20 Sep 19
@philokalia saidThis seems to be an Appeal to One's Own Ability to Comprehend One's Own Belief.
It's actually really, really hard to comprehend it, so I wouldn'tblame them.
The right place to understand it is through the early Christian Saints, and then you can see the rightful heirs to it, and get a grasp of how it is to be comprehended and followed.
20 Sep 19
@thinkofone saidThey say that real theological prayer comes through prayer. This is true. Through prayer, we gain understanding, wisdom, and insight into the meaning of the Bible.
It's actually really, really hard to comprehend it, so I wouldn't blame them.
Those who earnestly seek can comprehend it. The truth is that most can't be bothered.
Perhaps the most prevalent theme of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth, is the importance of His word:
Understanding His word.
Not just understanding His word, but believing His word. ...[text shortened]... hen the truth of the matter is that they are "followers" of the dogma that has been set before them.
---
Faith does not come through dogma.
---
The dogma is developed through the efforts and understanding of the great heroes of the Christian community who, through dedicating their life to prayer and study, have faithfully recorded their understandign and interpretation of the scriptures.
It is wrong to expand the dogma beyond what is obvious -- the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Catholics is an example of this, and we do not accept it as valid, but view it as an innovation. Antoher good example si that we believe in transubstantiation, but we have not develoepd some rich dogma behind it that runs the risk of turning people into heretics.
There's very clear, proper ways to interpret the Bible that do not overstep the bounds, and if we are to say that anyone can claim that they have adequately prayed and unlocked new secrets of the Bible -- don't follow dogma!, we are basically destroying the authority of the Church and its traditions and instead advancing a sort of social anarchy.
Anyone can say anything, then.
It's not advisable.
20 Sep 19
@fmf saidI do not understand how it is a criticism -- it is the revealed truth of Christ, given to His Apostles, and preserved by the Church and the Saints for the edification of all.
In other words, one has to start with "It is because it is" and take it from there.
Those events happened, and our doctrine is based on that.
I do understand how you can believe that they never happened.
I do understand how people can believe that the contexts were significantly different and so some aspects of it have to be understood differently in ours.
But I do not understand that you can dismiss portions and accept other portions.
It either is the revealed truth of God, safeguarded and passed down, or it is not.
20 Sep 19
@philokalia saidThis is noted also.
Those who are closest to the religion from the start clearly formulated the proper beliefs.
20 Sep 19
@philokalia saidIf you do not view the New Testament in this way, then you will not come to the proepr theological grounds, and then you will start slipping away from Christianity because your ego takes over and you will begin to pick & choose what you want from it, and what you want to emphasize. Those who are closest to the religion from the start clearly formulated the proper beliefs. The Catholic Church did corrupt some of them, and then the Protestants,reacting largely to the errors of the Catholics, overcompensated and innovated outside of tradition, and the results are not that good.
@Chaney3
If you are interested, you have to approach the New Testament as completely correct & without error, faithfully recorded, and it is only in this context that you can actually develop the proper systematic understanding of the Bible.
If you do not view the New Testament in this way, then you will not come to the proepr theological grounds, and then yo ...[text shortened]... rely that the proper understanding is in the Eastern tradition that was not corrupted by innovation.
And the punishment for not having this mentality is...
Never mind, I know. "The punishment is what the punishment is."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Have you read the entire thread?
No. I am reading through what is worthwhile now up to page 3.
The Apostle Paul's experience and teaching is very valuable. We should consider him a pioneer in the life in union with the resurrected and available Spirit of Christ.
He was a trail blazer. And he was ordained by God.
The medical doctor Luke did journalistic research on the early Christian church. As well he was a traveling companion with Paul.
And at Paul's threatened execution Luke was one of the precious few colleagues that stood with him.
Anyway, probably getting his journalistic information from the disciples Ananias (or possibly Peter) Luke wrote that God told Ananias (who baptized Paul) -
" ... for this man is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
For I will show him how many things he must suffer on behalf of My name." (Acts 9:15,16)
20 Sep 19
@fmf saidYes, FMF: the truth was revealed through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on Earth.
[b]If you do not view the New Testament in this way, then you will not come to the proepr theological grounds, and then you will start slipping away from Christianity because your ego takes over and you will begin to pick & choose what you want from it, and what you want to emphasize. Those who are closest to the religion from the start clearly formulated the proper beliefs. The ...[text shortened]... r not having this mentality is...
Never mind, I know. "The punishment is what the punishment is."
This is the kind of truth that could never be concluded from the natural world because it is fundamentally supernatural.
Just as such: our concept of human rights is likewise supernatural in the sense that it is concrete conclusions that we boldly draw from the assertion that man has worth and dignity. This is a different topic, but it is relevant because this is a basic, fundamental belief that you see among atheists, yet this is not something that cn be concluded from nature.
But it would certainly be fun if we had some Nietzschean antichrists here.
@philokalia saidIt is because it is. You believe it because you believe it. You don't think it is fundamentally misanthropic because you don't think it is fundamentally misanthropic. You believe it is moral because you believe it is moral. You can't make a moral case because it is fundamentally supernatural. The punishment is what you believe the punishment is. It's hard for people who aren't YOU to understand the correctness and the moral justification of what YOU believe. So you make assertions about it that don't mention torture and don't mention flames. Please see St. Nigel of Doncaster. He was a better debater than me 1200 years ago. He was better than you too, so you defer to him. The desserts are just because they are just. Believing what you believe is quite simply credible enough for everybody else, and believing this is not narcissistic. Everyone deserves to be tortured by their creator unless they believe what you believe. This is not narcissistic because it isn't narcissistic. Oh and by the way your God figure doesn't choose to torture people for lack of belief, they choose to torture themselves. And all this is because it is.
Yes, FMF: the truth was revealed through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on Earth.
This is the kind of truth that could never be concluded from the natural world because it is fundamentally supernatural.
20 Sep 19
@fmf saidOh, but check it out -- at your request, I actually made a separate post dealing with the moral justification fo rthese things in my own words.
It is because it is. You believe it because you believe it. You don't think it is fundamentally misanthropic because you don't think it is fundamentally misanthropic. You believe it is moral because you believe it is moral. You can't make a moral case because it is fundamentally supernatural. The punishment is what you believe the punishment is. It's hard for people who aren't YO ...[text shortened]... torture people for lack of belief, they choose to torture themselves. And all this is because it is.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-god-who-burns-people-alive-for-eternity.182510/page-34#post_4100797
I do believe that debate and discussion are important.
If you would like to attack that, that thread is still going strong, so it seems! Though I have not been as active there.
But we can talk about that there.
And I say, again, that I am not sure what the threshold for the entrance into the Kingdom of God is at the minimum. I only know one path that guarantees it, and that is a narrow path in the sense that it requires some sacrifices and effort. I do not think that it is the minimal path. I believe that there is grace beyond this specific path.
That point is actually a red herring.
... And we aren't talking about St. Paul, but I suppose that's OK.
20 Sep 19
@philokalia saidBut what is the moral justification for torture in burning flames ~ the most agonizing kind of pain that can be inflicted on a person ~ being the punishment/revenge?
Oh, but check it out -- at your request, I actually made a separate post dealing with the moral justification fo rthese things in my own words.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-god-who-burns-people-alive-for-eternity.182510/page-34#post_4100797
I do believe that debate and discussion are important.
If you would like to attack that, that thread is ...[text shortened]... int is actually a red herring.
... And we aren't talking about St. Paul, but I suppose that's OK.
20 Sep 19
@philokalia saidThere's nothing about torture in that post.
I actually made a separate post dealing with the moral justification fo rthese things in my own words.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-god-who-burns-people-alive-for-eternity.182510/page-34#post_4100797
20 Sep 19
@fmf saidSorry, wrong thread. But the characterization of the spinning wheels of your narcissistic-misanthropic-moraly-incoherent mentality is spot on, nevertheless.
But what is the moral justification for torture in burning flames ~ the most agonizing kind of pain that can be inflicted on a person ~ being the punishment/revenge?
20 Sep 19
@philokalia saidYes. I remember the moment. You don't like the notion of torture because you see it as immoral so you avoid the word when you are waffling on about the morality of torture. You suggested that torture is morally justified because it is morally justified. The term you used was "just deserts". Why is it morally just, you were asked. And you said it was "just deserts". In other words, it's just because it's just, and it is because it is.
I will also note that my reason for not using the word 'torture' was also mentioned in that thread.
20 Sep 19
Those who do not wish to be united with God are not united with God, and those who do not repent of their sins get to live with this non-repentance and the results that it brings.
You are an agent who has full control over yourself and you are the hand by which you bring suffering on to yourself.
This is one of the reasons why I do not think of it as torture.
Another would be the fact that a punishment for a set crime, even if physical, is not torture. For instance, a man who is being caned in Singapore isn't actually being tortured. He is receiving a punishment that is corporal in nature.
This topic really can lead us to semantic, which is regrettable.