« first day (1994 days earlier)      last day (2644 days later) » 

12:00 AM
@KorvinStarmast I wouldn't worry too much about helping that particular person. He was quite disruptive when he was active about three years ago. I'd say a 7 or 8 out of 10 on the disruptometer.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:19 AM
0
Q: John 3:16 In Latin

Middle School HistorianI know that there exist many Ecclesiastical Latin and Medieval translations kept by professors and most catholic churches, but I decided, just to test my vocabulary, to translate John 3:16 into Classical. I need an alternative point of view on my rough translation so that any more experienced lea...

 
2:10 AM
@fredsbend OK, as I was not in on the history I was hoping to be of help.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:11 AM
I just had an argument with one atheist who asked me to explain a simple fact: Sweden has one of the lowest crime rates in the world while 80% percents of its population now are atheists. If you are a Christian, how would you answer that?
 
What does that have to do with atheism?
Er, I guess I would explain that Sweden is a fairly prosperous region and their political efforts seem to have been largely effective in creating a safe and free society? Good for them?
Also a lot of sweedish people are atheists, which is sad :(
Not really sure what there is to explain...
 
3:27 AM
@thedarkwanderer So, your answer would be more like it's dependent more on the political efforts in the country rather than on its atheist/believers proportion. Did I understand it correctly?
 
@brilliant No, I'm not sure what the question is. It sounds like there is no question, just a request for an explanation. Was your atheist friend intending to imply that the country has less crime because it's atheist?
 
@thedarkwanderer Yes, that was his main point.
@thedarkwanderer Yes, that was his main point.
 
If so then my assertion would be that that is ridiculous. The USSR was majority atheist (at least in theory) and they had an enormous and unsustainable prison population. Some 'religious' countries have high crime rates, some have low. Furthermore, how do you even measure crime? Convictions? Police reports? Incarcerated population? And why would a high percentage of criminals be a bad thing, doesn't that depend on whether or not you support the local government's authority to legislate?
 
@thedarkwanderer I see now. Thank you!
 
Furthermore, even if it was true that religious persons were more likely to engage in bad acts (however we end up defining them) than atheists, is that really why you want to believe what you believe? It seems like you would want to hold beliefs that are true and good and just rather than beliefs that were useful-- if not then I think the supposed scientific evidence that a state religion is effective as a means of controlling a population is not really disputed in atheistic circles.
And moreover if religion as a whole results in bad acts compared to atheism as a whole, we still don't know that any given variety of religion is going to be worse than any given variety of atheism-- maybe the most-non-crime-inducing belief set is still religious.
Anyways, sorry about the rant ^^;
 
3:38 AM
@thedarkwanderer I see. So I guess it's not that simple as he puts it. Thank you.
 
no problem!
 
 
1 hour later…
5:05 AM
@El'endiaStarman If he's trolling again I hope he's suspended.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:08 AM
@brilliant I don't think religion correlates to crime in general. It may correlate to specific crimes, such as hate crimes. One of the strongest correlates to crime we see pretty much universally is social status or living quality. Sweden has a pretty good quality of life for its residents.
 
7:54 AM
I guess. It still bothers me to talk about crime without defining what we mean by it. Like, I think murder and theft and rape are bad, and I agree that those happen a lot less when people are generally well fed and happy and have a positive view of their future, so I'm on board with that, but I think probably the single largest cause of crime has got to be being made illegal. Like, we (humans) regularly criminalize things that make it impossible for others to continue existing legally.
@fredsbend For example, 100% of the atheists in Saudi Arabia are guilty of a serious crime. So were ( I assume) all the Jews under Hitler. Crime is only meaningful if you respect the law that was broken.
Besides, mandating individual action by virtue of desirable sociological averages is awful and leads to many many bad things. Believe things because they are true, not because they are useful. It's like all those people who are like 'Vampire Bats only give eachother blood because it's evolutionarily beneficial'.
Screw those people-- what give you the right to invalidate the internal experience of an entire species you hardly understand like that? Yes, if giving blood were not evolutionarily beneficial it would disappear eventually, but that has nothing to do with the bats' reasons for doing it.
We make choices, and our choices affect the world. belief sets that self-perpetuate more effectively given their environment than others will eventually dominate that environment. But that has nothing to do with why we make the choices we make, nor what choice we ought to make, nor what belief best corresponds to an external reality.
I think I'm overtired. Sorry about the rant ^^;
 
 
6 hours later…
1:59 PM
0
Q: What happens if someone re-asks same question

deppermA week or so ago a user asked this question on the Christianity website. In the comments, a user mentioned it should be migrated to the Mi Yodeya site. Before that happened he reasked the question there himself. When it was migrated it was then closed as a duplicate on that site. A while later he...

 
 
6 hours later…
7:32 PM
0
Q: How extra-bibilical is the extra-biblical tag?

Peter TurnerIn my opinion extra-biblical is different than apocrypha, but it's not the same as every-other-book, like books written about Mohamed in 700 AD. What defines a book as extra-biblical for the purposes of tagging questions? (it it even a necessarily a book? my shoes are extra-biblical).

 
7:43 PM
> my shoes are extra-biblical
And therefore from the Devil. Cast them away!
 
8:34 PM
@El'endiaStarman Especially if you see a burning bush!
 
Oooh, next time Purim Torah comes around, I should ask "What would have happened if you tried to use a fire extinguisher on the burning bush that Moses saw?" on Mi Yodeya.
 
> Believe things because they are true, not because they are useful.
This assumes that truth and usefulness are two different and unrelated things.
@El'endiaStarman Speaking of trolls . . . . :-P
 
@LeeWoofenden No, just that they are different. They can be related.
I mean, I certainly hope that the set of things which are true are also incrementally useful to believe in some way, such that humanity is encouraged by the laws of nature to persist in the pursuit of truth. But that doesn't change that seeking truth and seeking utility are not the same thing.
 
@LeeWoofenden Purim Torah is meant for such questions though.
 
It's like Aquinas's argument regarding the relationship between happiness and friendship in the Summa Theologia.
 
8:42 PM
29
Q: Purim Torah policy - Allowed, but regulated

Isaac MosesWe pride ourselves on generating and maintaining clear, high-quality, serious questions and answers about Judaism. Once a year, though, for a couple of weeks, we also go in for something a little ... different. Purim Torah Q&A Purim Torah, silly parodies of real Torah discussion, is a way to lo...

 
@El'endiaStarman that's pretty awesome
 
Oooh, starts Feb 25 this year!
 
@thedarkwanderer In my view, if truth doesn't add to and lead to utility, then it is not even true. The truth is how things actually work. It's very utilitarian. If you don't have the truth, then you don't understand how things work, and the things you try to do based on what you believe just won't work very well.
@El'endiaStarman Okay. So during that time, you're supposed to troll! ;-)
 
People say that you need friends to be happy, but then God is not sufficient to be happy. But seeking happiness while avoiding friendship is clearly contrary to the will of God and also to happiness. Aquinas responds by saying that friendship is a byproduct of happiness found through the correct relation with God. If you have the joy of God and there are people in your life than you will have friendship. But friendship is not the *essence* of happiness.

To relate this more clearly to our present discussion, even if the truth is always useful, it is not (or this is my claim anyways) tru
That said, it is possible that utility is a fair measure of truth-- so if the entirety of a belief set is not useful (whatever that means), then we could discard it as untrue.
 
@thedarkwanderer I'm not saying utility is the essence of truth. But I do believe that it is inextricably linked to truth. There is no such thing as a truth that is not also useful.
 
8:58 PM
I don't agree, but I accept that you believe that and I don't think it contradicts what I said. If you believe that all truth is useful and that utility is not the essence of truth then surely you must agree that it seeking only useful beliefs (i.e. acting as if utility were the essence of truth) is less effective in forming true beliefs than seeking truth.
 
@thedarkwanderer Agreed. Though I would add that this does not apply only to the entirety of a belief set, but to every component of it. If any part of a belief set is not useful, it can be discarded as untrue, even if the rest of the belief set may be true.
 
@PeterTurner Belloc calling Muhammad a heretic only makes sense if Muhammad was first a Christian. I have seen no treatment of Muhammad that indicates that he was indeed Christian before his reported revelations, but I am open to sources. I am pretty sure that he knew (through family connections) of Christianity and of Jews ...
 
@thedarkwanderer I believe in seeking and believing the truth because it is true, and not for self-utilitarian reasons, such as, "Things would be better for me and my family if this were true, so I'm going to believe that it's true." However, one way to evaluate whether something is true is whether it is useful in accomplishing good purposes that are broader than just one's own benefit.
I should add that some things that are not, in themselves, true, do serve as truth in various cultures and contexts, and among various people, because they are adapted to the mindset (often fallen) of that culture and context, and those people.
So this is definitely tricky business.
 
@LeeWoofenden ok :) This belief is interesting! Do you mind if I poke you about it?
 
@thedarkwanderer Do I mind? I thrive on it! :-D
 
9:02 PM
XD cool
So, one of the differences we have there is that it sounds like you would think that what's true in a cosmic sense is changing, yeah? Like, maybe it's true that it's wrong to do a certain thing right now, but that belief might not be useful at other times or in other circumstances, so then it wouldn't be true in those times/places, yeah?
 
@thedarkwanderer No. Not if by "cosmic" you mean "universal." There is a truth that is always true, and is the truth, and that truth is God, called the Word or the logos in John. But we humans cannot grasp or conceive of divine truth as it is in itself. So it must be adapted to our particular, finite minds and cultures, so that it becomes an expression or appearance of truth rather than the truth itself.
And it will be closer to or more distant from the absolute, divine truth depending on how close or far way our mind is to/from God's mind.
 
Ok. So if I say 'I am wearing a red shirt' then that is an approximation of the divine truth?
assuming, of course, that I do not intend to lie
 
@thedarkwanderer Yes.
 
ok, cool, I actually agree with that. Anyways:
 
As a material-world example, we do not see the sun as it is in itself. We see it as attenuated through 93 million miles of space, and filtered through the atmosphere, which may be clear or may be cloudy depending on current weather and atmospheric conditions.
It's not that our view of the sun is "false." It's that we're seeing an adaptation of the sun's nature to our ability to grasp and comprehend it without being vaporized by it. And if the weather is very dark, cloudy, and stormy, the sun appears to us to be quite different than it actually is, and almost to be absent altogether.
 
9:10 PM
@LeeWoofenden Sun analogy: to see the sun as it is requires sensors beyond human sensors. To see The Son as he truly is, requires divine assistance, and something beyond out senses. Faith. Does that analogy fit your point?
 
Hmm, but is the sun as described by physics the most true version of the Sun? It would seem to me that the Sun as we see it is in some ways more true-- it is the Light of the World in a material sense and so directs our eyes to God as the Light of the World in a spiritual sense. The Sun is one of the most ancient and omnipresent symbols of divinity. Certainly there is something to be gained from a scientific invesitgation of the Sun.
But the idea that space and dust distort the truth of the Sun rather than contributing to it seems strange
 
@KorvinStarmast I would say that we simply cannot see the sun as it is, because it's beyond our sensory capacity. We can, though, know a lot about the sun based on sensors beyond human sensors--i.e., scientific instruments and probes. But that is not the same as directly experiencing the sun.
 
Does the cosmic Truth change? That is to say, does God change? Is something that is universally true at one moment capable of being universally not true in the next.
 
@thedarkwanderer Physics offers a tool for describing things and making sound predictions. Even physicists will tell you that PHysics isn't a Truth tool, it's a tool for "what we've figured out, so far, that is a reproducible result."
 
@KorvinStarmast nah, man, that stuffs modern physics weirdness
 
9:15 PM
I would also say that the Son in relation to the Father is like the radiant energy from the sun in relation to the sun itself. We can know the sun itself (the Father) only through the radiant energy (the Son) that reaches out to us and strikes our senses.
 
I'm a physicist, and I'll tell you Physics is the study of how and why the world works the way it does.
 
That is why "no one comes to the Father except through me." The Son is God's presence with us.
 
@LeeWoofenden Good analogy, not sure if I am guilty of heresy by liking it. 8^D
 
@KorvinStarmast Be careful! I'm a non-trinitarian! ;-)
 
But what about the Spirit? Isn't the Spirit also God's presence with us?
Yeah, I figured ;P
 
9:17 PM
@thedarkwanderer As an engineer, physics gives me tools to make things work. And as I understand the physics, as a science, is that all "truth" is provisional until confirmed or put into question by the next discovery. (Relativity, general relativity, quantum, string, etc).
 
@thedarkwanderer Yes. The spirit is God's presence affecting us. So when the radiant energy (the "truth" or "word" of God) that is the Son strikes us, it becomes in us the Holy Spirit filling us with truth and love (light and heat).
 
@thedarkwanderer It's been interesting to read, of late, some of the articles dumbed down for those of us who are not theoretical physicists, of how gravity changes with frame of reference. For our earthly frame of reference, it's stable, but there is some question that being a universal character ...
 
ehh.... sort of. Science is a way of testing ideas. Modern scientists often have this idea that Science is the best way of coming to ideas but people didn't always think that way. Moreover you can't make physics (or any scientific theory) by using science. You can only use science to discriminate between theories you already have.
 
@thedarkwanderer In Swedenborgian belief, the sun corresponds to God, meaning that it is an expression in the physical universe of God's divine nature. Of course, the material universe can't fully encompass or express the nature of God. But the sun is the closest physical approximation of the nature of God other than Jesus Christ himself.
@thedarkwanderer In Swedenborgian belief, the clouds correspond to the literal meaning of the Bible, which involves filtering divine truth through human minds and cultures. And more broadly, it corresponds to how the radiant energy of God (God's love and wisdom flowing out) are adapted, changed, and often darkened in their reception by human minds that have varying degrees of darkness, obscurity, and falsity in them.
 
Physicists come up with theories by looking at the world and figuring out something that makes sense to them. Then they use science to test it. That's how it's supposed to go anyways. People have kinda stopped doing that because the modern idea of truth is so caught up in utility. For example, few people really explains quantum mechanics, they just say it's true because it's useful so you should use it.
Most people who do explain it don't match the explanations to data, so that's a problem too.
 
9:23 PM
And note that this happens very close to us. Through 93 million miles of travel, the sun's rays are only attenuated by the inverse cube (?) law. But a mile or so away from us, all of a sudden major attenuation and even distortion and darkening takes place, right where we live, and only where we live.
That is when divine love and wisdom hits the human mind.
 
@LeeWoofenden I agree that the Sun is a good physically present symbol of God, but I don't know about the best. But I'm not Sweedenborgian, so :P
I'm pretty sure my best friend is a better symbol of God than the Sun, though, just saying. She's pretty cool
For example, she loves me. I don't really feel much love coming my way from the Sun, but that might just be me.
 
@KorvinStarmast From my perspective, that provisional nature of truth in science reflects the reality that we humans do not inhabit the mind of God, where alone there is absolute truth. Instead, we inhabit and travel in various vectors centering on the mind of God, some of which are closer to God and others of which are farther away.
 
Woah, woah, woah there.
 
And since the mind of God is infinite, we will never reach the point at which we have the absolute truth, even if we continually travel toward God and truth to eternity.
 
I thought you said Truth was God?
like
how can we be outside the mind of God?
If we are outside God then wouldn't we not be able to interact with our externally percieved reality which we earlier agreed the truths of are an approximation of God?
 
9:28 PM
@thedarkwanderer Also, science has a limited scope. It is a great way of investigating and uncovering physical reality. But the farther you get from physical reality into spiritual and divine reality, the less useful a tool science becomes. Basically, science can tell religion that it is wrong about physics, biology, and so on. But it can't make any statements or conclusions about spiritual and divine (God) reality, because those are outside of its purview.
@thedarkwanderer The "love" that comes to you from the sun is its heat. The sun is inanimate, so living things such as love and truth that are part of the nature of God are expressed in the sun by inanimate things such as heat and light.
Jesus Christ is a better and closer expression of God than the sun because Jesus Christ is a living, human being. Individual (non-Jesus) human beings can be pretty good expressions of God as well, if God's love and wisdom dwells in them.
 
Yep, I'll agree to that ^^
The individuals being able to be pretty good expressions of God, that is :)
I don't like your formulation regarding the scope of science, but the overall idea is alright. I agree it doesn't make sense to try to arrive at religious truth via science.
or rather via the modern scientific method
 
@thedarkwanderer I mean we're outside the mind of God as in, we are not God. We do not inhabit the core of God's being, which is what I mean here by "the mind of God." Though we are created by God and continually sustained by God, and even filled with God, we are still non-God because we are finite containers for God, not the infinite source, which is God.
 
> > Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine.

> It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was-not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chi
 
"The Father" as used in the NT is the unknowable core of God. We have no direct knowledge or experience of "the Father" at all. We can only have knowledge of and a relationship with "the Father" through "the Son," which is God's human presence with us.
This is why modalists, and also trinitarians, are wrong. They think that we have a relationship with each of the three persons or modes of the Trinity. We don't. We have a relationship with the Son, who is the Father's presence with us. We have no relationship with the Father at all except through the Son.
(I have come to believe that trinitarianism is just another form of modalism.)
 
Well, ok, just so long as we understand that God's will exists beyond what you refer to as the mind of God.

Also, when you say no direct experience of the Father I assume you mean 'except sometimes', cause, like, the Bible, yeah?
 
9:37 PM
@thedarkwanderer The Bible is a highly mediated expression of God. It is not "the Father."
 
Oh, no
I meant, like, in the old testament
Moses chills with God, as does Abraham.
 
@thedarkwanderer And yet, in the very same chapter in which it says that Moses spoke to God face-to-face, it also says that no one can see the face of God and live. So there's more going on here than meets the eye.
 
Abraham even gets to be called the friend of God in James 2:23
 
In the Old Testament, God was present with human beings through the mediation of angels. That is why it is often so hard to tell whom we're dealing with: God or an angel of God. A perfect example is God's visit as "three men" to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when they are variously referred to as "the Lord," "men," and "angels."
 
True. But I think the idea that he has no relationship with God the Father seems pretty contradictory to the OT. And to like, all Judaism.
 
9:41 PM
@thedarkwanderer No direct relationship with the Father. Our relationship with the Father is always mediated, never direct. So praying directly to "the Father" as if this were separate from a prayer to the Son is an error and an illusion.
 
'Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.'
 
"No one comes to the Father except through me." We have no direct relationship with the Father.
 
@thedarkwanderer It's an error if we think we are praying to the Father and not to the Son. The two are one. There is no "Trinity of Persons" so that we could pray to one and not to the other.
The Lord God Jesus Christ is "our Father in heaven."
Unfortunately, trinitarianism is inextricably bound to tritheism:
5
Q: What is the basis for the Swedenborgian view that the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) is a belief in three gods?

Lee WoofendenThe vast bulk of Christian denominations, representing the overwhelming majority of Christians, subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, which, boiled down to its essence, is "one God in three Divine Persons." Non-Christian monotheists such as Jews and Muslims sometimes charge Christians with b...

 
See, I think it makes more sense to think that 'comes to the father' means something more like 'receives eternal salvation' rather than 'has any direct relationship with the father whatsoever' given the huge volume of occurances where the Bible seems to indicate someone without knowledge of Jesus relating with the Father.
But I'm a trinitarian, so I guess that might be part of it.
 
9:45 PM
@thedarkwanderer Well, it doesn't say "No one is saved except through me" (though that can be understood from other passages). It says, "No one comes to the Father except through me. It's a more general statement, meaning that our only access to the Father is through the Son.
And along with Paul as expressed in Romans 2, I believe that even non-Christians are saved through the Son, Jesus Christ. There is no other means of salvation. And even non-Christians relate to God through Jesus Christ, even if they don't realize it, because there is no other means to relate to God.
 
Except that it doesn't say that. That's one possible interpretation of what it says.
 
Not if we're having a direct relationship with God.
@thedarkwanderer Yes. But it's a lot closer to saying that than it is to saying, "No one is saved except through me."
And even traditional Christian views of that are faulty because they have modified it to mean, essentially, "No one is saved except by explicitly, intellectually believing in me"--something that is never said in the Bible, and is, in fact, explicitly denied in Romans 2.
 
That's not a traditional view
The Church and the Orthodox churches have not, as far as I know, ever made that claim. That's a radical protestant view.
brb
 
@thedarkwanderer It is the reigning view in Protestantism, despite protestations to the contrary. Catholicism does also include the need to do good works. But even Catholicism officially declares that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that this is based on the need to believe in Jesus Christ, which supposedly only the Church provides a proper channel for doing.
@thedarkwanderer Of the three main branches of Christianity, only the Orthodox puts forward anything like the soteriology that existed for the first thousand years of Christianity. Unfortunately, it is also the one I am least familiar with.
 
@LeeWoofenden Do you think the quotations in the first section here are saying that?
 
9:56 PM
bk
regarding your idea that that's what the Church teaches: catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/…
 
@Nathaniel I think the quotations under the "Lordship salvation" heading are fine examples of the utterly illogical and contradictory nature of sola fide theology. They're trying to have it both ways: excluding anything but faith from efficacy in salvation and yet asserting at the same time that repentance actually is required.
They've twisted themselves into intellectual knots in an effort to justify a doctrine that Martin Luther invented despite the fact that it is stated nowhere in the Bible, and is in fact explicitly rejected in the Bible (James 2:24).
You can't just say, "Everything is faith, so faith alone saves."
 
@KorvinStarmast what does the Truth mean there?
I am unfamiliar with it being used that way in a Catholic context
 
@Nathaniel And I think that "Free grace theology" as you've outlined it is the logical conclusion of not holding two contradictory ideas in the mind at once, as the older "Lordship salvation" view does, but actually being consistent in holding to a false, non-Biblical belief.
 
@LeeWoofenden Okay, that's a reasonable objection. But very few actually say "no one is saved except by explicitly, intellectually believing in me."
 
31 mins ago, by Lee Woofenden
And since the mind of God is infinite, we will never reach the point at which we have the absolute truth, even if we continually travel toward God and truth to eternity.
@LeeWoofenden In Catholic teaching, we can find the Truth when/if we meet God as he is, face to face. Before that, the closest we can get is based on how close we get in our relationship to Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
 
9:59 PM
@KorvinStarmast right but what does
'the absolute truth' mean in Catholicism
like
my understanding is that there are lots of things that are true
 
@Nathaniel But if you dig just a very shallow hole under the surface, that's what they're actually saying.
They dress it up with all sorts of fancy words. But basically, when it comes down to it, if you intellectually believe in Jesus you've got a shot at salvation, whereas if you don't intellectually believe in Jesus, you have no shot whatsoever.
 
That's really not what the Q&A I linked you is saying.
 
@LeeWoofenden Which is just as reasonable as saying "if you dig just a very shallow hole under the surface of Swedenborgianism, modalism is what they actually believe." I.e., not reasonable.
2
 
It doesn't matter if you believe in and practice every single teaching of Jesus about loving God and loving the neighbor. If that isn't coupled with an intellectual, doctrinal belief that Jesus Christ is God, paid the penalty for your sins, etc., then none of the rest matters. Which is diametrically opposed to what both Paul and Jesus Christ himself taught.
@Nathaniel Except that's false.
 
Says you.
 
10:02 PM
@Nathaniel Yep. Because I know Swedenborgian theology, and it utterly rejects the key idea that makes modalism modalism.
 
@thedarkwanderer The Truth (capital T) is directly linked to Jesus Christ. There are truths that are so foundational that they become pillars of the faith, such as the Resurrection. The Divine nature of Christ. The material in the Catechism states a belief that if we are saved, we will see God as he is ... and that only happens after you die. It is through Christ that we can get to God ...
@thedarkwanderer ... and Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Given that we believe in the Trinity, you can see the overlap there. I think.
 
@Nathaniel The key point in Protestantism is that you believe or have faith that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins. If you don't believe and accept that, you are damned.
 
@KorvinStarmast Everything except the first sentence there makes sense to me. Yes, I know the verse, I just am not clear on what Jesus means when he says he is 'the Truth'. Like, I'm sure there's something cool meant by that I just don't get it yet.
 
(Another thing that is never stated in the Bible.)
 
@LeeWoofenden is it bad to believe things that aren't stated in the Bible?
 
10:04 PM
That's because Protestant soteriology is based on judicial pardon, which is a matter of legal argumentation, not on repentance and reformation of life as taught in the Bible.
@thedarkwanderer It is bad to claim that things not stated in the Bible are essential doctrine in Christianity, necessary in order to be, or claim to be, a Christian.
And nearly all of the essential doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism are stated nowhere in the Bible.
 
@LeeWoofenden I am the way, the truth and the life is scripture. My sentence is based on that scripture.
 
@LeeWoofenden And I know Reformed theology, though not as well as you know Swedenborgianism, and I know it rejects the intellectual assent only position. We excommunicate people who don't demonstrate a transformed heart.
 
@thedarkwanderer There are, of course, many other, non-essential things that are true and are not stated clearly and explicitly in the Bible, if at all.
@Nathaniel And thus you contradict the heart of your own theology, which is justification by faith alone.
 
I know you think that's ridiculous, but my bigger issue is that if we can't treat people like they're reasonable there's no basis for any discussion.
 
@Nathaniel The Bible also, by the way, never says that good works are the fruits of faith. I asked a question about that here, and though there are two reasonable-sounding answers, neither one of them actually demonstrates that according to the Bible, good works are the fruits of faith.
 
10:08 PM
@LeeWoofenden Nearly All?
2 mins ago, by Lee Woofenden
And nearly all of the essential doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism are stated nowhere in the Bible.
 
@Nathaniel I'm sorry. But I simply do not think that sola fide theology is either reasonable or biblical, and I cannot pretend that it is. And I also believe that anyone who believes in sola fide theology his had his or her mind scrambled by false, non-Biblical doctrine, such that their whole belief system is vitiated and falsified, no matter how good and saved a person they may be.
 
@LeeWoofenden No. I don't think so. Your mileage may vary.
 
@Nathaniel I do not think it is possible to accept sola fide theology and have a sound understanding of God, the Bible, and salvation.
 
Ultimately I think that we disagree about the Biblical basis for Catholicism. We also disagree possibly about the ability to talk to protestants like they are humans.
I think we should invesitgate the latter part of that
 
The only thing worse and more false than sola fide theology is Calvinist predestination, which in my view is the absolute nadir of falsified Christian doctrine.
 
10:10 PM
...what?
I mean
predestination is pretty bad
but the worst?
I'm pretty sure God forgives repentant Calvanists
 
@thedarkwanderer Yes. It completely destroys the entire basis for a real and free relationship between God and man. It is the utter destruction of Christian and divine truth.
Without a real and free relationship between God and human beings, the entire purpose for the creation of the universe by God is destroyed.
God might as well not even have bothered creating the universe and human beings in it.
 
What about actively seeking to do the most evil possible in order to defile your soul and displease God? Less bad?
 
@KorvinStarmast I am telling you what I believe. And why I cannot be PC about this and say, "Oh yes, your truth is just as good and valid as my truth."
(Oh, that was @KorvinStarmast, not @Nathaniel. So I'm not sure exactly what you meant or were responding to.)
 
@LeeWoofenden Faith without works is dead, does that not fit into good works being fruits of faith? Seems to follow ... James 2: 14-18
 
@KorvinStarmast Where does James say that good works are the fruits of faith? He says that the two must be together for salvation to occur. He doesn't say anything about good works coming from faith.
It's pretty clear, rather, that good works come from God/Jesus: "I am the vine, you are the branches. Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).
 
10:15 PM
@LeeWoofenden I understand the distinction you are making. I guess setting up the logical problem good works may be inspired by faith, but they may arise from some other source/motivation. Is that your point?
 
@KorvinStarmast Saying that "good works are the fruits of faith" is just another way of claiming that faith is the be-all and end-all of salvation, and everything else is subservient to and derived from faith. That's simply not true. And Paul himself says that love is greater than faith.
 
@LeeWoofenden No one is asking you to say that. I'm asking you to report other people's views accurately, before attempting to dismantle them.
2
 
@LeeWoofenden Right, the vine, got and so it follows that without faith (our connection to Jesus, our connection to God) we do not have good works. I am trying to see how that doesn't fit "good works are fruit of faith" but I do understand the making fine distinctions is what we are working on here.
 
When Jesus tells us who will be saved and who will be damned in his statement about the judging of the nations in Matthew 25:31-46, he says nothing at all about faith. Only about whether we have done good works for our fellow human beings in need. And when he selects the key teachings of the Bible, it is to love God above all and love our neighbor as ourselves.
@Nathaniel I understand that Protestants believe they believe in something other than intellectual faith. I also understand that Protestants in the main actually practice something other than mere intellectual faith--and that is why I believe that in the main they will be saved. But their doctrine, when boiled down, amounts to intellectual faith as saving, excluding all "works" or anything else.
Which they then try to bring back in through various back doors.
 
@LeeWoofenden Um. Assuming you actually believe believing Calvanist doctrine is the worst possible thing a person can do and the greatest sin against God, I hope you remember to take compassion on people and that God calls us to love our enemies. I hope what sounds like your unending hatred of Calvanism doesn't extend to Calvanists.
Moreover, I have found respectful theological discussion to be immensely valuable and I hope you will consider trying it some time, even with people who are Protestant.
 
10:19 PM
@LeeWoofenden You seem to be making my point for me, thanks. 8^D I also cannot find how predestination could fit. That isn't just bias since I have become Catholic, but also before that when choices -- which is what our lives revolve around -- is so powerful a component of the human condition.
 
I understand the need for caution when interacting with heretics, and I do not begrudge you that. I just worry that the kind of not-listening that you are doing leads to bad things as well. In any case, I hope you have a good day.
 
@Nathaniel The minute you assert justification by faith alone, you are excluding everything but faith from justification and salvation. And when you exclude everything else, then "faith" is just that: an intellectual faith. Because love is excluded, works are excluded, repentance is excluded. All of these things are not faith.
 
@LeeWoofenden IN closing, yeah, greatest commandment is what all else hinges upon, which I suppose includes Paul's letters. Best wishes to you all in the ongoing discussion.
 
You simply can't have it both ways, and say "We are justified by faith alone, but you need all the rest, too." That just doesn't work. It's an inherent absolute internal contradiction.
If Protestants would drop "faith alone," then some sense could be made of their theology. But they won't, so it can't.
 
You don't need all the rest for justification.
 
10:23 PM
@PeterTurner Peter, thanks for that link, it looks almost identical in summary to the article in Islam I read in encyclopedia Britannica back in the late 80's.
 
@KorvinStarmast Our primary connection with God may happen through faith, but the connection itself is made by love, or grace. It is God's love that saves us. Faith is simply the conduit through which that salvation flows. And our good works are the expression of God's love working in us. Faith is simply the gateway through which God's love flows into good works in our lives, because our faith causes us to look to God and follow God's commandments, directing us also in just how to do that.
 
Where does faith come from?
 
@thedarkwanderer What I hate is Calvinist doctrine. But I don't believe that people are saved or damned based on the doctrine they hold to. Rather, I believe they are saved or damned based on the way they live pursuant to their belief or doctrine. So I look at Calvinists the same way I look at everyone else: If they love God and love the neighbor as Jesus commanded, they are saved, regardless of their horribly false doctrine.
Remember, I do not believe in salvation by faith alone.
Doctrine is useful only as it leads to a good life of loving and serving the neighbor. And ironically, even false doctrine can do that.
 
@LeeWoofenden It certainly gets rather scholastic, I'll grant you. But the alternatives seem to me to make God dependent on man, which to me isn't much of God.
 
Though sola fide is utterly false and anti-biblical, it has had grafted onto it many things that actually are true and biblical. When its adherents follow those true teachings of the Bible, they are saved regardless of the falsity of their intellectually held doctrine of justification by faith alone.
 
10:28 PM
@LeeWoofenden So we are saved through works?
 
I.e., even though Protestants intellectually believe that we are justified by faith alone contrary to the explicit teaching of the Bible on the subject, in fact they mostly live by Jesus teaching that it is necessary to love God and the neighbor, and do good works for the neighbor, in order to be saved.
@Nathaniel It's not just scholastic. It's illogical, unbiblical, and false. Protestants are tied to a dogma that the Bible explicitly rejects. And it has caused them to become scholastic and doctrinal contortionists.
If they could simply accept the plain teaching of the Bible that we are justified by our works, and not by faith alone, they could ditch all of that scholasticism and it would no longer be necessary to tie their minds in intellectual knots in an attempt to justify a doctrine that is unjustifiable.
Luther wanted to make a clean break from Catholicism, and so he invented the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and tried to chuck out of the Bible every book of the NT that he perceived to deny the new doctrine he had just invented. It was a serious error, and Protestants have been paying for it ever since.
@Birdie The Bible states explicitly:
> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
That is the only place in the Bible where "faith alone" is mentioned. And in that one place, it is explicitly rejected, and we are told that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.
 
It also states explicitly: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. - Ephesians 2:8-9.
 
There is no place anywhere in the Bible that states that we are saved or justified by faith alone.
 
Explicitly "not of works". Our faith is not of works, and it is by grace we are saved, through faith, which is NOT of works.
 
@Birdie Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say "by faith alone." James 2:24 is the only place that clearly and directly speaks of faith alone.
 
10:34 PM
@LeeWoofenden I'm not talking about faith alone. I'm talking about "are we saved through works?"
 
Ephesians 2:8-9 also says that we are saved by grace, which is one of the Greek language's rich trove of words for love. So obviously it is not "by faith alone."
The Bible simply never says that we are justified or saved by faith alone. But it does explicitly deny that we are justified by faith alone. That is a simple fact.
 
@LeeWoofenden Is there any difference between justification and salvation?
 
@Birdie Sure, in terms of definition. But in terms of reality, it doesn't matter, because one can't happen without the other. "Justification," in practical terms, means "being made righteous." And you can't be saved if you are not made righteous. If you are wicked rather than righteous, you are not saved.
@Birdie And regardless of that, you can't just say, "James was wrong, we are not justified by our works."
Further, you can't understand Paul if you don't understand the controversy that came to a head with the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" recounted in Acts 15.
 
So we are saved through our works, even though Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are not?
 
Paul was not saying that you don't have to do good works to be saved. Read Romans 2. He was saying that you don't have to do "the works of the Law," meaning the ritual and sacrifical works of the Mosaic Law. That's why he almost always starts talking about "circumcision," which is a code word for "being an observant Jew."
Read Acts 15. That is your key to understanding Paul's teachings about being justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.
 
10:38 PM
We've already discussed this, and it is very apparent that Paul does not exclusively talk about the works of the law. I have to go, and this appears to be fruitless as always.
 
Protestantism has utterly misread, misunderstood, and misinterpreted the writings of Paul. Fortunately, the New Perspectives on Paul is starting to unearth that reality within Protestantism.
@Birdie He also talks about works done "for boasting," which don't get us into heaven. If we think we can buy our way into heaven by doing lots of good works, we're badly mistaken. But for Paul's Jewish/Christian audience, it amounted to the same thing, because the works they did "for boasting" were generally being scrupulous observers of the finer points of the Law of Moses. Paul was a Pharisee. He knew all about it.
Paul's point was not that you don't have to do good works to be saved. If it were, he could never have written what he did in Romans 2:1-16.
@thedarkwanderer I'm old enough by now that I don't really have time for "respectful discussion" that implies that absolute falsehoods contrary to the plain and overwhelming teachings of the Bible are worthy of serious discussion as if these were just different "flavors" of Christianity.
I am very sorry that such darkness and falsity has taken over in Christianity over the centuries. But it has, and I'm not going to sugar coat it or pretend that all these beliefs are really A-OK when they represent the destruction of the Christianity that Jesus Christ and the entire Bible taught.
I have challenged Protestants (and some Catholics) for at least two decades now to show me any passage in the Bible that clearly, explicitly, teaches that God is a Trinity of Persons, or that we are justified by faith alone, or that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, or even provided some sort of legal "satisfaction" for our sins.
So far not a single person has ever been able to show me such a passage. This is not just a matter of "opinion" and "interpretation." It's a matter of wholesale inventing of doctrines that simply are not stated anywhere in the Bible. I'm not going to stand by and say, "Okay, fine by me if you do that!"
If those doctrines were considered to be incidental or peripheral to Christianity, it would be no big deal. But when the doctrines that are made central, essential, and fundamental to Christianity are nowhere stated in the Bible, that is more than I can stomach. At that point "Christianity" has become, as Swedenborg said, "Christian in name only, and not in reality and essence."
Is God really so incompetent that he can't even state plainly, in God's own Word, the key, essential teachings of Christianity? Does God really require human theologians to "steady the ark" as Uzzah did, presuming to teach us what the Bible "means"? Isn't God capable of telling us plainly what he means, in plain language, in his revelation of God's Word to humankind?
If you think something is essential to Christian faith, life, and salvation, show me where the Bible plainly teaches it. Both Catholic and Protestant doctrine abysmally fail that simple, biblical test.
I, on the other hand, can quote you passage after passage from the Bible that plainly, clearly, and explicitly teach what I believe to be essential to Christian faith and life, such that anyone with basic reading comprehension can understand it without the need for Acquinas, Luther, Calvin, Swedenborg, or anyone else to "interpret" it.
 
11:33 PM
@LeeWoofenden I'd not kick out the efforts of the founders of the faith who arrived at the Nicene Creed at about the same time as they more or less codified the canon.
The belief in the Trinity was a matter of synthesis, but I also am aware that it was a matter of non trivial disagreement between the churches, and the major ecclesial centers of that time. For the first three centuries, the early church lived the faith and their witness, how they did it, was passed down to successive generations.
@LeeWoofenden Simple "blaming Protestant" doctrine and blaming Catholic doctrine (and while you are at it, blaming Greek Orthodox doctrine) is a bit reductionist, though I realize you've gone pretty deep to arrive at you place in faith.
 
11:53 PM
@LeeWoofenden christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/54736/… I'd have liked to seen your answer to this. Not sure how it can be edited to fit though.
 
@LeeWoofenden Have you done so, on your blog or on SE? Can you link it?
 

« first day (1994 days earlier)      last day (2644 days later) »