a local group of believers. It implies a local representative (e.g. a bishop) who speaks with authority on issues of doctrine and morals. Such a person does not exist in the reformed church communities (except perhaps in name only), but it is clear from scripture that the position was necessary to the functioning of the church in each location, so that doctrine remained uniform and correct.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
So, how do you think the early local church communities dealt with such situations before the books of the NT were compiled and agreed upon?
Peace,
Robert
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
I’m a walking heresy 
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
T
Teneas
Guest
Yeah was there once myself. Ended up murdering my unborn child, almost landing in prison for 20 years, adultery, the list goes on.
You have to believe in something, or this life is not worth it.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Wow; that’s pretty deep! So unless I believe in an ancient fairy tale my life is worthless? Alrighty then … btw I don’t believe in anything really, and I have a law degree, I serve in the military, I’m a war veteran, and I’ve never commited adultery (although I guess it depends on how you define adultery, I’ve never had sex with a married woman, I’m single, and I’ve never been married, which according to the “legal definition” of adultery precludes me from any possible culpability, even though I’m not a virgin, love sex, and in fact I strongly encourage it for everyone … responsibly of course).
W
wreinmicheal
Guest
The term heresy is also used as an ideological pigeonhole for contemporary writers because by definition heresy depends on contrasts with an established orthodoxy. For example, the tongue-in-cheek contemporary usage of heresy, such as to categorize a “Wall Street heresy” a “Democratic heresy” or a “Republican heresy”, are metaphors which invariably retain a subtext that links orthodoxies in geology or biology or any other field to religion. These expanded metaphoric senses allude to both the difference between the person’s views and the mainstream, and the boldness of such a person in propounding these views.
Variance from orthodox Marxism-Leninism is described as “right” or “left deviationism.” The Church of Scientology uses the term “squirreling” to refer to unauthorized alterations of its teachings or methods.
Variance from orthodox Marxism-Leninism is described as “right” or “left deviationism.” The Church of Scientology uses the term “squirreling” to refer to unauthorized alterations of its teachings or methods.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Actually, everything you said after you said you don’t believe in anything is a list of things that you have believed in.
You believe in the law, and the rule of it.
You believe in the need for the military and serve in it.
You believe everyone needs to have responsible sex.
Like all atheists, you do believe in some things, just not God.
T
Teneas
Guest
I never said your life is worth nothing. You took it that way. I said you have to believe in something. I don’t know you at all, so how can I sit here and say you believe in nothing? You obviously believe in the country you served, you believe in the law apparently, so you do believe in something. Let’s hope those things have an afterlife for you.
G
GKC
Guest
True. And within the context of Catholic Christianity, the term has some specificity, too.
“I think it’s all a bunch of baloney” seems taxonomically inadequate.
GKC
“I think it’s all a bunch of baloney” seems taxonomically inadequate.
GKC
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Excellent points! Although I’m not sure I’m exactly an atheist (at least most atheists would probably call me agnostic). I don’t try to come up with far fetched explanations to demystify some of the compelling facts that exist out there, which might support the idea of (for instance) a human soul (which would infer the existence of some sort of consicious spiritual element, call it god). I simply view the claims made by religion as untrue. I do, however, acknowledge and note the fact that using certain facts to support the idea of a god, simply because science lacks adequate explanations, is an argument from ignorance (and the pattern is we fill the gaps of our ignorance with religion only to have those gaps later filled in with scientific discovery and real knowledge, which precludes the previous religious explanation).
Nonetheless, using this form of inductive reasoning to completely rule out the possibility of a god is fallacious; and I understand that. Indeed some of the “compelling facts” I refer to are affirmative claims (rather than merely arguments from ignorance).
While I might view certain aspects of Christian virtue as admirable (and desireable), I admit the idea that a god would have created a universe with the intention of eventually coming to earth on a suicide mission, is simply not plausible to me (notwithstanding I believed this claim for most of my life). Moreover, how we can say god is all loving and consistently trustworthy, yet on the other hand have murdered thousands of Egyptian infants and young children?
Maybe part of the reason we’re so screwed up (as a human race) is our view of god is so screwed up. If there is a god, how can we imagine he’s anything less than perfectly rational, intelligent, and above all emotionally stable (gee wiz, at least I hope he is). Doesn’t it strike anyone that the idea of a god whose vengeful, destructive, angry, etc. is simply reflective of a primitive nature. In other words, it can’t represent an all intelligent and rational god, rather it merely reflects what humanity once was in a primitive stage of our development
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Thank you; as far as your list? I respectfully commented to your rejection of them, and commented briefly to your list of objections for the sake of clarity for you and anyone passing by the threads; at no charge to you, of course. I would just hope and pray that you and possibly others would know and understand what you are rejecting, before you reject them?
R
ralphinal
Guest
What if I told you that the traits listed (anger, vengeful, etc) where human terms used to describe what they saw OR human terms used by God to people who could not understand?Excellent points! Although I’m not sure I’m exactly an atheist (at least most atheists would probably call me agnostic). I don’t try to come up with far fetched explanations to demystify some of the compelling facts that exist out there, which might support the idea of (for instance) a human soul (which would infer the existence of some sort of consicious spiritual element, call it god). I simply view the claims made by religion as untrue. I do, however, acknowledge and note the fact that using certain facts to support the idea of a god, simply because science lacks adequate explanations, is an argument from ignorance (and the pattern is we fill the gaps of our ignorance with religion only to have those gaps later filled in with scientific discovery and real knowledge, which precludes the previous religious explanation).
Nonetheless, using this form of inductive reasoning to completely rule out the possibility of a god is fallacious; and I understand that. Indeed some of the “compelling facts” I refer to are affirmative claims (rather than merely arguments from ignorance).
While I might view certain aspects of Christian virtue admirable, I admit the idea that a god would have created a universe with the intention of eventually coming to earth on a suicide mission, is simply not plausible to me (notwithstanding I believed this claim for most of my life). Moreover, how we can say god is all loving and consistently trustworthy, yet on the other hand have murdered thousands of Egyptian infants and young children?
Maybe part of the reason we’re so screwed up (as a human race) is our view of god is so screwed up. If there is a god, how can we imagine he’s anything less than perfectly rational, intelligent, and most of all emotionally stable (gee wiz, at least I hope he is). Doesn’t strike anyone that the idea of a god whose vengeful, destructive, angry, etc. is simply reflective of a primitive intelligence. In other words, it can’t represent an all intelligent and rational god, rather it merely reflects what humanity once was in a primitive stage of our development
In other words, they are not really descriptions of God, but primitive terms used to describe God in the only way they could?
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Well, first let me say I reject the historicity of events like the Exodus (which is at this point a view consistent with modern mainstream archeology, notwithstanding there’s obviously some dissent among scholars, but of course the dissent tends to come from biblical scholars and others engaged in apologetics, in one form or the other).
However, going beyond that to a purely philosophical critique, if we simply look at the events themselves (as the stories are told), the mass murder of infants and young children is difficult to reconcile with love (no matter how primitive or modern the perspective). The god of the bible is a mass murderer of infants, no way around it. Now you have to try and come up with reasons why the mass murder of infants can be consistent with love.
I’d rather think the mass murder of infants cannot be consistent with love, and the creator of this universe would not have killed sentient, innocent beings simply to provide a pretext for things he planned to do later.
- Status