@PaulVargas That's probably not a good verse to give to someone with honest questions and doubts. It seems to be saying if they don't believe, it's their own fault. The blame game is not likely to change anyone's mind.
@PaulVargas Reconciling the God of Job and the God of the NT has been puzzling the greatest theological minds for literally centuries. I don't think you can just throw up 1 Cor 2:14 as the explanation.
Not to mention that this is taking 1 Cor 2:14 terribly out of context. That verse is talking specifically about the coming of the Messiah, and how the "rulers of the age" did not discern that Jesus was the Messiah. To therefore blindly apply that same verse about spiritual wisdom to any mystery is, in my opinion, at best sloppy.
@PaulVargas fredsbend said: "Did some formal study at a Bible school in the US about 8 years ago. Find enjoyment from reading books like the Moody Handbook of Theology. Raised Catholic until 14. Followed the typical non-denominational dogma until about 23. Now I pick what I like from the various opinions on topics rather than the whole."
@BruceAlderman Perhaps, the best way to minister to new Christians is to start Christian ministries that support charity work in God's name. Then, people would see the good that so-and-so Christians do, and join the Christian community. As a matter of fact, that's very close to how Barack Obama converted to Christianity.
The last part of 1 cor 1 is also about the crucifiction
1 Cor 2 follows from that
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God
@PaulVargas This two months, I have come to the realisation that 99% of scripture can be read in two ways that yield different meanings with similar context. Not as in literal or metaphorical way, but in 1) What they mean and 2) What they also denote.
It also denotes that we need to have tact and not pull scripture out. Scripture is a double-edged sword, you see. Now, when I read verses about unbelievers, I treat them as a FYI thing, so I would have more tact and not wrongly use scripture to convert someone or tell someone they are wrong etc
@Flimzy It seems that human free will is more powerful than God. God somehow can't stop Adam and Eve from sinning. Similarly, God can't stop human beings from sinning. On the other hand, the nature of free will is a complicated theological matter by itself. :P
@Anonymous If God stops everyone from doing bad things, there will be no free will, then people might start complaining, and then God would have to make all of them feel joy. Then why create us in the first place?
@Anonymous Anyone can be perceived to be cold, aloof, and heartless, if we choose to so perceive them--even if they are the warmest, most intimate, and caring people in the world.
Zoe: Most creeds exist to distill complex beliefs into something easier to discuss, so that we have a starting point for a discussion.
Zoe: If you say you have faith in God,and I say I have faith in God, how do we know we mean the same thing?
Zoe: We could spend hours discussing what we each mean... and then when a third person comes along, we'd spend hours discussing it with them, too
Zoe: Or we can write a summary statement, which we think about for hours, to make sure it's as clear as possible, then we can share that summary statement with each other and know in seconds or minutes what we mean
Zoe: That's the fundamental reason that creeds and statements of faith exist.
I know creeds are like confessions/statements of belief. From the Bible, I could also say about everything that I believe, yet would not feel the need to label it as something creed, yet still convey the same thing as the creed.
From the Bible, would people not know that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate?
That Christ is the Son of God?
That Mary is a virgin who gave birth?
I think creeds are fine except for some churches reciting them or people justifying their belief because the creed says so. But I would not dwell in them because I can't agree with every line it has.
OR people substantiating their belief by adding, "Oh that creed says it also." like is the Bible not enough ._.
Well I certainly dont worship the Bible and also admit that the Bible we have now are copies of copies. I put that in one of my answers. The thing is, because the Bible is the only written word of God that we have, it should be placed higher than doctrines, and need no other to substantiate it.
From the Bible, I do know that it is possible for God to honour our faith if we believe wrongly the commands or things of Him, but I have no idea, what happens when we believe wrongly the things of man.
@Flimzy They are similar, modern Christians blur them, that's also why I think that creeds and doctrines are dangerous waters to tread in. I think I would stumble all the time if I subscribed to a denomination are read their doctrines.
Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary") is a term, as well as the name of a figure appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions who brings evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver that leads humanity astray. Some religious groups teach that he originated as an angel who fell out of favor with God, seducing humanity into the ways of sin, and who now rules over the fallen world. In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Satan is primarily an accuser and adversary, a decidedly malevolent entity (a.k.a. the devil) who possesses demonic qualities.
In Theistic Satanism, Satan...
I probably went by the first definition. The definition of the fallen angel from heaven. But I went by that definition because I got that information from watching a documentary.
I can definitely see how those definitions overlap.
People who admire Satan as the embodiment of certain human qualities or worship Satan like a deity are labelled "Satanists".
I am not sure what this Satan-as-a-deity is supposed to represent.
@Flimzy - based on Romans 5, denying a literal Adam (and therefore literal Eve) gives no reason for sin to have entered the world, and therefore the reasoning for Christ being th perfect second Adam falls on its face
I was reading DK Publishing's The Illustrated Bible Story By Story. The authors claim to be biblical scholars, historians, and pastors, which may give a Christian slant to the Bible, even though the audience, as they claim in the book, is for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. The autho...
Really, I am looking for an answer from a "Trinitarian" perspective, but specifically whoever that Joy Ann McDougall is citing.
Source: McDougall, Joy Ann. "A Trinitarian Grammar Of Sin." Modern Theology 27.1 (2011): 55-71. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.
Cited Source: David Kelsey,...
@Flimzy: while I personally hold to a fully-literal view of the creation account (for a host of reasons which I've enumerated elsewhere) .. at the very least understanding Day 6 to be literal (from the perspective of the special, intentional creation of Adam and Eve), the rest of scripture falls on its face
@warren: They said the same thing about the shape of the Earth 500 years ago. When you build your theology on such shaky ground as the specific interpretation of any verse, you're bound for eventual failure.
@warren: People were executed for suggesting the earth wasn't flat, because a round earth would cause the entire gospel to "fall flat". Obviously the gospel survived.
And I suggest that the gospel survives with a metaphorical creation account, too. In fact, I say it thrives all the more.
Anyone who says "The entire gospel falls apart if you believe ___" has very little faith in the gospel.
Rather, I suggest, they have faith in a particular interpretation or superstition about the gospel, which is not the gospel itself.
I have my own concepts of what the gospel means, naturally.... But I also recognize that some of my beliefs are wrong (I just don't know which ones, or I would change them!)
But that doesn't prevent me from putting faith in something that I don't fully understand, to the letter, in every detail.
As soon as I say that only my concept of the gospel is correct, my faith has moved from the true gospel (about which I have ideas, some of which are not be correct), and my faith has moved instead to a concept (which certainly is NOT correct).
@BruceAlderman Is that not the convention? "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." I personally call BS on this verse. Witnessing the resurrected Christ worked for Paul, and it would work for me too.
@PaulVargas Raised Catholic. I have personal attachments to the hierarchy and organization to the Church, but I did not agree with a lot of their doctrines. Was was typical nondenominational for a long while after that. Then I had some personal stuff happen in my life that made me seriously consider the bigger questions about Christianity and question its validity. I've come to a point of rejecting its claimed validity.
Recognizing our own bias is very important, and a sign of a certain type of maturity. But having bias does not mean that our experiences (or perceptions of them) are automatically invalid. It only means that we have a bias which we ought to account for to whatever extent possible.
@Flimzy I might be completely off here, but when you talked about corporate salvation, as opposed to individual, the first thing I thought of was a view of the Church as the Chosen People - the People of God. That is a common Catholic view (at least since the second half of the 20th century) - is it shared outside Catholicism?
@warren AT the time of those stories, the concept of heaven didn't really exist... so they clearly didn't adopt them into the nation of Israel for them to earn individual salvation.
@warren: Jews believed they were the chosen people of God, and that to fulfil God's (corporate) purpose, it was vital that they remain pure... This is why conversion was required before intermarriage was possible--to keep the people of God pure. Not for the converted to "receive salvation"
@Flimzy Am I misreading? It looks like @warren is saying we only have a "bulleted summary" of Moses' time on the mountain; however Exodus says Moses "wrote down all the words of the Lord." I don't see how that could possibly be read as Moses wrote down just the highlights.
@warren I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. If you're saying that God revealed things to Moses at various times in his life that didn't end up in the legal code, I could agree with that. On the other hand, I don't agree that Exodus is merely a "bulleted summary of his time on the mountain with God."
@BruceAlderman - I'm not convinced that it was merely the law and pattern of the temple that was given to Moses on the mountain. If it was, then we have it all (and the statement of 24:4 is comprehensive). If it wasn't, then it's only true for the period just passed prior to the statement.