|
Post by diet coke on Jul 14, 2007 21:51:06 GMT -5
Maybe this helps explain what I meant, in step form:
- Most any doctrine you like can be found in and justified by the bible. An example is the "Jesus is God" issue: The bible seems to me to clearly teach both sides of the issue (different writers have different opinions). - Therefore, the doctrine people find in the bible is the doctrine that they want to believe. We all pick and choose. - ergo: it cannot be not doctrine that causes one to change religions: it is personal preference.
|
|
False doctrine is why I left
Guest
|
Post by False doctrine is why I left on Jul 15, 2007 0:20:47 GMT -5
I left over doctrine. I am the person who posted in Nathan's thread earlier.
For me it is impractical to have ONLY the bible to guide my faith. This would be possible only if the bible was 100% free from error (which I do believe) AND free from ambiguity and symbolism. I discovered that using the bible ONLY means that every man has a unique interpretation and there could conceivably be a churh for each man.
I have choosen to use the bible PLUS early Christian history and tradition to guide me--this clears things up considerably.
I definitely do NOT follow Cooneyite doctrines--I think it is a silly way to go. Sorry if that offends. But you state you don't believe people leave over doctrines--well it was 100% doctrine for me.
|
|
|
Post by zorro unplugged on Jul 15, 2007 1:52:43 GMT -5
Most any doctrine you like can be found in and justified by the bible. An example is the "Jesus is God" issue: The bible seems to me to clearly teach both sides of the issue
If you consider your example, you'd realize that your premise, most any doctrine you like can be found in and justified by the bible, is proven untrue by your own words. You state that BOTH sides are clearly taught by the bible - which is true. So then we have three basic possibilties.... 1. Jesus is God, but not a man 2. Jesus is not God, but just a man 3. Jesus is God AND a man
You said it yourself.....the Bible clearly teaches both sides, so the answer is clearly number 3. Very simple. By the way, the first two options are fully developed "doctrines". The first is basic Gnostism, and the second is classic Arianism....both are false.
|
|
|
Post by To Zorro From SL on Jul 15, 2007 3:45:23 GMT -5
Most any doctrine you like can be found in and justified by the bible. An example is the "Jesus is God" issue: The bible seems to me to clearly teach both sides of the issueIf you consider your example, you'd realize that your premise, most any doctrine you like can be found in and justified by the bible, is proven untrue by your own words. You state that BOTH sides are clearly taught by the bible - which is true. So then we have three basic possibilties.... 1. Jesus is God, but not a man 2. Jesus is not God, but just a man 3. Jesus is God AND a man You said it yourself.....the Bible clearly teaches both sides, so the answer is clearly number 3. Very simple. By the way, the first two options are fully developed "doctrines". The first is basic Gnosticism, and the second is classic Arianism....both are false. You realize that this is part of the problem. Most of the Friends do not even know what Gnosticism or Arianism are as to doc tine.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 15, 2007 9:39:40 GMT -5
I think diet coke's premises still stand - that people prefer one doctrine over another and that 'false' and 'true' doctrines can be found and justified (or rejected) in scripture - it all depends on the individuals defining what is 'true' and what is 'false' and what criteria satisfy those definitions for them.
|
|
|
Post by Elements on Jul 15, 2007 10:49:21 GMT -5
I think diet coke's premises still stand - that people prefer one doctrine over another and that 'false' and 'true' doctrines can be found and justified (or rejected) in scripture - it all depends on the individuals defining what is 'true' and what is 'false' and what criteria satisfy those definitions for them. I agree. Each new cult that springs up picks and choose scripture which seems to justify their unique set of Key Elements that define their cult. A few examples of this: Church of The Signs: The Taking Up of Serpents Pentecostal: The Speaking in Tongues 2x2s: Meeting in the Home, Itenerant Ministry, etc.....
|
|
|
Post by zorro unplugged on Jul 15, 2007 15:21:31 GMT -5
I think diet coke's premises still stand - that people prefer one doctrine over another and that 'false' and 'true' doctrines can be found and justified (or rejected) in scripture - it all depends on the individuals defining what is 'true' and what is 'false' and what criteria satisfy those definitions for them.
After I wrote my post I realized that there is indeed is a difference between "finding and justifying" and "true and false". While people can (and have) prooftext scripture to "find and justify" whatever they want, that is not to be confused with their conclusion being "true or false"; IE, just because people do it, doesn't make it right. The heart of Diet Coke's premise is that the Bible is full of contradictions, myths, etc. I understand where that premise comes from, but I don't agree with it. I believe that the Bible is God's word and we can trust that it's true. So when I see an apparent contradiction as DC used as an example, it tells me to consider another solution for reconciliation - in this case that both sides are true, and Jesus was BOTH God AND man.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jul 15, 2007 17:46:07 GMT -5
Rebellious: What I was rebelling against were the constraints that the fellowship placed upon me. I was 18 years old and interested in guys, I wanted to wear jeans, I wanted to wear my hair down, go to movies, etc. etc... That's what I meant. The reason I said "no good reason like most seem to have here" is that my reasons are pretty lame when I read others....who just seemed to want to be closer to God and didn't find that where they were, etc....I was just interested in doing what I wanted to do at that time, plain and simple. M.
|
|
|
Post by rebellious on Jul 15, 2007 18:28:28 GMT -5
Rebellious: What I was rebelling against were the constraints that the fellowship placed upon me. I was 18 years old and interested in guys, I wanted to wear jeans, I wanted to wear my hair down, go to movies, etc. etc... That's what I meant. The reason I said "no good reason like most seem to have here" is that my reasons are pretty lame when I read others....who just seemed to want to be closer to God and didn't find that where they were, etc....I was just interested in doing what I wanted to do at that time, plain and simple. M. Your reasons weren't lame. You wanted to live your own life. Thats perfectly normal. You have one life. Whats lame, is to allow another human or group of humans to decide how you should live it. You're not a pupet..good on ya!
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 15, 2007 18:56:54 GMT -5
Wouldn't you agree, though, that people who believe one or the other of the first two doctrinal options also believe as you do that the Bible is God's word and can be trusted to be true? And yet they see clearly one side or the other because it makes sense to them, just as you see clearly the third option that they don't see because it makes sense to you. So...using the same proof texts, and with the equal belief that these texts are the word of God, two (or more) groups of people can come to two or more conclusions that are quite distinct from each other. This disparity doesn't prove that the Bible is a faulty proof text, but it does support diet coke's contention that people pick and choose what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Jul 15, 2007 22:25:27 GMT -5
If you consider your example, you'd realize that your premise, most any doctrine you like can be found in and justified by the bible, is proven untrue by your own words. You state that BOTH sides are clearly taught by the bible - which is true. So then we have three basic possibilties.... 1. Jesus is God, but not a man 2. Jesus is not God, but just a man 3. Jesus is God AND a man You said it yourself.....the Bible clearly teaches both sides, so the answer is clearly number 3. Very simple. By the way, the first two options are fully developed "doctrines". The first is basic Gnostism, and the second is classic Arianism....both are false. I have been trying to hold my fingers back for the last hour, but alas, I cannot any longer. You did not give a fourth option. 4. Jesus was and is divine - not God. (I'm not really typing this and will not check back for replies. Okay, I will but I am not going to argue the issue.) Webster's New World Dictionary, reissued July, 1983 (the one dictionary I use often because it is not full of ebonics and 'current' definitions): di-vine [Latin divus, a god] 1. of, like, or from God or a god; holy 2. devoted to God; religious 3. supremely great, good, etc. Jesus was born of a seed planted by God in an earthly woman. He lived a divine life as a perfect human on the face of the earth (no other human has ever done so), He died and rose again. He now sits with God in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Holy Spirit resides in both Jesus and God . . . and you and I if we let Him. Yes, let. If I deny God or Jesus, the Holy Spirit does not desire to dwell within me. Anyway, God made us and Him and He, Jesus, intercedes for us; He wants us to be with Him and God in eternity. Why must we put human parameters on Jesus' title? Jesus is God's divine Son. He is the only one who has ever or will ever have that title. Jesus is of, like, and from God - not God and not 'just' a man. That is my take. Call me a heathen or Satan's child if you like. It's okay; many others share that opinion. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 15, 2007 22:41:51 GMT -5
Howdy Hawk, Just an observation about your post about- ....Jesus was born of a seed planted by God in an earthly woman.....-my emphasis- From the NIV, Mathew 1 18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Scott So... You dont thnk Jesus is God, but perhaps you think the Holy Spirit is God?
|
|
|
Post by one view on Jul 15, 2007 22:46:44 GMT -5
So... You dont thnk Jesus is God, but perhaps you think the Holy Spirit is God? The Holy Spirit had "contact" with Mary. The Holy Spirit was the agency of the impregnation.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Jul 15, 2007 22:55:36 GMT -5
God ordered it. It was done.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Jul 15, 2007 23:07:54 GMT -5
So... You dont think Jesus is God, but perhaps you think the Holy Spirit is God? Reread what I posted . . . resides in.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 15, 2007 23:18:42 GMT -5
Wouldn't you agree, though, that people who believe one or the other of the first two doctrinal options also believe as you do that the Bible is God's word and can be trusted to be true? And yet they see clearly one side or the other because it makes sense to them, just as you see clearly the third option that they don't see because it makes sense to you. So...using the same proof texts, and with the equal belief that these texts are the word of God, two (or more) groups of people can come to two or more conclusions that are quite distinct from each other. This disparity doesn't prove that the Bible is a faulty proof text, but it does support diet coke's contention that people pick and choose what they believe.
Yes and no. There are some issues that are core issues and some that are ancillary. An issue like the deity of Christ is anything but ancillary. To accept either of the first two options is to reject overwhelming scripture that supports both Christ's deity and his humanity. Not quite in the same league as debating how important long hair is, for example. It's one thing to focus on a particular angle, it's another thing altogether to reject scripture and ignore its teaching. I'm not saying that people don't pick and choose - I'm saying that it's a dangerous way to build a belief system if it means rejecting scripture.
BTW, the people who developed the first option were the Gnostics, and no they didn't believe in the sufficiency of the Apostles teaching to lead them to truth (they didn't have a NT at the time). They claimed special knowledge the Apostles didn't have. Arias also was at odds with the Apostle's teaching when he denied the deity of Christ - and was considered a heretic.
MrLeo, underlying this "debate" is really the issue of objective vs subjective truth. Whether Jesus is God or not is an issue of objective truth - he either is or he isn't. It's not something open to individual, subjective opinion. The real issue is how open and honest we are as individuals when presented with scripture that answers the question. So back to the start.....DC said that there is clear support for both sides, that Jesus was BOTH God AND man. So the real question is - what do we do with that? Accept or reject?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 15, 2007 23:27:30 GMT -5
I have been trying to hold my fingers back for the last hour, but alas, I cannot any longer. You did not give a fourth option.
4. Jesus was and is divine - not God.I'm sorry but "divine" in the biblical sense means "deity". Websters gives several definitions for divine, and obviously they can't all be applicable to Jesus.....he wasn't "a god", for example. "Devoted to God, religous" is referring to you and I, not Jesus. The Bible simply calls Jesus, God. The Father calls Jesus, God. Jesus called himself God. The safest way to go?.... just accept the Bible's defintion
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 15, 2007 23:54:05 GMT -5
You realize that this is part of the problem. Most of the Friends do not even know what Gnosticism or Arianism are as to doc tine.
There is one point I'd like to make regarding this statement. Generally speaking, the F&Ws consider even the word "doctrine" to be negative and I believe that many people, even on this board, misunderstand what the pursuit of doctrinal soundness is about. First of all, we are instructed in the bible to pursue "sound doctrine" Why? To acheive "head knowledge"? No. It's to escape being deceived by false doctrine taught by false teachers. When I left the 2x2 fellowship I was determined to never be deceived again......THAT is what pursuing sound doctrine is all about.
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision
|
|
elle
Junior Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by elle on Jul 16, 2007 0:19:42 GMT -5
I think diet coke's premises still stand - that people prefer one doctrine over another and that 'false' and 'true' doctrines can be found and justified (or rejected) in scripture - it all depends on the individuals defining what is 'true' and what is 'false' and what criteria satisfy those definitions for them. I agree- you can interpret how you like so that many doctrines can seem to fit the bible. But some interpretations are more likely to be correct than others and some fit your own experiences and revelations better than others. It depends on whether you are using the Bible to justify not believing anything (because there are too many contradictions ) or what you want to believe or searching the Bible for truth. When you are in a group that is close-minded or prohibitive about any alternative interpretations, study, or understanding of doctrine, it can be stifling. I understand why zorro and others left over doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by john kladstrop on Jul 16, 2007 3:07:37 GMT -5
Not all of the exes left the truth due to "righteous" indignation regarding what they percieved as doctrinal incorrectness. Some just decide that there are too many restrictions as to worldly pleasures. Not necesarilly anything horrible...but maybe some would rather go fishing on a beautiful sunday spring morning (and it becomes a habit). Of course there is TV, movies, dancing, going to (or participating in) sports, gambling, smoking, alcohol (not necesarilly in excess) that are more appealing than being constantly straight-laced and always at meetings. Hey...whatever, but of course it saddens the workers.
|
|
|
Post by Klad Johnstrop on Jul 16, 2007 4:05:41 GMT -5
As always Klad, you hit the nail on the head ! Keep it up bro !
Ah iz rootin' fer yer !
KLAD
|
|
|
Post by ken coolidge on Jul 16, 2007 5:41:20 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Not all of the exes left the truth due to "righteous" indignation regarding what they percieved as doctrinal incorrectness. Some just decide that there are too many restrictions as to worldly pleasures. Not necesarilly anything horrible...but maybe some would rather go fishing on a beautiful sunday spring morning (and it becomes a habit). Of course there is TV, movies, dancing, going to (or participating in) sports, gambling, smoking, alcohol (not necesarilly in excess) that are more appealing than being constantly straight-laced and always at meetings. Hey...whatever, but of course it saddens the workers.[/glow]
Many lead the double life and still go to meetings. Your implication that its just worldly lust that pulls them is bogus worker talk.
|
|
|
Post by some or one on Jul 16, 2007 7:13:35 GMT -5
Not all of the exes left the truth due to "righteous" indignation regarding what they percieved as doctrinal incorrectness. Some just decide that there are too many restrictions as to worldly pleasures. Not necesarilly anything horrible...but maybe some would rather go fishing on a beautiful sunday spring morning (and it becomes a habit). Of course there is TV, movies, dancing, going to (or participating in) sports, gambling, smoking, alcohol (not necesarilly in excess) that are more appealing than being constantly straight-laced and always at meetings. Hey...whatever, but of course it saddens the workers. There might be some, but there is one for sure....you.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 16, 2007 10:35:11 GMT -5
But the fact is, everyone “rejects” some scripture, at least in the sense that they overlook or set aside those things which are seemingly inconsistent with logic or common sense. Sometimes they call these things “mysteries” and sometimes merely “ancillary”.
The evidence for option 3 may be overwhelming to you (and others), but it’s possible that people accept options 1 or 2 without consciously rejecting option 3 simply because it hasn’t occurred to them. Or if it has occurred to them, it’s too much of a mystery or seems beyond their scope of understanding. They might still believe Jesus was the Messiah and their savior, but not be overly concerned with what his exact nature is. Are they not saved?
How do you know the Gnostics or Arias didn’t have this knowledge? I’m not claiming they did, but history is written by the winners, as the saying goes. One man’s heretic is another man’s reformer – you are likely considered a heretic by many of the 2x2s who know you, thinking (from their perspective) you have special knowledge that they don’t have…but by many exes you are considered enlightened. As for me, I think you’re a person of great integrity and filled with love for others – an all around good guy, of which there are too few.
I agree that from an objective, logical standpoint, that the question of “Is he God or isn’t he?” requires a response of either “He is” or “He isn’t”. I disagree that the actuality of Jesus being God is a matter of objective truth. It may seem like it to a Christian, but not so much to a Buddhist – in other words, it is a matter subjective to, among other things, the preconceptions of one’s worldview. I also disagree that DC said that there was clear support that Jesus was BOTH God and man. I know it’s a fine distinction, but I believe what DC said is that there was clear support to come to the conclusion that Jesus was a man AND that there was clear support to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God – and that people do in fact come to one conclusion or the other.
|
|
|
Post by or maybe on Jul 16, 2007 10:39:10 GMT -5
There are some of us who....deep in our gut... always and forever,.... there has been this nagging question of - Why don't we have better answers to our questions? Why can't we ask pointed questions that differ from what the workers say? Why do things just not add up when we read different meanings for the same things in the Bible? Why can't our parents tell us the answer to the question - What is our doctrine and what does that mean? Therefore, when there are those of us who have struggled with these things and we like to "fish" on a Sunday morning and "shop" on Wednesday evening - we waffle because we don't have the deep connection we should have to keep us going. Until the deepest and clearest understanding is accomplished within us, we are only striving for perfect attendance and a manufactured testimony to impress the others in meeting who are doing same thing. And because of repetitive behaviour we are led to believe it is Holy.
By the way Zorro, you are an inspiration!
|
|
Nichole M
Senior Member
I John 1:5 ..... God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
Posts: 486
|
Post by Nichole M on Jul 16, 2007 11:40:58 GMT -5
Anyway, God made us and Him and He, Jesus, intercedes for us; He wants us to be with Him and God in eternity. Are you saying here that Jesus was Created? Nichole
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 16, 2007 11:48:09 GMT -5
But the fact is, everyone “rejects” some scripture, at least in the sense that they overlook or set aside those things which are seemingly inconsistent with logic or common sense. Sometimes they call these things “mysteries” and sometimes merely “ancillary”.I sense that the discussion is in danger of splitting hairs over semantics Personally, I don't agree that acknowledging mystery, or holding some issues in "tension", is the same as rejecting scripture. I guess I'd say they're not the same at all. Rejection is simply closing ones mind to scripture when presented. Holding something as mystery, or in tension, is saying "I don't understand" or "I don't understand how this can be, but at this point it appears that scripture supports it, so I'll leave it there for the moment...". Quite a difference, IMHO. The evidence for option 3 may be overwhelming to you (and others), but it’s possible that people accept options 1 or 2 without consciously rejecting option 3 simply because it hasn’t occurred to them. Or if it has occurred to them, it’s too much of a mystery or seems beyond their scope of understanding. They might still believe Jesus was the Messiah and their savior, but not be overly concerned with what his exact nature is. Are they not saved?Valid points that I completely agree with. No, I don't believe understanding the exact nature of Christ's deity/humanity is an issue of salvation. I've never said that. However, I do believe that understanding it leads to a significantly deeper relationship with him. I also believe that rejecting scripture is a dangerous spiritual condition. How do you know the Gnostics or Arias didn’t have this knowledge? I’m not claiming they did, but history is written by the winners, as the saying goes. I'd suggest that you, and everyone for that matter, do a thorough study of Gnosticsm for yourself. You'll find that the NT writers were already dealing with them and their teaching in their day. John, especially, wrote much in his epistles to address their heresies. It is amazing to me how much influence their teaching still has today. Even if someone isn't really up to rigorous research of doctrines, theology, etc, learning about Gnosticsm will help anybody and everybody. One man’s heretic is another man’s reformer – you are likely considered a heretic by many of the 2x2s who know you, thinking (from their perspective) you have special knowledge that they don’t have…No doubt this is true. but by many exes you are considered enlightened.Hard for me to imagine. As for me, I think you’re a person of great integrity and filled with love for others – an all around good guy, of which there are too few.The feeling is mutual. Anyone who can debate the superiority of Madonna over Whitney Houston demands respect I agree that from an objective, logical standpoint, that the question of “Is he God or isn’t he?” requires a response of either “He is” or “He isn’t”. I disagree that the actuality of Jesus being God is a matter of objective truth. It may seem like it to a Christian, but not so much to a Buddhist – in other words, it is a matter subjective to, among other things, the preconceptions of one’s worldview.Wouldn't a Buddhist simply say that "He isn't"? How could this not be an issue of objective truth, regardless of perspective? Any human being, from any religious background would have an answer to the question......he either is or he isn't. I suppose they could also say "I don't know" or "I don't care", but that still doesn't enable the issue to be determined subjectively. Anyway you slice it, our personal perspective doesn't change the reality that Jesus either is God, or he isn't. I also disagree that DC said that there was clear support that Jesus was BOTH God and man. I know it’s a fine distinction, but I believe what DC said is that there was clear support to come to the conclusion that Jesus was a man AND that there was clear support to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God I don't see a defensible distinction here. He said, and you also repeated the assertion, that there is clear support for both sides. The whole point I'm trying to make is that if that is true, which it is, a person has two choices. Either accept both positions as correct (even if that means holding the two positions in "mystery or tension"), or reject one of the positions and the scripture that supports it. That's all there is to it. And, IMO, rejecting scripture is not the way to get nearer to the truth of a matter.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 16, 2007 11:52:29 GMT -5
By the way Zorro, you are an inspiration! Honestly, all I'm trying to do is defend the integrity of scripture. Hopefully, that's the direction to which you'd be inspired. Thank you very much for your encouragement
|
|