Ask Me Help Desk - The Nature of Salvation

Athos,

Quote:

The guy worshiping the mountain must have had a similar motivation to the later guy re seeking God, (why else worship the mountain in the first place?), so I'll have to disagree on that one. But I won't quibble. It's a small disagreement.

I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. Why worship the mountain or anything? Because of that God gene I mentioned is my reply :)
Seriously, in every age since we crawled out of the ooze, humans have felt a need to seek something higher or bigger or beyond themselves. It's as if we know instinctively that there's something or someone out there who made us and we want to know about it and know IT. It's been built into us since the first human, or so it seems from written, oral, and fossil records. It's like there's a big hole in us and we're desperately seeking something to fill it with.
I call that that God gene. If you can expand that first sentence a bit for me...

If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?

If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

the authority of scripture concerning salvation

Whose version of scripture?

Quote:

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?

What's a subjective version of Christianity?

Quote:

define your terms

First, define yours above.

Quote:

Whose version of scripture?

Not really a valid question. Pick practically any translation you want.

Quote:

What's a subjective version of Chtistianity?

It happens anytime a person suggests that no book in existence is able to judge a person's opinion about God. And you misspelled Christianity. 8D

Quote:

First, define yours above.

Unsurprising. Evasive.

Quote:

If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.

Exactly correct, Info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Not really a valid question. Pick practically any translation you want.

And then the correct interpretation....

Quote:

It happens anytime a person suggests that no book in existence is able to judge a person's opinion about God. And you misspelled Christianity. 8D

I'm still waiting for your possessive correction.

Quote:

Unsurprising. Evasive.

i wasn't asking you.

Quote:

And then the correct interpretation....

And on and on it goes.

Quote:

I'm still waiting for your possessive correction.

Obamas'

Quote:

i wasn't asking you.

It doesn't matter. He asked you a pretty simple question and you responded with...a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Obamas'

YAY! Took you long enough!

Quote:

It doesn't matter. He asked you a pretty simple question and you responded with...a question.

It wasn't a simple question.

Quote:

It wasn't a simple question.

It wasn't??? He asked, "...define your terms." Three words asking you to define two terms. Not sure how much more simple it can get than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It wasn't??? He asked, "...define your terms." Three words asking you to define two terms. Not sure how much more simple it can get than that.

A subjective version of Christianity is the version that belongs only to me (i.e., the individual).

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

If we deny the authority of scripture concerning salvation, or any other spiritual thing for that matter, then we create a subjective version of Christianity.

If we start with the subjective version of Christianity, then how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity?

If we are not speaking on Christianity, but of salvation of a different nature, then define your terms so we can consider those things.

It's good to define terms. Let's start with subjective and objective.

Subjective - based on opinion, belief, emotions personal judgement.
Objective - based on analysis, fact-based, measurable and observable.

Scripture, Christianity and other like systems, are clearly subjective.

To answer your question of how can we have an objective argument concerning the nature of Christianity, we can't.

If we deny the authority of the biblical text we have, then we have no basis for Christianity at all. It's that simple.

If your are actually concerned with the version, then I advise you to do the research concerning the history of the texts we have, and choose for yourself which scriptures are of import.

The debate surrounding the translations and the accuracy of the original manuscripts is nul in this context. Nearly all of the content of the Bible is self referencing and accurate as far back as we can historically judge.

The real controversies are around the literary styles deduced by those who study such things, however pose no evidences that they are so, more rather presuppositions about multiple authors.

If you deny the authority of the Bible, then you fabricate your own christ and your own god. You leave the realm of righteousness and truth in the hands of man. Pick your version and I'll be happy to pick it apart with you. Saying that there are versions, and thus no objective truth is a futile errand that cannot be debated. If the same standard applied to all of history and all of objective knowledge then few things if any would stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Athos,I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. Why worship the mountain or anything? Because of that God gene I mentioned is my reply :)
Seriously, in every age since we crawled out of the ooze, humans have felt a need to seek something higher or bigger or beyond themselves. It's as if we know instinctively that there's something or someone out there who made us and we want to know about it and know IT. It's been built into us since the first human, or so it seems from written, oral, and fossil records. It's like there's a big hole in us and we're desperately seeking something to fill it with.
I call that that God gene. If you can expand that first sentence a bit for me...

Thomas Merton wrote, “Man is prey to a need, the need to adore”.

The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it. We can call this attribution “spirit” or “God”. In fact, Shintoism continues this idea in modern times.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding. Both guys are god-seekers, one is a bit more evolved than the other. It may be many generations before either one would even use the word "God" - a word (notion) that comes relatively late in human development.

Quote:

If we deny the authority of the biblical text we have, then we have no basis for Christianity at all. It's that simple.

If you deny the authority of the Bible, then you fabricate your own christ and your own god. You leave the realm of righteousness and truth in the hands of man. Pick your version and I'll be happy to pick it apart with you. Saying that there are versions, and thus no objective truth is a futile errand that cannot be debated. If the same standard applied to all of history and all of objective knowledge then few things if any would stand.

Exactly correct.

Quote:

The first worshiper is the man “coming out of the ooze” and he sees this magnificent mountain (or anything else impressive to the primitive mind) and, like the later worshiper, he attributes certain qualities to it. We can call this attribution “spirit” or “God”. In fact, Shintoism continues this idea in modern times.

Pure, pure conjecture. There is not one ounce of evidence anywhere to support that contention, and that aside from the fact that the most ardent advocate of evolution on the earth does not think that man came, "out of the ooze."

Should the utter lack of evidence be surprising? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Exactly correct.

Exactly incorrect!

Quote:

Pure, pure conjecture. There is not one ounce of evidence anywhere to support that contention

Plenty of evidence abounds. See the Japanese religion called Shinto. That's evidence.

Quote:

...the most ardent advocate of evolution on the earth does not think that man came, "out of the ooze."

"Out of the ooze" was a reference that Dwashbur made in a previous post on a subject the two of us were discussing. The phrase is an excellent one, a wonderfully colorful expression of humanity's origins.

You should look before you leap.

Quote:

Plenty of evidence abounds. See the Japanese religion called Shinto. That's evidence.

So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound. I find that when someone assures me that, "Plenty of evidence abounds," and then offers up some weak as water explanation like the Shinto religion, then they basically have nothing.

Quote:

The phrase is an excellent one, a wonderfully colorful expression of humanity's origins.

Perhaps it is to you. No evolutionist would agree with that. The Bible does not agree with that. But there is always the Shinto religion!!

Quote:

You should look before you leap.

Who needs to look now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound. I find that when someone assures me that, "Plenty of evidence abounds," and then offers up some weak as water explanation like the Shinto religion, then they basically have nothing.

You certainly know how to spin a person's words! And you didn't look it up, did you! *sigh* Where oh where is your kami?

How did I spin his words?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How did I spin his words?

So you believe the Shinto religion, but do not accept what the Bible says? Well, at least you have made your choice. And if the Shinto religion is the best "evidence" you have, then plenty of evidence absolutely does not abound.

Thank you so much for merely copying my words. If you didn't know how to answer the question, why not just say so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Thank you so much for merely copying my words. If you didn't know how to answer the question, why not just say so?

THAT was your spin!!! Read the bolded part especially.

Okay. In plain English, your "question" throws out your assumption that he believes the Shinto religion and does not accept what the Bible says. (The Shinto religion has interesting parallels to Christianity, btw.)