My point exactly.
Except that you do not need to understand all of God’s will, or even HIs will for the person next to you as per the end of John’s gospel
Therefore, to claim something is or is not correct by claiming it as incredulous as in
Might be a little rash.
Richard
And if so, does that point to the text containing meaning for all the worldviews in between?
At some point that becomes nonsense.
Really?
Scripture is utter nonsense?
(if not understood by your criteria!)
What a narrow view of Scripture you have.
No wonder you have the gall to criticise any other view.
Richard
Interesting but not really informative when it comes to written material. There, what counts is whether the content is trustworthy and dependable regardless of anything in it that might be regarded as facts. The question would be “Is this a faithful revelation of how things really are?” – and when a writing had the authority of a real prophet behind it, it was regarded as trustworthy and authoritative, though not as a historical account but as Yahweh’s lesson about how things are.
The result of allowing scripture to mean multiple mutually contradictory things is nonsense – please try responding to what was actually said.
I did. You just failed to recognise your own stubborn position.
Richard
Edit.
To clarify
You appear to be claiming, not only that there is only one way to read Scripture but you have it and any other view is nonsense.
So Scripture becomes nonsense without your educated view.
There is more than one way. Just not an unlimited number of different ways.
Is misunderstanding Scripture a sin.
If the only “crime” is different view of Scripture…
If the net result is a "Christian " life…
Destroying a faith because it is different? Does Scripture have a view on this?
Does God want followers or only people who agree with… (insert doctrine)
Does any earthly human have the authority to decree on any of the above.
How do you fancy a swim in a mill pond accompanied by a millstone.
Is it worth the risk?
IOW
What price dogmatism or intolerance or condemnation of another faith that does not match (insert name)
Richard
Not what I said at all.
Given the quotes I assume you accept anything that calls itself “Christian”. No minimum requirements at all.
Sorry I said nothing like this at all.
That would be a yes. There have been several doomsday “Christian” groups that committed suicide. Are you OK with that?
You seem to have a very benign understanding of how far out people can get when they assign their own meaning to scripture.
But it is what you meant. It is also what I hear from you , all the time. Not in such explicit words, of course, but then, you seem to have problems connecting one assertion to the next. Each statement is “innocent” when taken alone.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths, extremes, and perversions people will g to in order to justify their beliefs and certitudes.
for instance @Bill_II quoted me as saying
Now I will quote my own version
Since when was
(it is wrong to give your children cyanide) a specific doctrine of any Christian group or cult. Let alone a disputable notion.
I said
Suicide or mass killing is not a Christian life, or death for that matter!
So, instead of addressing my post you try and ridicule it to dismiss it!
Perhaps those thoughts of mine are too uncomfortable for you
And becuause they are not citations or specific Scripture you cannot just refute or counter them
I am not talking about Cults, or the extremes. I am talking about the common or garden Christians who do not share the same views as you do. Or people like me, who dare to question your certitudes and assertions. The diversity of beliefs in Christianity that are much less divisive than trying to insist on specific views and understandings.
YECs are not dangerous to themselves or society or even Christianity and the way they are ridiculed on this forum does more damage to Christianity than a rejection of science. People can recognise extremes, and YEC or Flat Earth is not taken seriously, nor is it seen as a Christian necessity. They are seen as people who have extreme views of Scripture, not the run of the mill Christian view.
But they also see claiming Christians being intolerant of diverse or personal beliefs. People who take delight in mocking and scoffing and belittling. People who are so right in their beliefs that they cannot accept any other viewpoint but their own. Who will go to extremes themselves to justify their own dogmas and assertions. Or refuse to accept that any other view of life, let alone Scripture is valid. Whose mission is to “teach”!
The difference between you and me is that I do not claim my views to be “right”, and that is something that seems to be unheard of amongst many of the protagonists on this forum. Be it Evolution, or Scripture, or Heaven, or Sin, there can only be one view and that belongs to (insert name here as long as it is not RichardG)
(NB. There is a paradox here inasmuch as I am claiming one view to be right, The view of tolerance)
Richard
My point has been simply that there needs to be limits to what people claim to be their understanding of Scripture. This all started here:
And you have been a staunch defender of people’s right to read whatever they like into Scripture.
It has been the doctrine/practice/whatever you want to call it of several. What I was trying to point out is you do have limits on what you think people can read into Scripture.
And there we have the definition of the limits you place on reading meaning into the text, any reading that places you outside the bounds of common or garden variety Christians.
Do we have to do this? Why must every statement or notion be taken to the extreme?
Really?
Just how many people in the pews (or whatever you sit on) have studied Scripture or Christianity beyond what they hear once a week (or so) and maybe the odd Bible Study?
Most, if not all the so called “discussions” on this forum rely on a detailed knowledge of Scripture, and / or Christian history and theology (Scientific participants accepted). Most, if not all, protagonists have a strong and thought out belief system.
Anything I learn or use on this forum has to be watered or dumbed down to make any sense outside .
People can happily accept both early Genesis and Evolution without seeing a conflict of interest or trying to change evolution into Theistic Evolution. They do not care! it is not important. So someone believes in YEC? Bully for them! And so on. yet here…
Any diversion away from the “straight and Narrow” (Depending on whose road we are on) and all hell is let loose. It would be funny if people weren’t so serious about it!
Talk about conspiracy theories or scaremongering! Anyone would think that Christianity had gone to the dogs! (I have actually seen that in not so succinct words)
Panic about the meaning of the Crucifixion. Concern over misrepresentation of forgiveness or justice. Can we be forgiven without repentance. Do we still need purgatory or some sort of kick up the B.m! How dare someone enjoy themselves or not do something directly involving their faith or the church.
The there is the Fall… enough said
You want to talk extremes or fanatics? Just look around here!
And as for taking offence!
Well, I guess if you can give it you have to accept it back ,except some people can’t even see when they are being offensive.
it must be Sunday..
Richard
Definitely.
Which begs the question of who defines those Christians.
That should be a basic requirement for anyone who preaches or teaches, even if it’s a local women’s Bible study.
Really? I say the same things to not-even-weekly Christians and they get excited. I think you’re underestimating what ordinary Christians can handle.
And I guess you use a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
They can’t argue with you, heck, I have enough trouble and I do know what I am talking about with Christian Doctrine and Biblical Theology.
You are very persuasive and dogmatic.
Take that how you wish.
Richard
See also evolution and probability.
Early Christian Origen believed that there were three levels of understanding the Bible. He called these The Flesh, The Soul, and The Spirit. I am not 100% in agreement with Origen, but he was onto “something” here.
A child, he learns stories. He learns about David and Goliath and Jesus and the Manger. An adult reading the Bible cover to cover for the first time, he has the story of creation and story of Abraham. He has the story of Moses. The stories of the Kings of Israel. Getting into the Prophets and the New Testament, there is a Spiritual Understanding. It takes a different level of thought.
Liberal Theology was the rejection of Christian Spiritualism towards “Occult/Pagan Spiritualism,” and doing things to please atheists. If someone went to a public school or watched a lot of TV and movies, they defaulted to this. I don’t know anywhere that teaches Christian Spiritualism unless you are going to Fr Ripperger, a Catholic Exorcist, with free lectures online.
There are some different levels of understanding the Bible. The highest level may be a Spiritual Level, where someone is more inline or of “One Mind” with the Prophets. (Matthew 13:15-17)(Philippians 2:2) We read the New Testament from an Old Testament understanding.