@PaulVargas the context of that passage is food sacrificed to idols and a crisis of conscience for Corinthian Christians.

@PaulVargas that would be a big difference between myself and others - I'm not a fan of citing one-liner prooftexts out of context like that

If I cited any other person or work like that, folks would immediately recognize it was taken out of context. Yet folks love to prooftext the Bible as though the entire thing is a collection of Proverbs / gnomic one-liners

when citing Wisdom literature such as Proverbs, that's fine. But when citing a letter written to specific people in a specific context - that's a lot different

@Daи @PaulVargas only in this case, the verse Paul quoted does "expand" the context by flatly stating "whatever you do," not just in matters of eating and drinking with respect to the offering of idols. The specific case is used to expand to a general principle.

@ScottS you could take it as a gnomic statement broadly applicable beyond the context, but I see it as applicable to religious practices concerning official observances, particularly those related to dietary laws

@PaulVargas Faith. There will always be questions, and we should seek honest answers to those questions. But in my view of God, those answers will always keep the integrity of His word intact. If I cannot see an answer that appears to keep the integrity in place, I still assume one exists, I just have not yet found the answer.

so if I were to wonder if I should go with my friend to the local Sikh temple (gurdwara) and share a meal with them, this would be a good text to cite

but if I'm having a discussion about textual criticism in a chat room and someone is concerned that God is not glorified in it - not a good text to cite

@ScottS which in my mind is a strong bias towards preconceived ideas brought to the text (it cannot err, even if the evidence points to the contrary)

If I find evidence something is intact, I presume its intact. If I find evidence of error, I presume it contains error

my 'Christian agnosticism' is my honesty about epistemology and the biblical text(s)

I refuse to purposefully omit relevant facts and information even when such things may contradict my hypothesis (instead, I just don't have much of a hypothesis)

@Daи My preconceived idea, however, derives from God's self-revelation of Himself as true, and as the Author behind His word. So my honesty is that I already believe God on this matter about Himself. The "evidence" of error is found in the copies of the text (lower criticism), but authorship is a matter of the original text (higher criticism).

In my view (both of God's character and textual evidence) there are enough copies of the text to objectively detect the errors. This is my majority text position. But I do hold to what I term as "supra-majority," that is there are "grammatical" errors (spelling, word gender, etc.) in the copies that can be weeded out by looking at the larger body of textual evidence for the language itself (not just its use in the Bible).

This, coupled with Greek (especially) not being as critical about word order as English (which are some of the variations) allows a certain amount of variation without consequence.

@Daи Most of those men I would reject their method of interpretation (not that I would reject everything they have to say, but they largely do not fall under the grammatical-historical hermeneutic category).

PS I say Christian agnosticism because I do have some definite beliefs. While I believe agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position, I also recognize that it is not existentially tenable.

@Daи I was not familiar with the essence-energies distinction as Eastern thought holds. I myself probably fall between Western-Eastern thought (based off that article). I believe there is a distinction, but I also believe that part of the essence of God is knowable (whereas it appears in Eastern thought that is not so).

@ScottS ... insofar as God reveals himself through his energies. But even if he did reveal his essence, we wouldn't be able to grasp/see it because of our finititude

that's how I look at it essentially

@ScottS don't get me wrong, I'm not a full-blown agnostic (I was, but I continued seeking truth, mostly in philosophy at that time - which was very helpful for me). I came to the realization that agnosticism is sustainable intellectually, but not existentially. You can remain intellectually undecided, but you cannot remain existentially undecided. You either live as if God exists or you live as if He doesn't.

@Daи Is "agnosticism" actually "the most intellectually honest position"? If God has said something, what was "said" can be known (He made it known), and it just needs to be believed, then it is known. Most knowledge is based upon authoritative witness--history, most scientific knowledge (as one relies on the testimony of the scientist), math (as one understands number relations from teachers), etc. So too, knowledge about God.

@ScottS yes. Because you would have to trust that the texts actually record God speaking, and you at some point have to depart from intellectual honesty and simply have faith that the Bible is correct over other religious texts

so agnosticism is indeed intellectually honest

but it doesn't work well existentially

take me as an example - I wasn't sure if God was real but still feared hell

totally illogical

people are illogical. And we're all intellectually dishonest if we're honest about it

because we don't live our lives rationally

for many men, neurosis (fear of death) is a prime example.

@Daи That is the beauty of God's work with Scripture. Because it is not the single testimony of one man, but of various people over thousands of years, and because prophetic fulfillments happen both during the lifetime of the prophet (to testify he is a true prophet) as well as others recorded as fulfilled beyond his life, it adds a testimony of being actually a record of God speaking (for none other could foretell the future).

@Daи Agree, but we are not rational because of sin and unbelief of what is known.

@ScottS and I'll avoid the valid-critiques-of-modernity-and-its-notion-of-objective-truth-by-postmodernism bunny trail because I'm confident you could teach on the matter, so let this message merely be an <insert that here> clause :P

@Daи I am again (still) enjoying the discussion, but I do need to work on my dissertation, so I have to say good-bye for now.

@Daи But I will add that there can be no "valid" critique of "objective truth" without appealing to an "objective truth" for validity. ;P back

@ScottS oh I agree with that, the internal inconsistency in postmodern thought

@ScottS me too! I'm glad you also are enjoying it. It is nice to be able to discuss this with someone who grasps basic philosophy (epistemology, historical thought, etc.) and who can have constructive conversation

@Daи I'd challenge this isn't at all irrational

if you aren't sure about something, but if you feel there is any chance of something being true, then it is reasonable to fear the result of being wrong about that decission

it's pascal's wager. Even if you are fairly certain there is no god. It is far, far better to err on the side of assuming their is a god if it would prevent eternal damnation than you are if you mistakenly assume their is a god and end up just wasting part of your life and there is nothing after

if you look at it as risk vs reward, it's still perfectly logical

but logic can also only go so far

your entire world view has to be based on certain assumptions

logic can't tell you anything

it can only tell you that given one set of assumptions, another set of observations makes the most sense

but you have to have a starting point

put another way, logic helps you figure out if your assumptions make sense together, but it still depends on starting with assumptions

that said, yes, people are generally not honest about the number of assumptions they make. I do my best to identify those assumptions and figure out what are the core assumptions I make

and a far larger part of people's views are based on assumptions than they generally want to admit

they may rationalize it as "but the assumption works in a lot of cases" but it is still a fundamental assumption

since it ignores the possibility of another answer that explains it. I very intentionally try to live my life with a minimum number of set viewpoints to try and avoid falling in to that trap and focus on the core of my beliefs, and I do that through constant self reflection, prayer and study, but still I know I have a huge number of assumptions

that's why I don't argue to prove my point, but rather to prove that alternatives can be valid to someone elses point

and still maintain their logical consistency

on the intellectual side, success for me in a discussion often isn't that someone accepts by view, but rather has to acknowledge that, given my basic assumptions, the rest of my view makes sense. (I primarily tend to argue apologetically with people who feel that Christianity is illogical.)

the difference in what they see as core assumptions being most logical is a much deeper heart issue that I can't touch

so my goal is often just to remove the illogical barriers that have been constructed to rule the idea out

@Daи A verse out of context? Maybe you're right. In fact, your exegesis is superior to mine. Honestly, you know more of the Scripture than me.

@Daи Let me ask you something ... if you breathe right now, for whom you do it? For yourself?

Now, @Daи @ScottS this question is important: What is life all about?

@PaulVargas What is life?

@AJHenderson (psst - AJ - I'd be willing to wager that that would be Pascal's Wager.) ;)

@Jack It can also be expressed in different forms, such as "Why are we here?", "What is life all about?", and "What is the purpose of existence?"

@PaulVargas I'm just giving my opinion, as @AJHenderson pointed out, the set of assumptions we each begin with taints how we approach all of this stuff. Too much underlying stuff to address in chat. @ScottS and I are talking about a tiny fraction of this, but it's fun to have this interaction and enlightening for me to understand his approach even if I fundamentally disagree with some of his underlying assumptions.

At the end of the day, I still respect him and his outlook - otherwise I wouldn't waste my time having the discussion in the first place

@PaulVargas that's a loaded question, I second @JackDouglas 's question (what is life?)

@AJHenderson And while I'm lurking, I wonder if you would enjoy James Anderson's Paradox in Christian Theology - clear and engaging on an important theme.