BayBuck;797499; said:
I generally don't, to be honest (though I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss all church-going, by any means). Christianity is a personal relationship with God through Jesus, and the Bible is intended even for one person alone.
If I came across as dismissing all church going, that wasn't my intention. Your last remark interests me... I've taken some .... I'll say heat, though I don't mean to imply people are trying to convert me.. for suggesting that I "trust myself" on matters God... While I can't say I agree 100% with Christianity (my main disagreement, as should be clear, is my belief that Jesus was not divine) as a religion I don't begrudge people for entering in to whatever personal relationship with God they want. So... I would agree with your observation.
jwinslow;797502; said:
Because humans need support and fellowship, both for their faith and general well-being.
.....
I admit am guilty of this at times, but it is 'foolish' to blindly digest teachings. Christ has equipped us with the tools to find Him, wholly trusting other men to take you there is a dangerous escapade, and can only take you as far as their accuracy and limited vision can find.
Pretty much what I've been getting at. Along with what I said above, trusting oneself - to me - seems more ..... I don't know the word(s) ... religious mature.. or something.
On the support and fellowship... church may well be a good place to get those things, but I think it's important to point out that one should strive to gain support and fellowship from where ever they are at any particular time. I think far too few people do that (and, of course, I have also been far less than perfect in this respect.)
buckeyegrad;797512; said:
As stated, I agree with you that an absolute truth exists. My disagreement with you is that I don't think man can know it, but only approximate it when relying on our own merits. The whole reason I took issue with 1+1=2 is that I don't think it demonstrates absolute truth; rather it is a mental construction used by humans to approximate truth. I have given an example of where the equation does not work, hence providing evidence of it being a mental construction rather than an absolute truth as asserted. More than being a philosophical game, I am trying to demonstrate how even the most basic assumptions we make need to be deconstructed when we are trying to approach truth--I guess I have not done this very well.
Well, OK.. then, like you say below, that's more about my inability to come up with an "absolute truth" than it is about anything else, right? I don't mean that as gamesmanship, and I better understand what you're saying. Are you saying, btw, that mental constructs don't exist in the universe (in a 'material' sense)? On that I would disagree. That is to say, as I sometimes joke, there is no such thing as a product that is not "all natural" I'm assuming you would mean material in the sense that it can be appreciated with one's senses, and on that, obviously I'd admit that mathematical equations don't exist in that manner..... so far as I can tell.
bgrad said:
I fully acknowledge that I do not have a perfect understanding of the Bible. Furthermore, I don't think anyone does except in times when one fully surrenders his/her intellect and will over to the Holy Spirit. However, my incomplete understanding of the Bible does not mean that the text is flawed, only my understanding of it is. It also does not mean that my understanding is equally incomplete to others' understanding of it. I have made the effort to desconstruct my undestanding of the Bible in order to allow the text to speak for itself as much as possible. The Holy Spirit has been a great guide in doing this. Hence, I would argue that my understanding of the Bible is more complete than yours because I have never seen you make the effort to allow the text to speak on its own terms. As for the use of experts on the Bible and who has authority to interpret it, well I evaluate each one by the standard of who is allowing the Bible to speak for itself and who is imposing views on it. Therefore, I could care less as to whether it is a scholar of ancient texts, a Pope, a philosopher, or some average joe who is providing the interpretation; I only care about whether or not they are allowing the text to speak for itself.
I can respect that. My question to you is, if I told you that I have done the same thing, without the Bible... deconstruct and allow understanding to be built back to what I believe today with guidance from what I believe to be the Holy Spirit (or whatever... I just call it God), can you, with your faith in Christianity accept that? Not that I need your approval, of course, but just wondering... It goes towards another thing I think about... I've hinted at it in recent posts (if not saying it outright) why is it that someone who claims to be spoken to by holy spirits end up in mental institutions? It strikes me as highly bizarre that people who claim God talks to them are considered mentally ill... particularly those people who believe in God... of course, that said I do believe there is such a thing as mental illness... so...
bgrad said:
This is helpful. The key difference I see between you and me on this subject is that you see God and His creation as being parts of the same entity, which compose infinity. Whereas I see God and His creation as being separate entities, and only the creation composing infinitiy. Is this correct?
I guess the answer to that is two part. 1 I believe that God and his creation are separate, in that God exists outside of it (somehow). 2 - God is also, in my view, his creation... so I guess what I'm saying is, the universe (or in my way of thinking, the multiple numbers of them) is God, and nothing else... but God is also something else over and beyond just the material universes. To think of it as a Venn Diagram, the circle that would represent God would completely engulf the circle that represents the universe (his creation). Or, maybe think of it like this.... the universe(s) (his creation) are what God "thinks" about... If I think a thought, I have "created" it in some sense.. it exists.. I don't know that I am able to give it life, as God may, but that our reality is "the mind of God" Make sense?
lvbuckeye;797523; said:
oh good grief! is getting a hair cut and practicing good hygiene DIShonoring our bodies?
I don't know. It seems to say that we can come up with better looks and stinks for ourselves than God can... Of course I don't really believe that, I'm just sayin.... (and I admit to going for the "shock factor" or whatever when I say things like that, more than I am trying to argue the point being made on face value)
lv said:
if God dwells in our hearts, yet God cannot stand the presence of sin, how can He dwell in our hearts if our hearts are full of sin?
Well, you and I disagree on what God can and cannot "Stand" apparently. How could God not dwell wherever he should choose to dwell, regardless of environment (existence of sin)?
lvbuckeye;797518; said:
i actually agree with that last sentence. but you need to know your history. before Constantine placed his royal purple robe over Miltiades' shoulders, there was no organized church. the church was never meant to be organized. the church is simply a meeting, most likely in a home, of believers to study the Word and pray. Jesus Christ had a VERY big problem with the religious leaders of His day because they had their priorities all wrong. just like the church today.
You'd get no argument from me here. It is my .... I almost stop short of the word "conclusion" but will use it anyway... that today's church is - pound for pound - nothing but business. As I've admitted already, that doesn't forbid that "good" thing can (and do) occur there, I just have little regard for the.. institution.. I guess of "religion' and much higher regard for the practice of it. Again, I do believe there are those churchgoers who "practice" and "gain" etc. But, most people, I think are just going to get spoon fed and put in their "hour of boredom" so they end up being "saved"
The people who post on these threads, I would think, do not fall in to that category (nor do those who don't post, necessarily) as they have exhibited that they at least think of this stuff outside of that hour of their week. Not that my observation of this has any particular value.. just trying to come off as less..... aggressive... or whatever.
