Log In
Forum
Topic RSS
11:13 pm
December 4, 2009
Offline
Within the theological arguement of synergism VS monergism
there is only a misunderstanding of Gods will to accept one
VS the other.
I stand by those words, the conflict is in confusion of Gods will,
to accept one vs the other. Explain why that is not true?
“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
11:38 pm
April 9, 2009
Offline
I agree on the harshness.
sandra you often speak as though you know people better than they know themselves.
Try to not flip out on me here. 😎
This is a very interesting topic but I'm kind of on the sidelines because it all is based on the premise that the Bible was inerrantly transcribed by the prophets and what not of the old times. This is something I don't believe in as you all know. In fact, it's how I see that the God of the OT and NT could easily be the same God in that the anthropomorphism of God (and other things which I won't mention) of the OT is a mistake. "Vengeance is mine" comes to mind as an example of a mistaken translation of what was received into human terms. I do believe God is peace, love, bliss, and nothing else such as a punisher. Vengeance is not an act of love, though one could try to rationalize it by calling it tough love which I think has too much of a human spin on it.
I would like to think that our behavioral patterns greatly influence the extent to which we are blessed with grace from God. Thoughts as well as acts are behavioral patterns. What's written on our souls, the very essence of who we are, is known by God and influences the level of grace, imo.
I also have a dim view on those who say that anything outside the Biblical box is poison. I can understand why someone would think that about things that directly contradict the Bible as being poison (potentially) but things that are not inconsistent with the Bible are not necessarily poison. Again, my opinion.
IN fact, I think some aspects of the OT are poison. But that's what you'd expect from a pagan/infidel.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
11:42 pm
September 4, 2009
Offline
"sandra" wrote: Within the theological arguement of synergism VS monergism
there is only a misunderstanding of Gods will to accept one
VS the other.
I disagree. You said many things very supportive of Monergism and you just did again. I am pleasantly surprised by your comments and I welcome them. And I did read them!
I stand by those words, the conflict is in confusion of Gods will,
to accept one vs the other. Explain why that is not true?
No, I can't explain why that is not true because I believe it is true.
I think it's semantics biting us in the rear again. The conflict I am referencing is the conflict between people and their beliefs. We can't all be right, that's relativism. When 2 parties say opposing and mutually exclusive things, only 1 party can be right, or both wrong; but not both right.
Right? 😀
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
11:49 pm
September 4, 2009
Offline
"at1with0" wrote: I also have a dim view on those who say that anything outside the Biblical box is poison.
I agree with you there, but I am not sure you fully understand the Christian position. The Christian believes that all kinds of things outside the bible can be spoken and even believed. But what is NOT proper to a Christian is (a) Teaching something that goes against Sacred Scripture, or (b) Teaching something as the Gospel that has no reference in Scripture.
We can go willy-nilly all we want as long as we preface accordingly.
I may believe that God is a Master Programmer and we are all sentient programs inside a holographic, programmed simulation. I could propose that I believe God's "Word" as referenced in Scripture (not Scripture itself), is actually another name for the language He used to create this simulation. Did God say audibly "Let their be light?" Or did the "Word of God" dictate that there be light? And so on. All conjecture.
And I, or any another Christian could propose any number of seemingly outlandish things. But as long as we preface it with, "This is what I personally believe but it's not backed up specifically by the Bible," then it's communicated and treated properly.
Make sense?
The Bible doesn't teach us everything would could ever know. It is God's revelation to man, chiefly as relates to His character but also as relates to the character of the human race. The Bible teaches us what we need to know, not all that we are supposed to know.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
12:59 am
April 9, 2009
Offline
I concur.
The Bible gives the essentials but no book could ever hope to be the whole truth. It is the truth that is needed, perhaps a bit more, and that is all. But that is a lot in itself.
The whole truth of the nature of God would probably be infinite and beyond the scope of any finite book.
Everything else is really unnecessary to live. People need to know how to fix their car before they need to know about evolution or intelligent design. People need to bring food to the table before they delve into theory and speculation. We are truly blessed that we can conjecture about the nature of the universe, such as it being a simulation or what not.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
1:22 am
August 21, 2009
Offline
Relativism doesn't imply that we're all right. I don't think anyone actually believes that.
I'm not a relativist, but their real beliefs are way less dumb than that.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris
4:24 am
September 4, 2009
Offline
"humphreys" wrote: Relativism doesn't imply that we're all right. I don't think anyone actually believes that.
I'm not a relativist, but their real beliefs are way less dumb than that.
I never suggested that Relativism implies we are all right.
Relativism teaches that opposing views can both be true. Moral Relativism teaches that what is right for you is acceptable.
It's a total wreck of a belief system.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
4:25 am
September 4, 2009
Offline
"at1with0" wrote: I concur.
The Bible gives the essentials but no book could ever hope to be the whole truth. It is the truth that is needed, perhaps a bit more, and that is all. But that is a lot in itself.
The whole truth of the nature of God would probably be infinite and beyond the scope of any finite book.
Everything else is really unnecessary to live. People need to know how to fix their car before they need to know about evolution or intelligent design. People need to bring food to the table before they delve into theory and speculation. We are truly blessed that we can conjecture about the nature of the universe, such as it being a simulation or what not.
Very well said brah! I like it! All of it!!! *raises a glass*
*gives applause*
*cleans up spilled drink*
*nerd rage quit*
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
1:42 pm
August 21, 2009
Offline
"frrostedman" wrote: [quote="humphreys"]Relativism doesn't imply that we're all right. I don't think anyone actually believes that.
I'm not a relativist, but their real beliefs are way less dumb than that.
I never suggested that Relativism implies we are all right.
"frrostedman" wrote: We can't all be right, that's relativism.
I'm sure you meant something slightly different by what you said, but that's what I was basing my response on.
Anyway, I have noticed that the usual critics of relativism are Christians, but they're usually attacking a strawman version of relativism which no one actually believes. The common claim being made by them is that "relativism tells us that all views are equal", which is just false.
As for moral relativism, I don't think it implies that "what's right for you is acceptable, either". For instance, for someone who thinks rape is okay it is not acceptable in a culture where rape is clearly seen as deeply wrong. Most moral relativists believe in a moral code just like you do, the only difference is they believe that moral code is culture specific and not something set in stone.
It's not that morals are absent, it's that they change from culture to culture, just like actual laws. For instance, you're allowed to have sex at 16 in England, other places it is 18, other places it is as low as 8. That implies there is no universal code to what is acceptable in that regard, but it is still unacceptable to break those codes for the country or state you are in.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris
5:34 pm
September 4, 2009
Offline
"humphreys" wrote: Most moral relativists believe in a moral code just like you do, the only difference is they believe that moral code is culture specific and not something set in stone.
It's not that morals are absent, it's that they change from culture to culture, just like actual laws. For instance, you're allowed to have sex at 16 in England, other places it is 18, other places it is as low as 8. That implies there is no universal code to what is acceptable in that regard, but it is still unacceptable to break those codes for the country or state you are in.
And likewise, to the moral relativist (see the 'burqa' thread in general section to see some moral relativists in action!) it is perfectly ok the way Muslim culture treats their women in the Middle East. Greeney brought up a prime example: if a woman gets raped - she needs to have several witnesses for the rapists to get into any trouble... otherwise she is punished for committing adultery.
Not ok in my book. Perfectly ok in the moral relativist's book.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
1 Guest(s)
