The Harm To Others

[JosephM]

Joseph,

The Christian mystics had no concept of being separated from rationality because they knew that something is there. What communication from God the Christian mystic sees or hears, he knows is from God, and is that which he can communicate not only to himself but to others.

It would be unreasonable to think God would communicate with man in a way man cannot understand nor communicate. The Bible doesn't dictate truth, but is God's utterences to be written by another, His propositional revelation to us.

-

(snip)

To not speak to our fellow man of the only answer to all of his concerns, is to do him harm.

 

Davidk,

 

I do not speak for those before me or those after me. But I testify to you that the fleshly thinking mind will surely perish and all your intellectual knowledge and understanding of the Bible with it. Yet there is a Spirit within you that does not think but knows the deep things of God that are unspeakable in words and can only be subjectively experienced in the flesh. All words are but content and concepts. God has no need to write a book or speak in language to communicate when his very essence is discernible even at this moment if you would listen to the silence. May the veil over your heart of flesh be opened that in understanding you might glimpse of what others here have spoken to you yet you have uterred that you understood not.

 

Love Joseph

 

PS None of my words can give you understanding. They are only pointing to something beyond their content or capability even as your Bible attempts to do.

[davidk]

"God has revealed this wisdom to us through the Spirit. The Spirit scrutinizes all matters, even the deep things of God." —1 Corinthians 2:10

... To understand spiritual things, we have to rely totally on the Holy Spirit because the Spirit instructs us in everything (John 14:26), We live in the Spirit and it is the major part if not all of our understanding.

(2 Corinthians 3:15-17) 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

... (1 Corinthians 2:10-16) "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[a] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ." The mind of Christ I feel can be expressed as Christ consciousness, but many Christians would call this New Age as if it is bad. It is not negative.

 

... The Spirit enters where the door is open and honors a closed mind by not entering where it is not welcome.

A couple of things here. First, Christian epistemology is that there must be something spoken if we are to know anything. God made the universe, and He gives us the Bible, the verbalized, propositional, factual revelation, to tell us what we need to know. What God spoke is written (ie; v. 9 of I Corinthians, "but just as it is written, ..."). We know these things because they are the writing of what has been spoken (communicated, taught) to man by the Spirit combining spiritual thoughts and spiritual words. (v 13).

 

Second; while I have some objection to the other paragraphs, I will defer any comment in favor of the last sentence which acknowledges a choice is given to man.

 

... But I testify to you that the fleshly thinking mind will surely perish and all your intellectual knowledge and understanding of the Bible with it. Yet there is a Spirit within you that does not think but knows the deep things of God that are unspeakable in words and can only be subjectively experienced in the flesh. All words are but content and concepts. God has no need to write a book or speak in language to communicate when his very essence is discernible even at this moment if you would listen to the silence. May the veil over your heart of flesh be opened that in understanding you might glimpse of what others here have spoken to you yet you have uterred that you understood not.

Love Joseph

PS None of my words can give you understanding. They are only pointing to something beyond their content or capability even as your Bible attempts to do.

Dear Joseph, Any misunderstanding would be remedied if the thoughts were more intelligible. For example, in the above post, the flesh is criticized for not being able to know the deep things of God, and then immediately it follows up by saying it is the flesh that knows. If your flesh cannot understand the Spirit, how do you know if you have ever had any experience with it? How could you share it with anyone?

God does not want those experiences to be kept secretly away from others, that would be of great harm to them.

--

You and soma seem at great odds here on this one, for he reflects that God is witnessed in our minds, and explains we are so conscious of our experiences we can direct them toward Christ; and the Spirit is a major part of our understanding.

[soma]

DavidK I agree and understand what JosephM is saying. He is so patient with you and trying to point you to the Spirit, but you keep wanting to correct the grammar, and not focus on the Spirit. He talks very clearly about the Spirit and points you in the right direction with his kind words, but you slap away his hand. You speak about the events of the Spirit with your head, but if you want to be credible speak from your heart with the Spirit.

The Spirit gives us Truth, the events are only facts.

[minsocal]

The "harm to others" has an objective measure. It is physical violence against the person, it is violence against the persons' psychology. No theory survives this objective measurement. None. Period. The brute force logic is this: are you willing to do harm to support your beliefs? Are you then the God of wrath? Not God ... you. Is harm relative to ... what? Name where harm is "good" and where it is "bad". davidk wants everyone to be "like him" and has no depth of understanding that God did not set it up that way. davidk is in need of our compassion ... it is his choice to listen.

[McKenna]

For some examples you can begin by looking at Ps 34:17; Matt 5:3-12; Jn 3:16- 21. God is just a bit more reliable than a meteorologist, don't you think?

 

The real issue for you is whether the Bible is the verbalized communication from God to man; whether it is the propositional truth where it touches history and the cosmos and that which is considered religious, or not. Is it truly God's revelation or not.

 

If faith is separated from fact, there would be no reason to think religious 'things' come from anything other than what is in our own heads, which is unverifiable, subjective, existential, religious 'experience'.

 

Thinking God did (could, would) not do this is a closed system of thought that limits everything to only natural causation, where everything is a machine, where real propositional revelation from God is unthinkable.

 

Now why do you think God would not communicate to man in a way man can understand?

 

The harm is denying man of the certainty in his outcome by the ridicule of God's Word.

 

You're saying:

1) It is possible for God to communicate with man, and he desires to do so.

2) The Bible presents itself as a communication from God to man.

3) Therefore the Bible is God's Word.

 

I don't think I need to tell you that this is a logical fallacy.

 

I don't have a problem with proposition 1. It's just that proposition 3 does not follow from propositions 1 and 2. You're making statements and assuming there is a connection without proving the connection. The argument falls flat.

[davidk]

My message is not to be considered to be persuasive words of my wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit of God and of meaning, so that your faith should not rest on my wisdom or any other man, but on the power of God. For as it is written, God has revealed to us things which the eye cannot see or the ear hear, for the Spirit searches all things. Who among us knows the thoughts of a man except his spirit that is in him? Or the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God? That we may know the things given to us freely by God, it is by His Spirit, things of which we can speak of that were taught to us by the Spirit combining His spiritual thoughts and words.

 

The Spirit of God reveals to us the Lord our God did create all things. But many do not accept the things of the Spirit. They cannot understand them because they are spiritually examined. Whoever is spiritual, thoughtfully examines the worth of all things. The unseen attributes of God, that is His truth, power, and divine nature, are understood by the spiritual man who examines the worth of all things God has made. The natural man does not see what is to be clearly understood through what is made and becomes foolish.

---

The Bible is apparently confusing to the minds of many people. This confusion has come about because of modern man's fundamental change in the concept of truth. Many have never analyzed the drift toward this new methodology in the way we approach truth and knowing. We can get confused when subjected to the modern framework, because we don't understand this new alternative which has been presented to us, where the spiritual is only semantic mysticisms which cannot be understood nor communicated.

 

This is why I have spoken for your consideration of the basic presupposition of the existence of absolutes. (ie; If something is right, its opposite is wrong.) If you can understand to the extent to which that this basic presupposition no longer holds sway, you will understand why this new methodology is generating such moral and epistemological havoc.

 

Is this true? Examine it in regard to how this applies to the Bible.

There's 2 ways to consider propositional revelation and its infallibility. First- through the presuppositions involved; Second- considering the the detailed problems.

 

1st- I think for others, the concept of propositional revelation is not so much mistaken but in effect, meaningless. The Christian presupposition is that there is a personal beginning to all things- the infinite someone has been there and made the rest. Hence, everthing else would be limited. Suppose one of those limited things was on his own wavelength, in his image. Then one could say there was an infinite non-created Personal and a limited, created personal. On this presupposition, the personality of the created personal could be explained On the same presupposition why couldn't the non-created Personal communicate with the created personal if he wished?

 

2 things:

 

1. even communication between created persons is not exhaustive; but that doesn't mean it is not true. Thus the communication from the un-created to the created would not have to be qualitatively different. It would not be exhaustive, but that doesn't make it untrue, unless the uncreated Person were a liar.

 

2. If the uncreated Personal truly cared for the created personal it would not be unexpected for him to tell the created things of a propositional nature; otherwise the created would have numerous things he would not know if he just began by himself as a limited, finite reference point.

In such a case there is no intrinsic reason the uncreated Personal could communicate some vaguely true things, but could not communicate propositional truth concerning the world, or the sequence that followed the uncreated Personal's making of everything. We have no reason to think why he could not truly communicate these propositional things. They would not be exhaustive, but no reason they are not true.

This is the Biblical claim of revelation.

 

If the created personal wished to give these communications through individual created personalities in such a way that they would write, in their own style, etc, the exact things the uncreated Personal wanted them to write in the areas of religious truth and things of the cosmos and history, then it would be pretty hard to make an absolute and say he could not or would not. The Bible's claim of inspiration.

Why would the noncreated Personal give man religious truths truth couched in a structural framework which, implicity and explicitly, is historic, and yet that history be false or confused. That surely would be unreasonable, unless that book is only man feeling upward. The Bible gives no indication of religious truth out of contact with history, which is open to verification as a proof of the truth of what is given; it gives no indication of space-time history being an error-conditioned incrustation.

This is how we know, the one who knows tells the one who does not know. There is no reason God would not truly tell us about Himself.

 

---

Some may regard the Bible as God's revelation to us in regard to an upper-story religious truth, but allow any sense of truth in regard to history and science to be lost. How should the chapters of the Bible be read? If we start at Genesis, what historical value does it have? Is it true when it puts man in his cosmic setting and shows him of his peculiar uniqueness, explaining man's wonder yet also his flaws? Without a proper understanding of Genesis we can come to no answer for the problems of metaphysics (being), morals or (here's that word again) epistemology.

 

The Bible

It is God's Spirit communicating things to our spirit, which we can speak and know of that are taught to us by the Spirit with the combination of His spiritual thoughts and words,

[McKenna]

My message is not to be considered to be persuasive words of my wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit of God and of meaning, so that your faith should not rest on my wisdom or any other man, but on the power of God. For as it is written, God has revealed to us things which the eye cannot see or the ear hear, for the Spirit searches all things. Who among us knows the thoughts of a man except his spirit that is in him? Or the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God? That we may know the things given to us freely by God, it is by His Spirit, things of which we can speak of that were taught to us by the Spirit combining His spiritual thoughts and words.

 

The Spirit of God reveals to us the Lord our God did create all things. But many do not accept the things of the Spirit. They cannot understand them because they are spiritually examined. Whoever is spiritual, thoughtfully examines the worth of all things. The unseen attributes of God, that is His truth, power, and divine nature, are understood by the spiritual man who examines the worth of all things God has made. The natural man does not see what is to be clearly understood through what is made and becomes foolish.

---

The Bible is apparently confusing to the minds of many people. This confusion has come about because of modern man's fundamental change in the concept of truth. Many have never analyzed the drift toward this new methodology in the way we approach truth and knowing. We can get confused when subjected to the modern framework, because we don't understand this new alternative which has been presented to us, where the spiritual is only semantic mysticisms which cannot be understood nor communicated.

 

This is why I have spoken for your consideration of the basic presupposition of the existence of absolutes. (ie; If something is right, its opposite is wrong.) If you can understand to the extent to which that this basic presupposition no longer holds sway, you will understand why this new methodology is generating such moral and epistemological havoc.

 

Is this true? Examine it in regard to how this applies to the Bible.

There's 2 ways to consider propositional revelation and its infallibility. First- through the presuppositions involved; Second- considering the the detailed problems.

 

1st- I think for others, the concept of propositional revelation is not so much mistaken but in effect, meaningless. The Christian presupposition is that there is a personal beginning to all things- the infinite someone has been there and made the rest. Hence, everthing else would be limited. Suppose one of those limited things was on his own wavelength, in his image. Then one could say there was an infinite non-created Personal and a limited, created personal. On this presupposition, the personality of the created personal could be explained On the same presupposition why couldn't the non-created Personal communicate with the created personal if he wished?

 

2 things:

 

1. even communication between created persons is not exhaustive; but that doesn't mean it is not true. Thus the communication from the un-created to the created would not have to be qualitatively different. It would not be exhaustive, but that doesn't make it untrue, unless the uncreated Person were a liar.

 

2. If the uncreated Personal truly cared for the created personal it would not be unexpected for him to tell the created things of a propositional nature; otherwise the created would have numerous things he would not know if he just began by himself as a limited, finite reference point.

In such a case there is no intrinsic reason the uncreated Personal could communicate some vaguely true things, but could not communicate propositional truth concerning the world, or the sequence that followed the uncreated Personal's making of everything. We have no reason to think why he could not truly communicate these propositional things. They would not be exhaustive, but no reason they are not true.

This is the Biblical claim of revelation.

 

If the created personal wished to give these communications through individual created personalities in such a way that they would write, in their own style, etc, the exact things the uncreated Personal wanted them to write in the areas of religious truth and things of the cosmos and history, then it would be pretty hard to make an absolute and say he could not or would not. The Bible's claim of inspiration.

Why would the noncreated Personal give man religious truths truth couched in a structural framework which, implicity and explicitly, is historic, and yet that history be false or confused. That surely would be unreasonable, unless that book is only man feeling upward. The Bible gives no indication of religious truth out of contact with history, which is open to verification as a proof of the truth of what is given; it gives no indication of space-time history being an error-conditioned incrustation.

This is how we know, the one who knows tells the one who does not know. There is no reason God would not truly tell us about Himself.

 

---

Some may regard the Bible as God's revelation to us in regard to an upper-story religious truth, but allow any sense of truth in regard to history and science to be lost. How should the chapters of the Bible be read? If we start at Genesis, what historical value does it have? Is it true when it puts man in his cosmic setting and shows him of his peculiar uniqueness, explaining man's wonder yet also his flaws? Without a proper understanding of Genesis we can come to no answer for the problems of metaphysics (being), morals or (here's that word again) epistemology.

 

The Bible

It is God's Spirit communicating things to our spirit, which we can speak and know of that are taught to us by the Spirit with the combination of His spiritual thoughts and words,

 

David...

 

Let me reiterate what I said.

 

"You're saying:

1) It is possible for God to communicate with man, and he desires to do so.

2) The Bible presents itself as a communication from God to man.

3) Therefore the Bible is God's Word.

 

I don't think I need to tell you that this is a logical fallacy.

 

I don't have a problem with proposition 1. It's just that proposition 3 does not follow from propositions 1 and 2. You're making statements and assuming there is a connection without proving the connection. The argument falls flat."

 

All you did in this post was to restate your argument for why it is possible for God to communicate with man. These exact same arguments could be used to defend the Qur'an as God's Revelation. Now before you fly off on an attack against the Qur'an let me tell you I am not interested. I am not here to defend it, I am not a Muslim. But simply saying that God can reveal His truth to mankind is not enough. That same argument has been made for the Hebrew Scriptures alone, for the Bible as a whole, for the Qur'an, for the Book of Mormon (and the LDS church's other Scriptures), for Neale Donald Walsch's "Conversations With God." To argue that God could reveal His truth through Revelation and then to jump to the conclusion that therefore your Scripture is that Revelation is a logical fallacy.

 

I don't care if you believe that the Bible is God's Revelation. That's not my business. What annoys me is that you treat the rest of us as if we're denying something that's utterly obvious when in fact we have a fairly good case.

[JosephM]

My message is not to be considered to be persuasive words of my wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit of God and of meaning, so that your faith should not rest on my wisdom or any other man, but on the power of God. For as it is written, God has revealed to us things which the eye cannot see or the ear hear, for the Spirit searches all things. Who among us knows the thoughts of a man except his spirit that is in him? Or the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God? That we may know the things given to us freely by God, it is by His Spirit, things of which we can speak of that were taught to us by the Spirit combining His spiritual thoughts and words.

 

If you will read the Greek you will find it says which things we speak NOT in utterances which man's wisdom communicates/teaches. The natural man which is who you think you are and includes your thinking and reasoning mind cannot know the things of God nor can it utter them in words. They are spiritually discerned. The moment you try to speak of them in words, you have made a concept of those things and the words are no longer those things of which you speak. Speaking of the things of God when spoken can only point to that which must be experienced or discerned by Spirit to know. As a man you will never 'know' God. God is unfathomable with your mind because it is created and as such the mind cannot see beyond creation itself to the eternal and formless. You can point to a bird and say "there is a bird" and you can even associate some facts about a bird in your mind with the word bird but even that is only 'knowing about' something. To know the bird you must be One with the bird. To know God you must be in One Spirit in God.

 

The Spirit of God reveals to us the Lord our God did create all things. But many do not accept the things of the Spirit. They cannot understand them because they are spiritually examined. Whoever is spiritual, thoughtfully examines the worth of all things. The unseen attributes of God, that is His truth, power, and divine nature, are understood by the spiritual man who examines the worth of all things God has made. The natural man does not see what is to be clearly understood through what is made and becomes foolish.

It seems to me it does not say Man can "thoughtfully examine" the things of the Spirit. It says the things of God can be spiritually discerned (distinguished). There is nothing thoughtful about it. Perhaps you will find it is spiritually discerned more commonly in silence than when 'thought' is present.

 

---

The Bible is apparently confusing to the minds of many people. This confusion has come about because of modern man's fundamental change in the concept of truth. Many have never analyzed the drift toward this new methodology in the way we approach truth and knowing. We can get confused when subjected to the modern framework, because we don't understand this new alternative which has been presented to us, where the spiritual is only semantic mysticisms which cannot be understood nor communicated.

 

Perhaps it is confusing to the minds of many people because it is pushed on them as the Word of God when in reality it is obvious to them it is the word of many men as they perceived God. Perhaps Jesus was wise to not write any words himself.

 

This is why I have spoken for your consideration of the basic presupposition of the existence of absolutes. (ie; If something is right, its opposite is wrong.) If you can understand to the extent to which that this basic presupposition no longer holds sway, you will understand why this new methodology is generating such moral and epistemological havoc.

What is 'right'? What is tall and what is short? What is beautiful and what is ugly? What is high and what is low? What is hard and what is easy? They are but creations of your mind. You label one and it creates an opposite. Havoc is only created in your mind by your belief that these opposites are absolutes rather than subjective and conditioned determinations by your mind.

 

(snip)

 

 

 

If the created personal wished to give these communications through individual created personalities in such a way that they would write, in their own style, etc, the exact things the uncreated Personal wanted them to write in the areas of religious truth and things of the cosmos and history, then it would be pretty hard to make an absolute and say he could not or would not. The Bible's claim of inspiration.

Why would the noncreated Personal give man religious truths truth couched in a structural framework which, implicity and explicitly, is historic, and yet that history be false or confused. That surely would be unreasonable, unless that book is only man feeling upward. The Bible gives no indication of religious truth out of contact with history, which is open to verification as a proof of the truth of what is given; it gives no indication of space-time history being an error-conditioned incrustation.

This is how we know, the one who knows tells the one who does not know. There is no reason God would not truly tell us about Himself.

 

Perhaps it is true "that book is only man feeling upward." As far as you say of the Bible "it gives no indication of religious truth out of contact with history", I find that statement rather humorous and unfounded. As far as your last statement " the one who knows tells the one who does not know", it seems to me that usually the one who does not know tells the one that does not know in hope that he may convert him and have company in his ignorance. Perhaps the one who knows has no need to tell or make proselytes.

 

---

Some may regard the Bible as God's revelation to us in regard to an upper-story religious truth, but allow any sense of truth in regard to history and science to be lost. How should the chapters of the Bible be read? If we start at Genesis, what historical value does it have? Is it true when it puts man in his cosmic setting and shows him of his peculiar uniqueness, explaining man's wonder yet also his flaws? Without a proper understanding of Genesis we can come to no answer for the problems of metaphysics (being), morals or (here's that word again) epistemology.

 

The Bible

It is God's Spirit communicating things to our spirit, which we can speak and know of that are taught to us by the Spirit with the combination of His spiritual thoughts and words,

 

It seems to me The Bible is more like man communicating his beliefs 'about' God. God's Spirit has no need to write or communicate in words through a book. Only man seems to have that need. Why would God waste the paper to write from the outside of man when he is already inside his very being (spirit) and can be spiritually discerned? In my view, only he who has not yet realized that which is false still looks to find God somewhere out there outside of him/herself.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Dear Joseph,

 

God is not silent.

 

What is 'right'?

You really don't know, do you?

 

"it (the Bible)gives no indication of religious truth out of contact with history", I find that statement rather humorous and unfounded.

Perhaps, then, you can demonstrate where the Bible speaks of religious truths that are out of contact with history.

 

... it seems to me that usually the one who does not know tells the one that does not know...

God is the one who knows. It is man who has the need. As you said, "Only man seems to have that need." Because we are born natural man. And that is why God would waste the paper. You are so close to the answer!

 

---

If as you claim, God is already inside every man, then that would be the natural man.

[minsocal]

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Progressive thinking is to embrace "a "both ... and" position, rather than "either ... or". Some just do not grasp the concept.

[JosephM]

Dear Joseph,

 

God is not silent.

 

Davidk,

Because you say you hear, you do not. If you were deaf, then would you truly hear God in silence.

 

You really don't know, do you?

 

No, I do not know.

 

Perhaps, then, you can demonstrate where the Bible speaks of religious truths that are out of contact with history.

 

Mathew 27:52-53 was even a greater resurrection story than that of a single person (Jesus) yet history fails to confirm this and only one gospel even mentions such a colossal event that was supposedly witnessed by "many."

 

Genesis 14:14 Abraham pursues lot unto Dan. Historically Dan did not exist at that time by that name. It was Laish at the time and was not called Dan until approximately 331 years after Moses death. (See judges 18:27) Historically the book Genesis was supposedly written by Moses.

 

Joshua 10:13 is an event that would be verified by history from any place around the world yet it is not a historical fact except to a believer in the Bible as its sole source. It seems to me to be out of contact with history which would certainly verify such a unique event.

 

And there are many more but there is no point in spending the time talking of them if these three do not make the point to you.

 

God is the one who knows. It is man who has the need. As you said, "Only man seems to have that need." Because we are born natural man. And that is why God would waste the paper. You are so close to the answer

 

If you discovered your true nature you would understand why I said God has no need to waste the paper.

 

If as you claim, God is already inside every man, then that would be the natural man.

 

Perhaps, you are wiser than I in the things of the flesh. I cannot show you that which cannot be seen with eyes of flesh. Perhaps for you now, the flesh must suffice and your intellect must reign.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

To all:

 

I hope everyone enjoyed a happy Thanksgiving.

 

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Progressive thinking is to embrace "a "both ... and" position, rather than "either ... or". Some just do not grasp the concept.

Dear Minsocal,

While agreeing with the noble concept of inclusiveness, I should be understood saying that characteristically, progressives are no more inclusive than any other club, because, while including everyone into your ranks can be theoretically considered, it cannot realistically be practiced (David).

However, progressive inclusiveness is but only one example of the unrealistic view of everything being right simply because it is (Marquis de Sade). It is man being unable to rightly speak of right or wrong (JosephM), unable to retain a distinction between cruelty and non-cruelty, where man would have no reality nor meaning of the words "right and wrong". You may have a standard of averages but not morality. Where right and wrong are now equally meaningless.

 

Like inclusiveness, one may say conceptually there is no right-wrong (high-low, etc.), but it cannot realistically be practiced.

---

Dear JosephM,

Even though you say you are not be able to determine right from wrong, I suggest you act as if you do. Just like all men act as though Christianity is true.

 

The Bible encases everything it says in an historical context. The Bible claims accuracy in the historical record, whether you agree or not has no bearing on it. The Bible has been the book which has set the standards for historical exploration, and despite what has appeared to be contradictions in the past, more often than not, archeology supports the discoverable Biblical accounts to be verifiably true, even after decades of secular differences.

 

Somehow there is an insistance that man can know things he cannot know, without the Bible.

---

McKenna,

Since we know God is capable of communicating with man, it is only the Bible that demonstrates the truth God communicated for us to know by verifiably explaining the why to what we know. First, that we exist; second, morality. Third, in epistemology, we know everything is there because God made it to be there. There is no other verifiable explanation that fits the facts. We live everyday (scientifically, historically, morally) as if it is true. It matters not whether we care to admit it or not. It is true objective reality.

[minsocal]

To all:

 

I hope everyone enjoyed a happy Thanksgiving.

Dear Minsocal,

While agreeing with the noble concept of inclusiveness, I should be understood saying that characteristically, progressives are no more inclusive than any other club, because, while including everyone into your ranks can be theoretically considered, it cannot realistically be practiced (David).

However, progressive inclusiveness is but only one example of the unrealistic view of everything being right simply because it is (Marquis de Sade). It is man being unable to rightly speak of right or wrong (JosephM), unable to retain a distinction between cruelty and non-cruelty, where man would have no reality nor meaning of the words "right and wrong". You may have a standard of averages but not morality. Where right and wrong are now equally meaningless.

 

Like inclusiveness, one may say conceptually there is no right-wrong (high-low, etc.), but it cannot realistically be practiced.

---

Dear JosephM,

Even though you say you are not be able to determine right from wrong, I suggest you act as if you do. Just like all men act as though Christianity is true.

 

The Bible encases everything it says in an historical context. The Bible claims accuracy in the historical record, whether you agree or not has no bearing on it. The Bible has been the book which has set the standards for historical exploration, and despite what has appeared to be contradictions in the past, more often than not, archeology supports the discoverable Biblical accounts to be verifiably true, even after decades of secular differences.

 

Somehow there is an insistance that man can know things he cannot know, without the Bible.

---

McKenna,

Since we know God is capable of communicating with man, it is only the Bible that demonstrates the truth God communicated for us to know by verifiably explaining the why to what we know. First, that we exist; second, morality. Third, in epistemology, we know everything is there because God made it to be there. There is no other verifiable explanation that fits the facts. We live everyday (scientifically, historically, morally) as if it is true. It matters not whether we care to admit it or not. It is true objective reality.

 

davidk,

 

I am sad for you, as you live in such a narrow and restricted world. You seem to be locked into certain concrete ideas without any flexibility. That does not qualify you as being an "absoute" source, it only means you are infexible. That being the case, you have little to contribute to any progressive discussion, in any context.

 

So let's get down to the basics. Many conservatives today maintain that homosexuality is an "abomination". Give us your "truth" on the subject. Let's have at it.

 

minsocal

[JosephM]

 

To all:

I hope everyone enjoyed a happy Thanksgiving.

Dear Minsocal,

While agreeing with the noble concept of inclusiveness, I should be understood saying that characteristically, progressives are no more inclusive than any other club, because, while including everyone into your ranks can be theoretically considered, it cannot realistically be practiced (David).

 

Perhaps in your view it cannot be practiced but in my view it has been realistically being practiced for some time now and it seems you do not recognize it as such.

 

However, progressive inclusiveness is but only one example of the unrealistic view of everything being right simply because it is (Marquis de Sade). It is man being unable to rightly speak of right or wrong (JosephM), unable to retain a distinction between cruelty and non-cruelty, where man would have no reality nor meaning of the words "right and wrong". You may have a standard of averages but not morality. Where right and wrong are now equally meaningless.

Through out our entire discussion it seems you have still not grasped what was being said. Because I said that right and wrong are subjective terms does not render them meaningless. It merely means they are not absolutes but rather relative terms whose meanings change with societal definitions and times and need to be considered within those parameters for a clearer understanding.

 

 

Like inclusiveness, one may say conceptually there is no right-wrong (high-low, etc.), but it cannot realistically be practiced.

---

 

I am living proof that it can be. When one understands 'opposites' and demarcation lines , there is no need to get stuck in the limitations of linguistics and the highly subjective labels of opposites. One can 'practice' in the limitless of spirit.

 

Dear JosephM,

Even though you say you are not be able to determine right from wrong, I suggest you act as if you do. Just like all men act as though Christianity is true.

It is not a case of determining what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. My actions are based at times on my conditioning and at other times on Christ that lives through me in which there is only love and where no law of 'right' or 'wrong' is possible.

 

The Bible encases everything it says in an historical context. The Bible claims accuracy in the historical record, whether you agree or not has no bearing on it. The Bible has been the book which has set the standards for historical exploration, and despite what has appeared to be contradictions in the past, more often than not, archeology supports the discoverable Biblical accounts to be verifiably true, even after decades of secular differences.

 

Somehow there is an insistance that man can know things he cannot know, without the Bible.

 

Any book can claim accuracy in historical record and whether I agree with it or not indeed has no bearing on it. That you accept the accuracy of the Bible is obvious. Though I do not share your belief, yet I still include you as an equal brother on a journey to truth and will not exclude you because of your closed belief system based on that book.

 

(snip)

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

As far as I am concerned, davidk has disavowed himself from any productive diaogue. His statements are well known here, and infexible. One has to wonder why he bothers. Repetion is ... not progress. Fairwell, davidk. May you find peace in your small and isolated personal space.

 

I have placed davidk on "ignore" ... for good.

[davidk]

As far as I am concerned, davidk has disavowed himself from any productive diaogue(sic). His statements are well known here, and infexible. One has to wonder why he bothers. Repetion(sic) is ... not progress. Fairwell, davidk. May you find peace in your small and isolated personal space.

 

I have placed davidk on "ignore" ... for good.

Minsocal,

 

So much for flexiblility and inclusiveness.

 

It should be noted here, I had used progressive arguments as evidence that it is not by my words but by progressives (post #112) that I mention these things.

 

To be all-inclusive can still be argued quite convincingly, but one cannot live by it. That, however, does not mean it is a bad thing.

 

It should also be noticed I have also mentioned I am in sympathy of the noble concept of inclusiveness but I am realistic of its limited application.

---

Truth is not flexible, it is either true or it is not, and that is a good thing. We all behave as if truth were inflexible, otherwise there could be no argument.

 

Through out our entire discussion it seems you have still not grasped what was being said. ... I said that right and wrong are subjective terms does not render them meaningless. It merely means they are not absolutes but rather relative terms whose meanings change with societal definitions and times and need to be considered within those parameters for a clearer understanding.

 

 

Dear JosephM,

 

I understand clearly what you have said.

For example: In the above quote you have said there are no absolutes in the terms of right and wrong; they are purely subjective with societal pressures changing their meaning over time.

 

I would call to your attention;

Firstly; by saying there are no absolutes, you have made an absolute statement, which is a self-contradiction.

Secondly; if genuine right and wrong are purely subjective, then you have taken up the mantle of the Marquis de Sade.

Thirdly; if right and wrong are left up to society to decide, then there is no basis for them to have any genuine meaning.

 

Additionally, the Christian system of understanding is the uniformity of natural causes in a system open to the verbalized propositional revelation from God. If one does not believe God has spoken to us in the manner He set forth in the Bible, it is the belief that is the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.

 

Perhaps that is what is not clear.

[JosephM]

Dear JosephM,

 

I understand clearly what you have said.

For example: In the above quote you have said there are no absolutes in the terms of right and wrong; they are purely subjective with societal pressures changing their meaning over time.

 

Are you seeking now to entertain me by your comedy? I say 'right' and 'wrong' are not absolutes and you say you clearly understand what I have said and then you say......

 

 

I would call to your attention;

Firstly; by saying there are no absolutes, you have made an absolute statement, which is a self-contradiction.

Never said there were no absolutes Davidk. Only made a statement concerning 'right' and 'wrong'. You make it nearly impossible to discuss anything with you because it seems you don't listen carefully yet I will continue to be your brother and friend but I will bow out of responding to you at this time since it seems obvious to me that you are not interested enough to not twist my words.

 

Secondly; if genuine right and wrong are purely subjective, then you have taken up the mantle of the Marquis de Sade.

Thirdly; if right and wrong are left up to society to decide, then there is no basis for them to have any genuine meaning.

 

I have taken up no ones mantle as you suppose. Your attempts to box me in to someone elses theology or philosophy is in vain and purely in your own mind as I neither know whom you speak of nor am I impressed by your name tossing.

 

Additionally, the Christian system of understanding is the uniformity of natural causes in a system open to the verbalized propositional revelation from God. If one does not believe God has spoken to us in the manner He set forth in the Bible, it is the belief that is the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.

 

Perhaps that is what is not clear.

 

If that is what you believe, so be it. You are entiltled to it but there is no need to burden others whose progressive beliefs have in thewir opinion progressed past what they might consider shallow and closed.

 

Love in Christ,

Your friend Joseph

[davidk]

My dear friend Joseph,

Let's twist again, like we did last summer!

---

The mere speaking of right and wrong acknowledges their absolute meaning. So now understand, we have the universal from which we may argue together (debate) over the particulars (whether they be changes in society, or language, or whatever).

---

It seems there remains some confusion on the topic of "the uniformity of natural causes in open and closed systems". Really, one must only need to open his mind to the actual meaning of the clause rather than to some preconceived progressive notion of what is meant by open and closed.

 

The uniformity of natural causes in an open system is open when: it is open to the verbal, propositional, supernatural revelation of the infinite-personal God.

 

Contrarily, one has the naturalistic view when: it is quite impossible to think of God's real propositional revelation; which is defined as "The uniformity of natural causes in a closed system". To Christians, this is the harmful system.

 

So the yes or no question continues: doesn't God speak to man in a manner that man understands? If you don't believe He does- just say no. If you do believe He does, say- yes.

---

By the way, it was not said that you were taking up anyone's mantle.

---

God spoke all into existence.

 

Davidk

[JosephM]

My dear friend Joseph,

Let's twist again, like we did last summer!

---

The mere speaking of right and wrong acknowledges their absolute meaning. So now understand, we have the universal from which we may argue together (debate) over the particulars (whether they be changes in society, or language, or whatever).

 

Only in YOUR mind Davidk. To me it is most obvious they only have subjective meaning.

 

(snip)

 

So the yes or no question continues: doesn't God speak to man in a manner that man understands? If you don't believe He does- just say no. If you do believe He does, say- yes.

God does not speak per se. One can only know the mind of God by being One with God which is the essence of ALL. The question in that context is unanswerable yet to avoid further dialog since you beg an answer, I will say in a relative degree of truth, yes.

 

By the way, it was not said that you were taking up anyone's mantle.

---

God spoke all into existence.

 

Davidk

 

Davidk said "Secondly; if genuine right and wrong are purely subjective, then you have taken up the mantle of the Marquis de Sade."

lol . I guess what you said doesn't mean what I think it said.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Only in YOUR mind Davidk. To me it is most obvious they only have subjective meaning.

Well Joseph,

Then you cannot speak of right or wrong. Because if right and wrong are only subjective within each individual there is no sufficient integration point with which to define them. There is now no standard in the universe which gives final meaning to such words as right and wrong. The universe is now totally silent concerning any such words and our sense of morality is without basis or meaning or reason. Morals, right and wrong, really do not really exist.

 

But man has always felt that things are right and wrong. So, do we find ourselves in the ultimate cosmic alienation, with man feeling moral motions that are out of line with a universe that has no right and wrong?

 

If, no matter what you say or how you say it, there is no final absolute for right and wrong and no final catagories concerning right and wrong, then we must understand that in this setting, to be right is just as meaningless as to be wrong. All we are left with is situational ethics where statistics and situations and majority vote would control, but you would not have morality.

 

The words right and wrong have no more meaning than the naturalistic, psychological reduction of morals to conditioning and reflexes. The man who has expressed this better than anyone else is the Marquis de Sade, who simply said, "What is, is right."

 

If your message to man is that right and wrong "... are not absolutes but rather relative terms whose meanings change with societal definitions and times." you have stolen hope from man and done him great harm.

 

God does not speak per se. One can only know the mind of God by being One with God which is the essence of ALL. The question in that context is unanswerable yet to avoid further dialog since you beg an answer, I will say in a relative degree of truth, yes.

Let's see... first you answered: no. Then you changed the context to say: the question is unaswerable. Then you answered: yes, but it depends on something yet undefined.

 

Well you seemed to have covered all the answers, for a sum total of: zero.

 

The personal-infinite God speaking to man, in the manner man can understand, offers the only answer for right and wrong and for morality and hope for man.

Just something to think about,

Davidk

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

Does your interpretion of the Bible do harm to others? Yes or no.

 

Minsocal

[JosephM]

Well Joseph,

Then you cannot speak of right or wrong. Because if right and wrong are only subjective within each individual there is no sufficient integration point with which to define them. There is now no standard in the universe which gives final meaning to such words as right and wrong. The universe is now totally silent concerning any such words and our sense of morality is without basis or meaning or reason. Morals, right and wrong, really do not really exist.

 

But man has always felt that things are right and wrong. So, do we find ourselves in the ultimate cosmic alienation, with man feeling moral motions that are out of line with a universe that has no right and wrong?

 

If, no matter what you say or how you say it, there is no final absolute for right and wrong and no final catagories concerning right and wrong, then we must understand that in this setting, to be right is just as meaningless as to be wrong. All we are left with is situational ethics where statistics and situations and majority vote would control, but you would not have morality.

 

The words right and wrong have no more meaning than the naturalistic, psychological reduction of morals to conditioning and reflexes. The man who has expressed this better than anyone else is the Marquis de Sade, who simply said, "What is, is right."

 

If your message to man is that right and wrong "... are not absolutes but rather relative terms whose meanings change with societal definitions and times." you have stolen hope from man and done him great harm.

 

What is your problem Davidk? It has been this way since history, as we have known it, has been recorded. Society has always dictated its own morals on the people and its own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. Society needs individuals who conform to its definitions. To kill another member of that society is not tolerated because society expects you to behave in a certain way but if society has a perceived enemy then you can become a hero by killing many of its perceived enemies. This is nothing new and it happens even today.

 

Morality is always society defined. You seem to have a different belief but morality is not an absolute. It is only a defined standard of conduct whether civil or religious that is subject to change and interpretation. That is not theory. That you say, by my statements I have stolen hope from man and done him great harm as you say or suppose is at best ludicrous.

 

Though I maintain the terms are subjective by observation of historical evidence, there is a price to pay for ones actions. This is the spiritual law of sowing and reaping. There is no need to confuse this law with societal morality or its subjective terms of right and wrong.

 

 

Let's see... first you answered: no. Then you changed the context to say: the question is unaswerable. Then you answered: yes, but it depends on something yet undefined.

 

Well you seemed to have covered all the answers, for a sum total of: zero.

 

The personal-infinite God speaking to man, in the manner man can understand, offers the only answer for right and wrong and for morality and hope for man.

Just something to think about,

Davidk

 

Davidk, Certain questions to me negate a black and white answer as you might expect because they are asked with, in my view, a lack of understanding of spiritual matters that makes the question meaningless. You seem to me to try to answer every question without spiritual knowledge and therefore assume an either or answer is always possible. You can see it no other way because you seem to me to have built your house on false premises that limits your understanding to so called rational thinking. Of course this is only the way it seems to me. Perhaps I am mistaken and your brilliant intellect and ability to reason so rationally is the way to Truth. On second thought, perhaps Not.

 

love Joseph

[DCJ]

Society has always dictated its own morals on the people and its own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. Society needs individuals who conform to its definitions.

...

Morality is always society defined. You seem to have a different belief but morality is not an absolute. It is only a defined standard of conduct whether civil or religious that is subject to change and interpretation.

Joseph,

I have a few questions. What do you mean by "society"? Do you mean individual ethnic groups, countries, or the world, or some other unit of demarcation? How should conflicting moralities among societies be resolved?

 

When you say "Society has always dictated its own morals on the people", does that mean that whatever a given society says at a certain moment is moral? You say that morality "is subject to change and interpretation", but what considerations are taken into account when society changes morality? Are the changes arbitrary? If they're not arbitrary, then they must conform to some standard, which means that something outside of society must influence morality.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

I have a few questions. What do you mean by "society"? Do you mean individual ethnic groups, countries, or the world, or some other unit of demarcation? How should conflicting moralities among societies be resolved?

 

When you say "Society has always dictated its own morals on the people", does that mean that whatever a given society says at a certain moment is moral? You say that morality "is subject to change and interpretation", but what considerations are taken into account when society changes morality? Are the changes arbitrary? If they're not arbitrary, then they must conform to some standard, which means that something outside of society must influence morality.

Greetings DCJ,

 

Society - A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

 

Society at whatever level has always dictated its own morals to those under its umbrella. I am not suggesting that differences be resolved or not. I have merely made a statement making a point that society has and still presently exists as the definer of morality. Morality is not an absolute standard but rather subjectively defined by society. That is not theory or hypothesis but rather history. Though society as a whole is of course influenced by its dominant belief systems, society acts in what it perceives is its own best interests and establishes its own morality. It is not a question of what you or I as an individual may think is proper or right or wrong.

 

My statements were in response to Davidk's obsession with right and wrong being absolutes along with morality which I have stated as my view as being subjective determinations by conditioned humans rather than absolutes.

 

Joseph

 

PS I have not answered all your questions because I am neither defending or attacking societies positions nor do I wish to discuss what is or isn't moral or what should or shouldn't be.

[McKenna]

McKenna,

Since we know God is capable of communicating with man, it is only the Bible that demonstrates the truth God communicated for us to know by verifiably explaining the why to what we know. First, that we exist; second, morality. Third, in epistemology, we know everything is there because God made it to be there. There is no other verifiable explanation that fits the facts. We live everyday (scientifically, historically, morally) as if it is true. It matters not whether we care to admit it or not. It is true objective reality.

 

If that is satisfying to you, fine. I am absolutely unconvinced. Okay...the Bible explains why we exist (God created us!) - and wow, every culture has a creation story. And the third proposition follows from this first one. I just don't see the big deal. As for the second proposition, the Bible provides an inconsistent morality...and the answer again is simply that morality follows from God...I just don't see anything astounding from that. I imagine most scriptures make the same claim.

 

And I don't know what you mean by "verifiably." Because actually, the Bible's claims have not always been verified. Its account of creation is simply not upheld by modern scientific inquiry. It's just not. And guess what - that's not a new view. I think it was Gregory of Nyssa who wrote that Genesis couldn't be taken literally, back in the 4th century! You can refuse to face the facts all you want but, well, that's your problem.

 

Finally I don't understand your entire premise. You're basically saying that God is capable of communicating with man; there are several Scriptures that claim to be a direct revelation from God; the Bible is the only one that "verifiably fits the facts"; so therefore it's the communication from God. Have you considered the idea that none of them are direct, literal, word-for-word revelations from God? It just doesn't follow that, because the Bible seems to be the best explanation (and I completely disagree that it is, but let's just go with that), it therefore is the explanation. It would have to perfectly explain everything (which it doesn't), and even then, you wouldn't be able to be 100% sure. That's why nothing in science is 100% sure - new evidence can always disrupt a solid theory! So, basically what I'm saying is that your proposition just doesn't make sense, even if the Bible is perfect in every way that we know of at the moment. Which it isn't.

 

Well, I can see this isn't going to get anywhere. I just wish you would get down off your high horse and actually listen. For example, listen to science. It's not just evolution that's arguing against a literal interpretation of the Bible. It's so many fields of science. You can't accept a literal interpretation of the Bible without ignoring large segments of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc. For God's sake, astronomy is based mainly on simple physics and observation! And astronomy shows that the Earth has no special place in the Universe, and that the Universe is nearly 14 billion years old! I mean...I just truly don't understand how any intelligent person, in this day and age, could accept the Bible as literally true. I don't mean that as an insult - I know you're a very intelligent person. I just don't get it. That's partly due to my upbringing and what I've been exposed to; but I'm as startled every time I meet an intelligent person who believes the Bible is literally true as I am when I meet an intelligent person who believes crystals have mysterious healing powers, or that crop circles come from little green men. I guess that's my fault, and I should stop being so surprised by it, but...I just can't.

 

But, I guess I'm not going to convince you. I just really, really wish you'd stop pretending that we're all ignoring something obvious. Because we have very, very, very good reasons for not accepting the literal truth of the Bible. Maybe someday you'll see that.

 

If not, it's all good. I don't believe you're going to Hell for being wrong about the Bible.

 

Take care, David.