Question for Christians on Morality

[Tiburon]

Ya that sounds like your level of knowledge is still around mummy and dada's dinner table.

You present nothing more challenging.

 

[5wize]

Yeshua is the name for the Holy Spirit. It has to do with Essene eschatology. Yeshua follows Moses according to the type. I wont bore you with the details.


Umm…,

”Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”

“But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.”

“you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.


You are misinformed. The Holy Spirit has not failed. He is in fact alive in every pious, virtuous soul forming a moral conscious in them. He is also bringing life to the cosmos starting with us.

Just for clarification, I don’t take the Gospels as historical accounts. As Baur said, the first miracle of the virgin birth excludes any history at that point. The Gospels are poetry with a nucleus of truth. The truth is that they canonize Paul’s epistles.


Yes, it is a mess. It is sloppy. It is inefficient. But it is up to us to make things right by growing a moral conscious within ourselves. By learning from our mistakes. By leaving the world better than the way we found it. Unfortunately, human nature of many slips back into old ways and history keeps repeating itself. But as a whole we will get to where we need to be. Maybe not in our lifetime but eventually. God has an insight into things that we must defer to.


You should read GRS Mead, a brilliant Englishman from the last century. He was the editor for Helena Blavatsky’s newspaper. Have you heard of her? Anyways, I am discovering brilliant people sprinkled around. Nobody has heard of them because they are few in number.

Do you feel this genius level complexity is accessible? What good is the knowledge if it has no fertile mind for it. What kind of humanity do we have to be intellectually to make this stuff practicable?

 

[Furion]

You present nothing more challenging.

No challenge here. Just a random post in a random thread where someone who thinks they are a Jew will show those Christians the last two thousand years was a mistake!

 

[Howie]

Actually Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. The righteous do not commit sin.

Matthew 5
20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

One's righteousness not only need surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, it must be perfect. Not only perfect, but as perfect as God is perfect. It is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

To be as perfect as God is to be God. It is impossible for men, thus the need for Christ (Rom 3 20; cf Gal 3).

Jesus reiterated the theme in the following:

Matthew 13
41“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43“Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
49“So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, 50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The righteous are those who have received the promise by faith (Rom 4; Gal 3)

 

[Howie]

Christians believe in cheap grace,

What grace do you believe in?

even though Jesus himself never said his righteousness is credited to them.

By whose righteousness are you saved, if you believe in the need for salvation?

 

[Algernon]

John 3:16-18 says that belief in Jesus = saved, non-belief in Jesus = condemned.

No mention of righteousness; it's "believe" vs "don't".

Setting aside the fact that it's likely not Jesus speaking in John 3:16-18, only by a very simple-minded literal interpretation of that verse. There's no mention of a lot of things in any given verse.

Is your "understanding" of scripture limited to the very simple-minded literal interpretations? Why?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Setting aside the fact that it's likely not Jesus speaking in John 3:16-18, only by a very simple-minded literal interpretation of that verse. There's no mention of a lot of things in any given verse.

Is your "understanding" of scripture limited to the very simple-minded literal interpretations? Why?

"Simple-minded" is insulting.

If this was not your intent, consider adjusting your language.
If it was, it's an ad hominem fallacy.

Back on topic, calling an interpretation "simple-minded" does not demonstrate that it is incorrect.

I am an atheist - I do not interpret the Bible; I am merely assuming the interpretation held by the vast majority of those that do.

 

[Algernon]

I am an atheist - I do not interpret the Bible; I am merely assuming the interpretation held by the vast majority of those that do.

This is your response to the following questions?: "Is your "understanding" of scripture limited to the very simple-minded literal interpretations? Why?"

You need to consider that by "assuming the interpretation held by the vast majority of those that do [interpret the Bible]", your "understanding" of scripture IS "limited to the very simple-minded literal interpretations". The second question spelled-out is "Why limit yourself?". Are you going to continue to avoid answering it?

"Simple-minded" is insulting.

If this was not your intent, consider adjusting your language.
If it was, it's an ad hominem fallacy.

Your "understanding" of ad hominem fallacy also seems to be very simple-minded. To gain a deeper understanding of what is and what is not an ad hom, read this: https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/#Not_an_Ad_Hominem.

Back on topic, calling an interpretation "simple-minded" does not demonstrate that it is incorrect.

If that were all there were to my posts, you might have a point. But it isn't. You've been ignoring many of the salient points of what I've been posting.

It's as if you've fully adopted not only the "interpretation" of the Bible prevalent amongst fundamentalist Christians, but also the very simplistic lines of thought. Why do you choose to operate on that level?

 

[Eightcrackers]

If that were all there were to my posts, you might have a point. But it isn't. You've been ignoring many of the salient points of what I've been posting.

You think your interpretation is right; they think theirs is.
You offer evidence; they offer evidence.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to tell which of you is right.
And, luckily, no need - you are arguing over the best way to get to Narnia, IMO.

 

[Eightcrackers]

This is your response to the following questions?: "Is your "understanding" of scripture limited to the very simple-minded literal interpretations? Why?"

You need to consider that by "assuming the interpretation held by the vast majority of those that do [interpret the Bible]", your "understanding" of scripture IS "limited to the very simple-minded literal interpretations". The second question spelled-out is "Why limit yourself?". Are you going to continue to avoid answering it?



Your "understanding" of ad hominem fallacy also seems to be very simple-minded. To gain a deeper understanding of what is and what is not an ad hom, read this: https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/#Not_an_Ad_Hominem.


If that were all there were to my posts, you might have a point. But it isn't. You've been ignoring many of the salient points of what I've been posting.

It's as if you've fully adopted not only the "interpretation" of the Bible prevalent amongst fundamentalist Christians, but also the very simplistic lines of thought. Why do you choose to operate on that level?

You say a man can be righteous and get into heaven?
Romans 3:10 says there are none righteous.

Please explain.

 

[Algernon]

You think your interpretation is right; they think theirs is.
You offer evidence; they offer evidence.
As far as I can tell, there's no way to tell which of you is right.
And, luckily, no need - you are arguing over the best way to get to Narnia, IMO.

And of course again you've ignored most of the salient points of what I've been posting.

Are you really unable to make the distinction between the quality of "evidence" given?
Here's a thought: Maybe you'd be able to make the distinction if you stopped ignoring most of the salient points that I've been posting.

Consider the following debate: The Earth is billions of year old vs the Earth is less than ten thousand years old. Are you buying when someone says, "One side thinks their interpretation of the evidence is right, the other side think theirs is. One side offers evidence. The other side offers evidence. As far as I can tell, there's no way to tell which of you is right."? It's a ridiculously simple-minded position to hold.

BTW, did you learn anything about what is and what is not an ad hom? Or are you going to insist on continuing to hold a simple-minded position for that too?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Are you buying when someone says, "One side thinks their interpretation of the evidence is right, the other side think theirs is. One side offers evidence. The other side offers evidence. As far as I can tell, there's no way to tell which of you is right."?

No, because there are empirical facts that favour one side more heavily than the other.
With the Bible, we have nothing of the kind - people support their interpretations of Bible verses by citing yet more verses.

I note that you did not address the Romans verse that said "none are righteous"... what is your interpretation of that verse? How do you dredge up an exegesis that allows for some to be righteous?

BTW, did you learn anything about what is and what is not an ad hom? Or are you going to insist on continuing to hold a simple-minded position for that too?

An ad hominem is an attempt to rebut an argument by attacking the person, not the argument.
All you did was call my interpretation "simple-minded", without demonstrating why.

 

[Algernon]

An ad hominem is an attempt to rebut an argument by attacking the person, not the argument.
All you did was call my interpretation "simple-minded", without demonstrating why.

I take it that you either failed to read the link or failed to understand it. Which?

FWIW I have been demonstrating "why". Once again, if you stopped ignoring most of the salient points that I've been making, you might be able to understand this.

 

[Algernon]

I note that you did not address the Romans verse that said "none are righteous"... what is your interpretation of that verse? How do you dredge up an exegesis that allows for some to be righteous?

I hadn't addressed it because you posted it while I was putting together my earlier post in response to your earlier post.

Be that as it may, why should I bother to address Romans when you ignore most of the salient points I've been making? Do you understand that that's a tactic often taken by the simple-minded?

That said, I'll address Romans if you provide a cogent answer to BOTH of my questions and agree to stop ignoring the salient points of my posts.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Be that as it may, why should I bother to address Romans when you ignore most of the salient points I've been making?

Because Romans is not a point of mine; it's a point of the Bible's.

If you can't explain it away, just say so - I've no skin in this game.

 

[Algernon]

Because Romans is not a point of mine; it's a point of the Bible's.

If you can't explain it away, just say so - I've no skin in this game.

Seems you ignored the following from my post:

Do you understand that that's a tactic often taken by the simple-minded?

That said, I'll address Romans if you provide a cogent answer to BOTH of my questions and agree to stop ignoring the salient points of my posts.

Why?


Also why do you choose to operate on such a simple-minded level?

 

[Tiburon]

No challenge here. Just a random post in a random thread where someone who thinks they are a Jew will show those Christians the last two thousand years was a mistake!

So you don't believe them? Or you don't think todays Jews are really Jews?

 

[Furion]

So you don't believe them?

Who is them?

The idea that you think Jews have a monolithic opinion of everything?

I don't believe you, Mr. Them.

Or you don't think todays Jews are really Jews?

I think you have no idea, so you have to ask me. Have you asked a geneticist?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Thanks for your response.

Ok, thanks Howie. And thank you for keeping things civil.