freethinkers

Originally posted by Feivel
Bennett,

ivanhoe originally asked why revealed religion is taboo for Freethinkers. Ivanhoe also refuses to listen to any logical argument (as do most christians). his answering the question (or any christian for that matter) by listing the commandments and how the church obeys them SIDE-BY-SIDE, will show ivanhoe the answer he seeks and also stop his fooli ...[text shortened]... tian posts (or at least quiet them down a bit0.

Amici Sumus

Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker

Originally posted by bbarr
This shows absolutely nothing about the Christian faith when properly followed. Please tell me exactly how your argument to the effect that revelaed religion is irrational is supposed to follow from a listing of the commandments of the sort I outline above.

Originally posted by bbarr
Commandment 2: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third a ...[text shortened]... hat hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Originally posted by Feivel
Love is a choice. It can be either reason or faith based. Love based o n reason is something I (and I bet ALL) other freethinkers believe in.

Amici Sumus

Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker

My, you are a hasty fellow. It will be very hard for me to keep up with this thread. My apologies.

Originally posted by Feivel
Incorrect. The list would be possible to create. The answer (for christians) would be negative.

No worries. I surrender; here's your list . . .

Commandment 1: The Christian faith as I understand it upholds this commandment. Individual Christians, Christian organizations, denominations, etc. etc. do not always uphold this commandment.
Commandment 2: See "Commandment 1"
Commandment 3: See "Commandment 1"
Commandment 4: See "Commandment 1"
Let me know if I have to complete this list. Even better, if there's a point to this exercise maybe you could just make that point and we could call it a day?

Go through all Paul's supposed Pharasic arguments and show me how each one is pharasic in origin and i will show you otherwise. Go through each of Paul's claiming to be a Jew (Paul's NOT Luke's) and I will show you evidence (within and outside) of the bible showing otherwise.

Another challenge? But I have only begun getting ready for the first! I work long and hard to support a family (which is difficult on a single working-class income). Then I come home and watch my kids for several hours (which is a joy). Then I log on to my email and RHP, and some of the time on the latter I like to use playing chess. In short, if I am to sit down and page through all Jesus and Paul had to say about salvation and identify similarities and (apparent) discrepancies, that will take me quite some time. I am willing to do it. You can wait, or you can attempt to overwhelm me with challenge after challenge until I simply must give up and we can go our separate ways. I value this conversation and will attempt to stick to it. Perhaps we can make it more efficient? For instance, you could define for me the term "pharasic" and then just go ahead and show me the evidence you mention. You could also tell me the connection to the first challenge. In other words, whether Paul is a Jew or his arguments are "pharasic in origin" seems a debate, or a phase in the debate, which could be postponed until we have discussed the apparent contradiction between Jesus' and Paul's teachings on salvation. As it is I might have spent this time working on my answer to your first challenge. I'm now up late past my bedtime again, looking forward to another day at the factory.
Maybe we can make the first challenge more efficient? You seem principally concerned with a roleplay in which I attempt to reconcile Paul's instruction on salvation with the instruction given by Jesus to the rich young man. The roleplay would involve, I presume, me arguing with the young man, who is to be played by you. That sounds interesting. Indeed, it sounds kind of fun!
Perhaps I can postpone going through all mention of the method of man's salvation made by the Lord and the Apostle until the conclusion of the role-play?

You knew EXACTLY what I meant.

No, I didn't. And I'm quite certain I don't. You accuse me of spending too much time reading works by biased authors. I wonder what else I have to read. Just please make your point plain.

Take all the time you want

I hope you're sincere about that 🙂
Let me tackle one thing at a time. Where do you want to start? The role-play?

Remember that I am that hypothetical lawyer so no symantical mumbo jumbo is going to work.

?

At any rate, I'll approach it by saying what I would say to the young man himself. Will that suffice?

Thats a crock. Please don't give us the line that Paul and James are arguing the same from different approaches.

LOL. I haven't even started, and already you're arguing with me. You move way too fast. I don't know quite what you mean about "arguing the same from different approaches." Anyway, I offered this bonus (and in hindsight should not have, seeing how exponentially my workload has grown) only because some of the same principles used to address your Paul-Jesus challenge shed light on the Paul-James paradox.

Decieved you by guile has only one meaning.

Of course, the words have only one meaning (or do they?) But that's quite beside the point. Do you actually feel, for example, that Paul considers NOT burdening the Corinthians with his physical needs to be a wrong he did to them? (see the preceding verses)
The reason I said I'd approach this subject is that it seems a good place to start applying the principles that will prove necessary in a sensible reply to your Paul-Jesus challenge. It hinges, as I said, on whether one interprets the language literally or literalistically. By literalistically I mean imposing on a statement a ridiculous degree of literalism which was unintended by the author. For example, if I say that "it's raining cats and dogs," you know darn well that I mean there's just a lot of rain. If I say, "oh, how lovely it was for that fellow to tailgate me for three blocks," you can be sure without hearing my tone of voice that I am being sarcastic, and do not mean that I consider the fellow's driving to be literally "lovely." Those would be literalistic misinterpretations. A literal interpretation (perhaps "sensible interpretation" would be a better way to put it) involves considering and attempting to ascertain the author's intention. An intended symbol should be interpreted symbolically, for example. In the case of Paul's apparently claiming to be a liar, I believe the context of the quote makes it plain that Paul does not, in fact, so claim. I can explain that in greater depth if necessary.

Incidentally there are other places where Paul claims telling a lie for the sake of God is not only allowable but encouraged

That does not sound familiar. You'll understand, of course, without being offended (I hope), if I ask for verse references here?

Yes for english translation I tend to use the King James but there is not a citation that I haven't looked up in the Hebrew (Tanach) or Aramaic, Greek (new testament).

The word "guile" gave away the KJV. How wonderful to be able to read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic! My wife and I plan for me to get to school again when the kids get a bit older, if we can afford it. In the meantime, I'll ask you to help me if an interpretation I make relies on a translational glitch. I generally consult at least a couple English translations and also make use of a concordance. Your familiarity with the Bible and the original languages may help speed me up, if your patience permits.

Impossible argument to win. Even Josh Mcdowell himself stopped trying to make that claim although he continued with his apologetics BECAUSE faith is powerful (and I will add not necessarily based on truth).

Really? I'd be interested to hear more about that. I've got a few of McDowell's books. When did he decide that Christianity can't be shown to be reasonable? (please read no sarcasm here; I'm genuinely curious)

I can tell you that people are propably getting fed up with hearing things like "those are not real christians." Sorry but that excuse don't cut it with anyone.

I don't understand. Anyone can claim to be, say, a chess master. I know that "Christian" in the very few times it appears in the English Bible is used to translate a Greek term which means something like "follower of Christ." Is that correct? Anyway, I can claim to be a follower of Christ but deliberately ignore what he wants from me. Is my claim then justified? Should Christians who truly desire to follow their Lord be held accountable and made to explain my actions? I can say I'm a Christian. Does that make it so? If you will but consider it, I think you'll see that the distinction often made between genuine and false Christians is not so silly as you suppose. Nor is it in any way an "excuse."
On the other hand, I can claim to be a Christian, try my best to do as Christ wishes, and fail. I'm still His follower, but not a perfect one. This is in fact the true state of any real Christian.
Actually, before I leave that subject, let's take the example of Catholicism. Catholicism claims to be Christianity. I disagree with some key Catholic doctrines. I have no problems with individual Catholics, and insofar as a Catholic has a genuine faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, I consider that Catholic a Christian. Still, with Catholicism itself I have some issues. Therefore I will not defend Catholicism or Catholic practices. I refuse to see "papal infallibility," for example, as a Christian belief. There are, I'm sure, Christians who believe the Pope's word is God's word. I don't think God believes that, and so I can't call the doctrine of papal infallibility "Christian." I have a good friend who's a Mormon. I know him well enough to know that he's placed his hope for salvation in Christ's death on his behalf. Therefore I consider him a Christian. I don't consider Mormonism, however, to be Christianity. This is so plain. That's it. I'm done for tonight. I'll have to get to the role-play and so forth tomorrow.

Originally posted by huntingbear
My, you are a hasty fellow. It will be very hard for me to keep up with this thread. My apologies.

Originally posted by Feivel
[b]Incorrect. The list would be possible to create. The answer (for christians) would be negative.

No worries. I surrender; here's your list . . .

Commandment 1: The Christian faith as I understand it uphold ...[text shortened]... . That's it. I'm done for tonight. I'll have to get to the role-play and so forth tomorrow.
[/b]

" Please treat us all (including me) without a condecending attitude." Feivel.

Please, do me a favour and speak for yourself.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
" Please treat us all (including me) without a condecending attitude." Feivel.

Please, do me a favour and speak for yourself.

I want to thank you for your patience in replying to such a long post. I almost dreaded logging on tonight. I won't make this one as long, and I appreciate your cooperation in helping me to narrow down the focus of the debate (to prioritize, as you well put it.) I also apologize for any apparent condescension, but I deny its reality. I have been tempted to read an insulting tone into some of your posting, but have decided to give you all benefit of the doubt. Please do the same for me. I know I have been sometimes abrubt, but I'm exhausted. I have a newborn daughter who values nighttime sleep less than I do.

Originally posted by Feivel
Didn't Jesus say "follow the commandments otherwise your a liar"?

Well, I certainly remember "Why do you call me Lord and do not do what I say?" That may not be the same quote, but it certainly covers the same idea. It implies the dishonesty of anyone who does not genuinely follow Christ but still claims to be His. My point, as always, has been that Jesus understood that we will fail, and has mercy on us. One reason I thought I would need to go through ALL Jesus' teaching on our salvation is that He makes it very clear that our salvation is an act of God.

Pharasic in case you didn't know is what the bible calls Jewish legalism

Ah, I understand now. We apparently are familiar with different, alternate spellings of the word.

A Saducee employing a Pharisee is much akin to mixing oil and water.

I'll look into that. When Paul addressed the Sanhedrin in Acts 23 the Pharisees and Sadducees seemed to be getting along well enough until Paul stirred them against one another (v.6).

The pharasic stance can clearly be seen as one of tolerance (at that time). You mean to tell me either Gamaliel was not representative of the Pharasic attitude or Paul was not a Pharasee?


I am not prepared, myself, to assume that all Pharisees held a completely identical opinion about Christianity (or anything else). Within all human organizations there is some variance of opinion. In verse 33, "They" (this pronoun may refer to Pharisees as well as others in the council -- indeed, there is no reason to presume it does not) "They were cut to the quick and intended to kill them." I would like to know how we can be so sure that no Pharisees were among the number intent on killing the disciples. Note, too, that Gamaliel did not seem opposed to flogging the men and ordering them never to speak of Jesus again. That is not tolerance.

Correct, you apparently read only christian books. You really should read not only "anti-christian" books but also "anti-doctrine" books. You would be amazed.

I assume that you have read Christian books, and so (as I suggested earlier) we have both read sources on either (and some on neither) side. I have been convinced by one "side," and you by the other. At least one of us is wrong, but that does not mean that he has abandoned reason. Because I remain a Christian, you assume I have only read Christian works. This is the type of thing I'm tempted to find insulting, but I will not participate in a "Little Feud." (and note, I don't blame you for the existence of that silly thread.)
Anyway, I remember mentioning that I have encountered theories similar to the ones you present for me. I encountered those while reading "anti-Christian" sources. As yet I am unconvinced by them. It took a mountain of evidence to get me, in my stubbornness, to accept even the possibility that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That's a lot of evidence to counter. I think we ought both be content not to "convert" the other, but rather to share our opinions about the available evidence. We don't need to agree. I don't mind if we don't. We don't need to be polite and adult in our discussion. I do mind if we don't.

I trust that you understand the need to prioritize.

Indeed I do! And I'm so glad you do too. Ok, so Paul's Jewishness and honesty are the starting point. Sounds good. I will investigate the matter of his trip to Damascus, and in general the matter of his cultural heritage. I recall seeing some questions about that in one of the books I've read. I don't recall if it's one I own or one I found at the library. I'll bone up on that material and be back (no guarantees about when).

Come off your holier than thou attitude. You know perfectly well you were mentioning Paul versus James faith versus works difference. Please treat us all (including me) without a condecending attitude.

Ok, now we're coming off the rails. Look, I was of course talking about the faith versus works debate. I didn't deny this and I don't. I just did not know exactly what the phrase "same thing from different approaches" meant. What I can say is that I believe Paul's and James' discussions of faith to be complimentary and not contradictory. In a nutshell, I believe that works are a necessary result of salvation whereas the grace of God (and faith in that grace) is the prerequisite. A saving faith will result in good works (but not immediate perfection), while a faith which does not result in good works is, as James puts it, dead. That is, not living, not functioning, not saving, not genuine. I see this as a valid and harmonious interpretation of James and Paul.

They have one meaning but of course anyone can come along and say "but they really mean...". Ok, fine, by that argument the bible . . .

You now begin to put words in my mouth. (or in my bandwidth?)
So many words have you put in my mouth here that I don't even know where to begin to respond.

We can however study the rest of Paul's writing that is available and eventually shed some light on this verse.

Ah, no need to respond. You've just defined for me what I mean by reading in context. I would still like to know whether you really think that Paul feels he wronged the Corinthians by not burdening them with his physical needs. Or was he perhaps sarcastic? Did I genuinely think the driving of the motorist who tailgated me was "lovely?" Looking at Paul's statement about deceiving by guile in context means to me considering from the rest of Paul's writing (especially the writing in the exact same passage) just what he meant to say. Paul suggests that by not imposing his Apostolic right to have them care for his physical needs he was not making obvious his claim to Apostleship. This is the "deceit" of which he speaks. Of course, he knows that the Corinthians already know he is an Apostle. He is suggesting, and in this way he jibes them, that they would attend to his instruction more if he had burdened them to look after his needs. I feel that your interpretation of the text in question does violence to it, by forcing a strict literalism not intended by the author (any more than he intends, in 13:13, to suggest that every single saint who ever lived has personally asked Paul to send greetings to the Corinthians). You must remember that most of Paul's letters (and this includes 2 Corinthians) are very personal, and are written in everday familiar modes of speaking. During conversation, even written conversation, I daily employ figures of speech (for example) to convey meaning which is quite different from what a strict, literalistic interpretation would yield. I am not unique, nor even slightly odd, in this regard (although I am very odd in many other regards).

the only logical conclusion we can come to 9after an investigation) is that Paul meant what he said.

I disagree. I think he meant what he meant. I'm sure you concur that it is ok for us to disagree? There need be not be enmity between us.

hmm, are you a christian?

I thought you'd ask that sooner or later 🙂
I am. I have read the Bible from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21, but I have not memorized all that material.
In fact, I am familiar with Romans 3:7. I was not familiar with your particular interpretation, which again I consider in error based on a hyper-strict literalism. Context helps us here too. Beginning in verse 5 and continuing through verse 8 we can see verse 7 as it was intended. The lie is hypothetical. And even if it's not, Paul does not say that lying on God's behalf is acceptable. Verse 7 is a specific example of the principle stated in verse 5. Our unrighteousness contrasts with God's righteousness so as to emphasize God's righteousness. So a lie (a specific act of unrighteousness, but Paul doesn't specify any reason for the lie, especially not lying on God's behalf) contrasts with God's truth (a specific facet of His righteousness) so as to emphasize or magnify God's goodness by the contrast. The hypothetical question is that if good results from our evil, why are we still judged? Why, if the ultimate result of our actions is good, are they (and we) considered bad? "Let us do evil that good may come" is an attitude which, in conclusion, Paul condemns (verse 8). In so doing he condemns unrighteousness in general and the lie, whether actual or hypothetical, in particular.
I believe the "lie" is hypothetical. But it doesn't matter. Paul condemns deliberate lying regardless of whether it results (or seems to result) in eventual good. This is made clear by examining the context from which verse 7 was extracted. So if (if) Paul is in fact referring to an actual lie he told, that referral would be something of a confession. And so far from condoning or approving his own unrighteousness, Paul here would be condemning it in himself. Still, I think the lie is hypothetical.

[b]He never said it wasn't reasonable. He did say that christianity is a REASONABLE choice based on the evid

ence. He also said that the christian must believe on FAITH first otherwise the evidence is nonsense. Notice how he needs faith before evidence?

(I seem to have been cut off in my last post. Is there a limit to the length of posts? What a shame that I reached it! 😳 )

Then I disagree with McDowell to a certain extent. I doubt if it's terribly relevant here. I think one must have an open mind in order to make heads or tails of the evidence. That's why McDowell's own More Than A Carpenter had no effect on me in my adolescence. I began reading it already decided that it was junk; I finished it without changing my mind. Years later I read it with a more open mind and decided, "maybe there's something to this Christianity stuff." After more research I eventually came to the conclusion, on evidence alone, that Christ was indeed resurrected from death as described in the New Testament. Faith, meaning trust in Him as Lord and Savior, came after that. I didn't then even want to be a Christian. I don't really care if McDowell thinks faith must preceed reason. In that case, I disagree with him.

*note: I do not mean to suggest that all open-minded investigators will reach the same conclusions I did*

Essentially correct but you must note that the Jewish followers were not called christians, they were called Notzrim or followers of the way.

That is very interesting! It's just the kind of thing I love to learn. I had noticed of course that the word "Christian" appears very infrequently (only three times, is that correct?) in the Bible. I had not realized that there was a linguistic disctinction between Jewish and Gentile believers, and it's a good thing to learn. "Notzrim," is that Aramaic?

Thats an interesting question. If your not justified then there are no christians in this world.

I disagree. I make a distinction between A) the one who sincerely sets about to follow Christ and fails, and B) the one who claims the name "Christian" but doesn't actually care about following Christ.

One is either a christian or not a christian.

Agreed! We are agreed on this point.

By your logic, I can claim that I am a christian, although I deliberately disobey the bible I can always claim that I am just not perfect but I am a true follower

This is a distortion of my logic. See above the distinction I make. It should clear up this misconception.

What a crock!

Indeed! I hope I have now clarified my meaning, and I apologize for the miscommunication.

By the way, and here I show more of my ignorance, what is the translation of "Amici Sumus?"

Originally posted by huntingbear
I won't make this one as long

Originally posted by huntingbear
Ivanhoe, please don't inflame him. I will respond to him shortly. He assumes the worst about me, which is ok. I never meant to condescend, and he made a simple mistake and misinterpreted an honest confusion on my part. That's ok. I do NOT want this to become a bickering, or a "Little Feud." I am conflicted myself about whether I can really keep up wi ...[text shortened]... h this thread as it is, and I certainly will not consider it worthwhile if this gets unpleasant.

My point, as always, has been that Jesus understood that we will fail, and has mercy on us. One reason I thought I would need to go through ALL Jesus' teaching on our salvation is that He makes it very clear that our salvation is an act of God.

Nobody is doubting what is written in the bible. The meaning and application are what is in doubt. What Jesus did say is that you are not a "follower" if you do not follow the commandments.

I'll look into that. When Paul addressed the Sanhedrin in Acts 23 the Pharisees and Sadducees seemed to be getting along well enough until Paul stirred them against one another (v.6).

First off looks can be decieving. Second it is funny you bring up the council from Acts 23. That is one of the "Acts" that is very questionable as are most of the supposed trials and council meetings. Also the temple "chaos" where paul was saved by a Roman centurion who knew of Paul's "citizenship" beforehand.

Within all human organizations there is some variance of opinion.

Yes but the leader is nonetheless representative of the group.

In verse 33, "They" (this pronoun may refer to Pharisees as well as others in the council -- indeed, there is no reason to presume it does not) "They were cut to the quick and intended to kill them." I would like to know how we can be so sure that no Pharisees were among the number intent on killing the disciples. Note, too, that Gamaliel did not seem opposed to flogging the men and ordering them never to speak of Jesus again. That is not tolerance.

We can be sure there were NO Pharisees in the "mob" because the Pharasic view was tolerance until 1 generation after the crucifixion. If you refuse to understand that simple fact you can (and should) do your own research on the matter. Also, are you familiar with textual critisism? Now if part of the group wanted to kill them and Gamaliel said do not murder them (which is a commandment if you didn't realize) but flog them and then release them, isn't that tolerance?

I assume that you have read Christian books

I can assure you that I have...how do you explain my familiarity with the bible otherwise? Now perhaps my claiming that you have read only christian literature is wrong but I can assure you that I have heard MANY pastors imploring their congregants to only read christian books and NOT to read any non-christian literature. Some even go so far as to request their congregants NOT view any non-christian media at all. Ever wonder why?

Ok, so Paul's Jewishness and honesty are the starting point. Sounds good. I will investigate the matter of his trip to Damascus, and in general the matter of his cultural heritage.

Don't forget to read sources outside of christianity. All sources for christian authors will be biased (some more than others) much like all Jewish authors would be biased about Moses.

Look, I was of course talking about the faith versus works debate.

This is a different topic and not something we can discuss until AFTER we debate Paul's Jewishness and his differences with Jesus.

You've just defined for me what I mean by reading in context.

Not at all unless you consider the entire new testament to be the context. I am not restricting the reading to the same epistle or book.

I would still like to know whether you really think that Paul feels he wronged the Corinthians by not burdening them with his physical needs.

What exactly do my feelings about Paul's feelings about his writing have to do with anything?

I am familiar with Romans 3:7. I was not familiar with your particular interpretation, which again I consider in error based on a hyper-strict literalism.

You again restrict yourself to a narrow reading of Paul. Paul wrote much more than Chapter 3 of Romans. He wrote approximately 70% of the new testament so lets examine it all. Actually, a careful reading of Paul would show you some very interesting things such as his lack of knowledge of the Tanach but I digress much like your faith vs. works issue so lets continue with the topic at hand. Anyway I do find it strange how you can only "explain" Paul's writing by a multi-paragraph statement 🙂

Amici Sumus

Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker

Originally posted by huntingbear
[b]ence. He also said that the christian must believe on FAITH first otherwise the evidence is nonsense. Notice how he needs faith before evidence?

(I seem to have been cut off in my last post. Is there a limit to the length of posts? What a shame that I reached it! 😳 )

Then I disagree with McDowell to a certain extent. I doubt if it's terrib ...[text shortened]...

By the way, and here I show more of my ignorance, what is the translation of "Amici Sumus?"[/b]

Originally posted by huntingbear
Must I now eat these words? 😳