Blinded By Belief

[minsocal]

I was trying to find the source and failed, but I recently read that the existence of multiple paths to God is not a zero-sum problem. To add to one, we don't need to take away from another. I think there are many apparent contradictions between religions, but much can be chalked up to the fact that we are limited by human languages in trying to grasp the indescribable.

 

I found several variations on this theme, some of which could have been what you were reading. It centers on the debate as to whether you have to choose between religion and science or any regiion over another religion. In a zero-sum game, every win is accompanied by a loss. The zero-sum approach has been under attack for at least 30 years. Actually, I think the attack on the zero-sum theory began with Jesus (or even earlier), but that is my opinion.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

It was probably something from this site related to Pluralism Sunday. Good thing the reference citation wasn't necessary :-)

[davidk]

I continue to connect Christianity to the teachings of Jesus and I think this is reasonable.

They said therefore to Him, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' "

 

Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of Heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.'

 

'They said therefore to Him, 'Lord, evermore give us this bread.'

 

Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

 

But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from Heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I myself will raise him up on the last day.'

 

The Jews were therefore grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down from Heaven.'

 

And they were saying, 'Is it not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down out of Heaven" ?'

 

Jesus answered and said to them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one comes to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will will raise him up on the last day.

 

It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God." Everyone who has heard and learned form the Father, comes to Me.

Not that any man has seen the Father, except to One who is from God; he has seen the Father.

 

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

 

I am the bread of life.

 

Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

 

This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

 

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.' 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in yourselves.' - John 6: 41 ff

 

'I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.' 8:12

 

But there is a more basic point. ... go out into the world a DO SOMETHING consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

 

I absolutely concur.

[JosephM]

Davidk,

 

In this section you can agree or disagree or concur or not concur or even challenge and debate or discuss a point but when you are answering a post as above, preaching is not called for . When responding to a particular post If you concur or not you can add supported writings to make your point of concurrance or in opposition but since you concur it is not necessary to list the teachings of Jesus which is neither in support or opposition to the post you are responding to. If you are trying to say something not related to what you are responding to, start a new thread please with your real point.

 

Thanks for your cooperation,

 

Love Joseph

[JosephM]

Davidk,

Your post here was deleted by the moderator as you did not heed the warning above. If you wish to debate your interpretation of the Bible/Jesus's teachings with PC's on this board concerning who Jesus is, Start a new thread topic in line with your point and if anyone is interested they may respond. If no one responds in a REASONABLE TIME IT WILL BE PRUNED.

 

Please heed this warning not to preach from a fundamentalist position on this particular thread titled Blinded by Belief whose intent is not related to your posts. Start a new thread and title it appropriately in this debate section to see if anyone is interested in discussing it with you. Your cooperation is requested and appreciated.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

DearJoseph,

 

Normally, I enjoy reading your opinions. And as we have readily discovered in the past we can have significant differences. It is notable that others have had differences of opinion with each of us; and, well, some could be judged to be significant. But despite that, we have both been careful not to be disrespectful. I wish not to damage that relationship.

 

Dk

--

The first post on this thread addressed a particular book. Though not outrightly named, it was understood, as evidenced by the posts which followed, to be the Bible; and about the people who know this book to be objectively true. Those same people believe that only one entity has the authority to reveal truth to man, and that it is the objective reality for that entity to be the infinite-personal triune God of creation who has truly and propositionally revealed Himself and the truths man needs through the Bible.

 

Both Corinthian and DCJ had offered to this topic reasoned and courteous opinions in differing with the first post, but later summarily dispatched with a euphamistic "pat on the head".

 

However, the disdain toward these people did not end so thinly veiled as had been expected. For in that first post, it had already opprobriously mischaractrerized the aforementioned people as being unable to come to any reasoned foundation for their belief, and are just considered blind fools by people actually capable of thinking.

 

The stage was now set to dismiss anyone who may believe in the truth of Scripture or anything other than what could be considered exclusively 'progressive'.

 

Thankfully the post ended, but the effort to rescue the post from revealing the true disdain harbored for these poor, fundamentalist fools, was in the offering of a patronizing statement of love and inclusion, of which, as ultimately revealed, was a reversal of attitude in what followed.

 

Soon after, there followed a response to which it was felt the need to defend preaching as not preaching.

 

Then, the magnanimous post, whereby it was insisted Biblical quotes could be used as supporting evidence without being considered offensive.

 

As the posts progressed, some began to claim that all religions are the same, eventually pantheistic; all gods were just the same God. Discussions followed declaring such things as "I connect Christianity to the teachings of Jesus and I think this is reasonable". My quoting from John of Jesus teaching an exclusive message, is an awakening and eye-opening message of true faith in contrast to the genuine blind faiths of false gods, not similitude.

 

Since the Bible is the only source of any statement that can be directly attributed to Jesus, it is entirely appropriate to quote them as supporting documentation for Jesus' claim of being the exclusive path. After all, they should be considered inoffensive by current measure, right?

 

Sadly the concept, of including those who having a Biblical perspective and are thereby intellectually limited (read: inferior), has fallen aside to arbitrary censorship of anyone that cannot so easily be converted to 'progressive' thought, where all faiths, except those that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, can be included. Because 'nothing can be done for him', if he can't be coerced into towing the progressive line, we'll prune him from our midst.

 

As Rivanna introduced, either the Bible is true, or it isn't. Man has no authority to decide in any other way.

 

One more thought to consider: the spiritually blind cannot see that objective truth is always more valuable than subjective experience.

[davidk]

Deleted duplicate post by Davidk

[JosephM]

Thank you for your view Davidk.

 

You have not damaged our relationship.

You are correct I did not name the book (purposely) because that particular book was not the point of my topic. It applied to all religious books in general and to the concept of accepting a book as infallible truth blinding oneself to any contradictory evidence. After all I was the originator of the topic.

 

All i am suggesting to you is to start another topic if you have a point other than what you have already made here. My deleting of your posts was not meant to usurp your privileges on this board. Only to keep them in line with our guidelines as I see them.

 

TCPC is very tolerant but you must remember that many here came out of fundamental teachings and are already aware of many of your points and differences and what the Bible says. On their behalf, there is no need to re-preach fundamentalism by quoting massive writings to make points that are not in line with this topic as the author of it sees it. If you feel we are not Blinded by Belief assumptions in a book then make your point but not by quoting a mass of writings for proof that the subject topic purports that total acceptance of relates to unopenness or blindness. State why you think differently and leave it at that for others to question or consider. By definition of these 8 points, We PC's are open and with a book that one claims to be the infallible word of God totally without error you have, in my view, closed yourself to contradictory discussion. Besides you have made your point whereby some have felt you are monopolizing and they have grown weary of your posts.

 

So, David please start your own topic. The others you spoke of were not brushed away. They have every right to disagree with me or anyone else and state their opinion/view and leave it at that. It seems you would rather argue than discuss and that creates an atmosphere that I do not want to continue to propagate even in the debate section. Keep in mind this is a PC site and even in the debate section there are limits. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe.

You have crossed one limit whether you agree or not and are politely being asked to start another topic for the third time and speak your view as relates to your point. That's all. There is no further need for you to respond under this topic. Please do not be offended but take it as an official warning.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph