Relativism in Christianity - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2004, 05:36 PM   #91
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think there are plenty of posts that demonstrate that Scriptural interpretive methods can and do lead to a relativist approach in Christianity.
But who's to say what interpretation is right or wrong? I see the post between you and Dread and I don't see anyone proving without doubt their respective points. I see scripture that backs up both of your points.

People have been interpreting scripture to fit their views since the dawn of scripture. They did it in Jesus' time and they do it today.

I'm trying to find someone to give me evidence of how it's something new or even largely prevelent in Christianity as a whole today as the thread implies. I think their is an agenda when someone implies that and I'm trying to find someone to prove me wrong.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 06:40 PM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:56 AM
I guess we can agree to disagree.....

There is the physical word and the spiritual world, and if I were better at remember verses, somewhere in the bible it warns of both.

As a Christian I can believe that spiritually there was a reason for Christ's death.

As a Christian I can also recognize that there had to have been a real reason, non-spiritual, of this world reason for the Jews to want him dead, to the point that Pilot decided to do it.

While there are spiritual reasons for what happened there is the physical world reasons that it happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to clarify, while I am looking globally at things, I never set out to contradict your Jesus quote. You may not have realized where I was going, and that is partially my fault. I am however not backing down on the above point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your baptism response, I asked a yes or no question. I was not looking for a diatribe, nor veiled insults about my ability to grasp your diatribe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I announced earlier in the thread, I was willing to take the Bishops side. Not an easy thing to do, for a person brought up believing everything opposite the 12 things the Bishop said. Not sure what to think, other than, if people come in here not to free their mind and look at things from another angle, what is the point to FREE YOUR MIND.........is it to spout out the same things we have been taught....without thinking about it?

I really am tired, and I do feel there are insults being thrown around. In two weeks I will not have time for this as my life will be changing. I am kind of bummed about this thread.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 06:44 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But who's to say what interpretation is right or wrong? I see the post between you and Dread and I don't see anyone proving without doubt their respective points. I see scripture that backs up both of your points.

People have been interpreting scripture to fit their views since the dawn of scripture. They did it in Jesus' time and they do it today.

I'm trying to find someone to give me evidence of how it's something new or even largely prevelent in Christianity as a whole today as the thread implies. I think their is an agenda when someone implies that and I'm trying to find someone to prove me wrong.
Everything is about the agenda. One of the MAJOR weaknesses I find in looking a Spong's position is there is really nothing to scripturally back him up, from a literal standpoint.

I fully agree and believe he is on the money about the treatment of homosexuals. And I feel having read a few of his books, that he backs it up scripturally.

These 12 ideas are not remotley backed by scripture, and having studied Martin Luthor, I do not find them to be in the same vein.

I have taken a side in this thread, that quite honestly, is so difficult to argue, I am having a hard time, and you know how I love to take the opposite position just to get a conversation going.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 07:12 PM   #94
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I guess we can agree to disagree.....

There is the physical word and the spiritual world, and if I were better at remember verses, somewhere in the bible it warns of both.

As a Christian I can believe that spiritually there was a reason for Christ's death.

As a Christian I can also recognize that there had to have been a real reason, non-spiritual, of this world reason for the Jews to want him dead, to the point that Pilot decided to do it.

While there are spiritual reasons for what happened there is the physical world reasons that it happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to clarify, while I am looking globally at things, I never set out to contradict your Jesus quote. You may not have realized where I was going, and that is partially my fault. I am however not backing down on the above point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your baptism response, I asked a yes or no question. I was not looking for a diatribe, nor veiled insults about my ability to grasp your diatribe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I announced earlier in the thread, I was willing to take the Bishops side. Not an easy thing to do, for a person brought up believing everything opposite the 12 things the Bishop said. Not sure what to think, other than, if people come in here not to free their mind and look at things from another angle, what is the point to FREE YOUR MIND.........is it to spout out the same things we have been taught....without thinking about it?

I really am tired, and I do feel there are insults being thrown around. In two weeks I will not have time for this as my life will be changing. I am kind of bummed about this thread.
Hiya Dread,

No way you was I insulting you. I promise you that, Dread. I think this stems from my comment about how simple it is? I asked if I was making it difficult for you to understand when I suggested maybe it was the way I put it forth? Meaning, was I talking about two different things,,, spiritual baptism versus baptism in water and I thought maybe you were referring to one or the other and that is where the confusion set in. But if you took what I said in anyway as an insult I do apologize.

At any rate, speaking of things going in one's life... I am getting the evil eye from my husband and the dreaded question. "You aren't going to be at this U2 site thingy again this weekend FFS?" So I have to go. But man I am realllllllllllly so sorry if you took what I was saying as an insult. I don't want to make anyone feel bad or angry!

Take care,

Carrie

PS: If you want to email me to clear up any misunderstanding feel free ok? thacraic@yahoo.com
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:30 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Its all good....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-18-2004, 07:26 PM   #96
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But who's to say what interpretation is right or wrong? I see the post between you and Dread and I don't see anyone proving without doubt their respective points. I see scripture that backs up both of your points.

People have been interpreting scripture to fit their views since the dawn of scripture. They did it in Jesus' time and they do it today.

I'm trying to find someone to give me evidence of how it's something new or even largely prevelent in Christianity as a whole today as the thread implies. I think their is an agenda when someone implies that and I'm trying to find someone to prove me wrong.
Hiya BVS,

Do you want numbers or something? Statistics?I will do my best. In fact, I remember a list I read in regards to Christians and their beliefs. It listed percentages of people that believed or did not believe certain core principles, fundamentals if you will, of the Christian faith. I will find that if I can and post it, or if I get lucky, post a link to a site that has it.

In terms of churches as a whole, there are numerous demnominations that are fighting amoungst themselves over many issues - abortion, homosexuality, the Trinity, the belief that Christ is the ONLY way - just to name a few. Would you disagree?

I posted Spong's theses because there are elements of his views expressed in people's personal beliefs as well as varying churches of many denominations here in the States and throughout the world. Would you disagree?

Also, I was wondering, what agenda I would have for pointing any of this out?

Take care,
Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-18-2004, 09:59 PM   #97
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


Hiya BVS,

Do you want numbers or something? Statistics?I will do my best. In fact, I remember a list I read in regards to Christians and their beliefs. It listed percentages of people that believed or did not believe certain core principles, fundamentals if you will, of the Christian faith. I will find that if I can and post it, or if I get lucky, post a link to a site that has it.

In terms of churches as a whole, there are numerous demnominations that are fighting amoungst themselves over many issues - abortion, homosexuality, the Trinity, the belief that Christ is the ONLY way - just to name a few. Would you disagree?

I posted Spong's theses because there are elements of his views expressed in people's personal beliefs as well as varying churches of many denominations here in the States and throughout the world. Would you disagree?

Also, I was wondering, what agenda I would have for pointing any of this out?

Take care,
Carrie
But all of this you speak of has been a part of religion since the dawn of time. It's all about interpretation. It's all about perception. No human has 100% absolute truth, even with the Bible right in front of them. The Bible was not written by God, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The agenda is that some feel they have the absolute truth(I'm not saying that's what you are claiming). You know what, they are lying to themselves. No human can possible have the absolute truth. It's humanly impossible.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 08:22 AM   #98
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But all of this you speak of has been a part of religion since the dawn of time. It's all about interpretation. It's all about perception. No human has 100% absolute truth, even with the Bible right in front of them. The Bible was not written by God, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The agenda is that some feel they have the absolute truth(I'm not saying that's what you are claiming). You know what, they are lying to themselves. No human can possible have the absolute truth. It's humanly impossible.
Hiya BVS,

Well if you are coming at if from the view that the Bible was not written by God then that does in fact allow different views on Scripture which in turn leads to realtivism. So which part of the Bible compells you to embrace Christ? Is it only the red letters? Is it only the parts that don't offend people? Which part of the Bible do you embrace and way?

Also, in your saying no human can possibly have the absolute truth, that it is humanly impossible, are you not attempting to state an absolute truth when saying that?

Take care,

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 09:47 AM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:56 AM
What I am getting here is relativism=tolorance of others beliefs.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 09:55 AM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


Hiya BVS,

Well if you are coming at if from the view that the Bible was not written by God then that does in fact allow different views on Scripture which in turn leads to realtivism. So which part of the Bible compells you to embrace Christ? Is it only the red letters? Is it only the parts that don't offend people? Which part of the Bible do you embrace and way?

Also, in your saying no human can possibly have the absolute truth, that it is humanly impossible, are you not attempting to state an absolute truth when saying that?

Take care,

Carrie
Carrie,

With all due respect, you ar pretty good at the fine art of typing questions that are kind of insulting?

If I asked you the following:

What parts you embrace? Is it only the mistranslated ones that justify your beliefs? Is it only the parts that reaffirm societies prejudices? Which part of the Bible to you embrace and why?

You most likely would not take that too kindly.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 11:11 AM   #101
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Carrie,

With all due respect, you ar pretty good at the fine art of typing questions that are kind of insulting?

If I asked you the following:

What parts you embrace? Is it only the mistranslated ones that justify your beliefs? Is it only the parts that reaffirm societies prejudices? Which part of the Bible to you embrace and why?

You most likely would not take that too kindly.
Hiya Dread,

With all due respect , I do not see how what I asked was insulting!! I asked BVS which parts he embraced! Only the red letters is in reference to believing only the parts of the Bible that contain the words Jesus spoke. The parts that don't offend anyone are those that do not speak of sin and the consequences thereof. As far as parts which are mistranslated, I have yet to see anyone show me which parts are in fact mistranslated(and I mean from the original text) and furthermore ones that reaffirm any predjudices in society. And if by prejudices you mean stating a difference between right and wrong and end up offending people, then yes, I embrace those portions of Scripture right along with the ones that speak of Love. That is the point I am making, they are all interrelated.

If one wants to say some of it is relative and other parts of it are not, based on whatever line of reason, that is relativism, which is the whole reason I started this thread.

So in short, if you were to ask me which parts of the Bible I embraced, I would say all of it. If you wanted to add to in the manner you did, I would address it and ask which parts reaffirm prejudices and are mistranslated. Then that would of course lead in to some goose chase of quoting passages, translating them from original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and end up not even addressing the nature of the original topic. I have seen it happen a lot here.

I have also seen people quote people, and leave out segments of a post that would explain the tiny part of the quote someone is addressing. I have seen how points are made and then instead of those points being given any notice, some non sequitur is what is addressed and then boom, off on another tangent steering away from the original topic put forth.

One last thing, when I see things that could be taken as insults I do one of two things. I keep in mind that it is text I am reading and because of that I can not tell what tone of voice it would be in if someone were actually speaking. The other is, if it comes across as blatantly condescending, I usually reply in the same manner but then end up feeling bad for it and admit I was being nasty then apologize. If I mean no harm in what I say to begin with, and there is confusion in realtion to it I try to clarify it immediately for the sake of the discussion and common decency.

If you see my manner of posting as insulting or rude or whatever, I can not offer you any other explination other that what I said above.

Take care,

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 11:30 AM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Umm...I know what the red letters are. If you cannot see that your questions could be taken as a slap in the face to those who do not believe as you so be it. Quite honestly, I come here to free my mind, and throughout my three years here I have taken the opposite position on some very unpopular issue, because of that open mind. I am not going to derail the thread with another debate about translations. Clearly nothing I have posted on the topic made a world of difference.

So where does that leave me??????

LOL

Tired.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 12:03 PM   #103
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Umm...I know what the red letters are. If you cannot see that your questions could be taken as a slap in the face to those who do not believe as you so be it. Quite honestly, I come here to free my mind, and throughout my three years here I have taken the opposite position on some very unpopular issue, because of that open mind. I am not going to derail the thread with another debate about translations. Clearly nothing I have posted on the topic made a world of difference.

So where does that leave me??????

LOL

Tired.
Ok... rebooted now... not lagging...

I am sorry you find this debate tiring....

If you are going to take questioning someones stance as a slap in the face then I should be boo hooing over how some people have reacted to things I typed. I don't though. Also, if everone at an internet forum or even in life, did not question things solely to avoid hurting someone's feelings then no one would engage in discourse over anything other than the weather.

I was not implying that you didn't know what the red letters are, by the way. I was telling you what I meant when I asked the question to begin with. I was explaing how I was wording my questions and why, and even still you found some sort of way to take offense.

As far as freeing my mind, my mind is very much free. It is much freer than it was when I was 19, a "Taoist", and working at GreenPeace. Thriteen years later here I am - thinking how I think, not because I was taught it but because I see the truth and hope and love and dare I say logic in it.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 12:21 PM   #104
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


Hiya BVS,

Well if you are coming at if from the view that the Bible was not written by God then that does in fact allow different views on Scripture which in turn leads to realtivism. So which part of the Bible compells you to embrace Christ? Is it only the red letters? Is it only the parts that don't offend people? Which part of the Bible do you embrace and way?

Also, in your saying no human can possibly have the absolute truth, that it is humanly impossible, are you not attempting to state an absolute truth when saying that?

Take care,

Carrie
But the Bible wasn't written by God. Otherwise you wouldn't have books with the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. They would all be called God.

You know your condensation gets old, "do I only embrace the parts that don't offend?" What kind of nonsense is that. That would pretty much only leave "love your neighbor as yourself" now wouldn't it?

Let me put it this way, if it wasn't written in stone and handed down by God, or came out of Jesus mouth I don't take it as sin. One reference from one human in the Bible does not make anything sin.

No, by me stating that I nor anyone else will ever hold the absolute truth, I'm saying the rest of my life will be in searching. Whenever one stops the search and believes they do have the absolute truth is when they fall.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-19-2004, 03:22 PM   #105
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But the Bible wasn't written by God. Otherwise you wouldn't have books with the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. They would all be called God.

You know your condensation gets old, "do I only embrace the parts that don't offend?" What kind of nonsense is that. That would pretty much only leave "love your neighbor as yourself" now wouldn't it?

Let me put it this way, if it wasn't written in stone and handed down by God, or came out of Jesus mouth I don't take it as sin. One reference from one human in the Bible does not make anything sin.

No, by me stating that I nor anyone else will ever hold the absolute truth, I'm saying the rest of my life will be in searching. Whenever one stops the search and believes they do have the absolute truth is when they fall.
Evidentally what I am seeing is that you believe the Ten Commandments and everything Jesus said to be God's word? Everything else is just a record of men saying things that applied only to their own societies at the time. Therefore much of what is in Scripture, does not apply to the world today and further more shouldn't because it is not God Himself saying these things? I think that is what you are saying? And if it is, then thats the thing... I see the Bible as having been written by God in its entirety so any sort of views that we express will never converge on a common ground.

What do you mean by condensation? I don't really understand what you mean by that? Do you mean I was trying to put you in a box and make a conclusion about what you think on everything based on all topics we have discussed? Condensing all your thoughts into one? Just maybe elaborate on that please?

As far as my asking if you embrace only the parts that don't offend (nonsensical or not) was in reference to those parts of the Bible that were not engraved in stone and are not in red letters, yet still convey a message of how one is to live. I guess you answered that?

I understand that faith in God is a quest and it is neverending, I do not discount that. Perfection will never be reached while we are bound by the flesh, so to speak, but we are to strive for it daily. Stating that the Bible provides the absolute truth that will guide us on our quest, does not set us up for a fall. On the contrary, it lays the path before us which we are to follow.
__________________

__________________
thacraic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com