Free Will

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
human.
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:02 pm
Title: pequenino

Postby human. » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:48 pm

I would like to bring this back up really quickly, because you never answered it and I am curious to what your answer is, Crazy Tom.
Okay, hypothetically, let's say we live in this society. And doing charity is an act of evil that is banned by the God that we believe in. However, Isabel is from a society where they believe that doing charity is the most pure and good act anyone can do, as decreed by the God they believe in. She comes to our society, without knowledge of how we believe, and she starts to do charity for us. She thinks she is being a great citizen and a devout follower of her God. We think she is committing a dreadful and evil sin.

Is she evil?
And actually, I'm interested in anyone's answer as to whether intent and perspective matter in determining whether an act is evil or not.

(And what's all this talk about Life of Pi? That book did not hold my interest whatsoever. I didn't get more than a third of the way through it...)

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:43 pm

Jota.

I spotted several blasphemous and outright wrong statements in that last post.

God cannot lie, God cannot be mistaken.

As to the rest of that, the Bible is divinely inspired. The original writers wrote exactly what God intended them to write.

Out of all of those, the only "leap of faith" I am making is about the translators. That's why my dad leaned Greek: so he could understand the original. Thats why I learn Latin: so I can understand the one right next to the original. But KJV is the best English translation I have seen, so I use that.
The argument is circular. You believe in God because the Bible gives you proof of him. But you believe in the Bible because it is the Word of God. This is not a very meaty argument. In fact, it kinda fails.

Meanwhile, there's a couple really hilarious (IMO) grammatical errors in the Latin version of the Bible. They got passed on and perpetuated because "it's the word of God" so it HAS to be right. <3
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:07 pm

human.: It depends on whether she continues to do charity even after learning that the local understanding of God teaches otherwise. If she conforms, then by local understanding, she is a blessed convert and according to her previous land apostate. If she persists, she is an infidel by local standard and a missionary martyr according to her previous land.

Which she really is in either scenario depends on which take on God turns out to be the true one (since a true God cannot be internally inconsistent, teaching one group one thing and another group the opposite).
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:21 am

What EL said.

Plus, blasphemy is a roadblock in the path of critical thinking. You should critically analyze all your assumptions, questioning their veracity. Yes, even religious Truths.
Blasphemy has been historically set up as a way to keep believers from questioning the contents of a religion: if you make them think it's a terrible sin to even question them, they won't arrive at "bad" conclusions. It was so effective that most religious thinkers, no matter how brilliant, did little more than rationalizing around their core beliefs, until well into the middle ages.

Yes, i am very heterodox in my beliefs. Because i need to comform them to certain scientific standards. You say you believe in the Bible because is the word of God... but it was written by men. Ignorant, prone to error, backward men.
The laws of physics, instead, were written by God itself (or not written at all by anyone), so they are much more reliable.
Image

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Postby CezeN » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:33 pm

(And what's all this talk about Life of Pi? That book did not hold my interest whatsoever. I didn't get more than a third of the way through it...)
Meh. I really liked the book. I mean, maybe it was slow in the beginning, I don't remember, but it at least got interesting near the middle and end.
After all, first time I've ever seen a tiger vs. a shark. AND, the Island on it kinda reminds me of Lost.

Either way, you reminded me of it because at one point Pi is practicing and respecting three different religons at the same time. Reminded me of that temple you talked about. :wink:
And when his religous teachers found out about the others, he said something along the lines of "I just want to love God in as many ways possible"

Good book though. You should go back and try to reread it. And farther than you went before.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:54 pm

I would like to bring this back up really quickly, because you never answered it and I am curious to what your answer is, Crazy Tom.
Okay, hypothetically, let's say we live in this society. And doing charity is an act of evil that is banned by the God that we believe in. However, Isabel is from a society where they believe that doing charity is the most pure and good act anyone can do, as decreed by the God they believe in. She comes to our society, without knowledge of how we believe, and she starts to do charity for us. She thinks she is being a great citizen and a devout follower of her God. We think she is committing a dreadful and evil sin.

Is she evil?

And actually, I'm interested in anyone's answer as to whether intent and perspective matter in determining whether an act is evil or not.

(And what's all this talk about Life of Pi? That book did not hold my interest whatsoever. I didn't get more than a third of the way through it...)
Sorry it took me so long.

No, she is not evil because reguardless of how any society defines "good", the Christan God of the Bible DOES call charity a virtue. Therefore, it is, and therefore, it is not evil.

As to whether she should be PUNISHED for this perceived evil, that is entirely up to the offended society. Ultimately, the only justice that ever really matters is the Great White Throne Judgement.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:26 pm

Thing about Pi is that the Bible equates pi to 3. That's why it's unreliable when it comes to scientific matters, due to the ignorance on such matters of the writers.
Image

human.
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:02 pm
Title: pequenino

Postby human. » Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:53 pm

I would like to bring this back up really quickly, because you never answered it and I am curious to what your answer is, Crazy Tom.
Okay, hypothetically, let's say we live in this society. And doing charity is an act of evil that is banned by the God that we believe in. However, Isabel is from a society where they believe that doing charity is the most pure and good act anyone can do, as decreed by the God they believe in. She comes to our society, without knowledge of how we believe, and she starts to do charity for us. She thinks she is being a great citizen and a devout follower of her God. We think she is committing a dreadful and evil sin.

Is she evil?

And actually, I'm interested in anyone's answer as to whether intent and perspective matter in determining whether an act is evil or not.

(And what's all this talk about Life of Pi? That book did not hold my interest whatsoever. I didn't get more than a third of the way through it...)
Sorry it took me so long.

No, she is not evil because reguardless of how any society defines "good", the Christan God of the Bible DOES call charity a virtue. Therefore, it is, and therefore, it is not evil.

As to whether she should be PUNISHED for this perceived evil, that is entirely up to the offended society. Ultimately, the only justice that ever really matters is the Great White Throne Judgement.
I think you missed my point here. The reason why I made this a hypothetical is because I want you to assume in this world that there is no Bible nor any religions other than the two practiced in the described situation. (Just hypothetically, I promise!)
____________________

Rei, I find that interesting. I think my opinion is the same as yours, though with much less drastic labels for her if she chooses not to do charity. Because choosing not to do charity while there would just be respecting the beliefs of another religion, to me. She wouldn't necessarily have to convert to the new religion. She could still believe charity is the best thing she can do, but restraining herself where people believe the exact opposite would just seem smart to me. Also respectful.

Also, I agree that, under this scenario, it would definitely depend on which God (or interpretation of his word) is the true one.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:40 pm

Thing about Pi is that the Bible equates pi to 3. That's why it's unreliable when it comes to scientific matters, due to the ignorance on such matters of the writers.
Where does it do that? I know I've heard the myth of some school board in the Bible Belt mandating that pi=3, but I don't recall it from the Bible itself.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Thing about Pi is that the Bible equates pi to 3. That's why it's unreliable when it comes to scientific matters, due to the ignorance on such matters of the writers.
Where does it do that? I know I've heard the myth of some school board in the Bible Belt mandating that pi=3, but I don't recall it from the Bible itself.
Ya, I want to know, too.

Human: assuming that I did not beleive what I believe:

No, she is not evil because she is doing what she believes to be holy.

It doesn't matter, though, bacause God exists and is the authority of good.
If I did not believe in God, like you, I would be a Nihilist, and therefore what she or anyone believes wouldn't matter.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

Sonikku13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1782
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:34 pm
Title: Game Room Addict
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Contact:

Postby Sonikku13 » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:13 pm

Lemme throw some more fuel into the fire. Not all people who do not believe in god are atheist. Buddhism is a religion where there is no god (If I'm wrong here, I'm gonna be annoyed because thats what my world history teacher taught us.) So we can't assume that every person that doesn't believe in a god is atheist. CT, any thoughts here?
TG M203 Bunker, PFC, 1st Corps, CoD Division, PC Brigade, 1st BTN, Chungking (ST) Squad, SM

I've had 102 nukes on MW2.

I have Asperger Syndrome (I was diagnosed at birth). It's categorized as a "disability".

Image

Jayelle
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
Title: Queen Ducky
First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
Location: The Far East (of Canada)

Postby Jayelle » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:51 pm

Thing about Pi is that the Bible equates pi to 3. That's why it's unreliable when it comes to scientific matters, due to the ignorance on such matters of the writers.
Where does it do that? I know I've heard the myth of some school board in the Bible Belt mandating that pi=3, but I don't recall it from the Bible itself.
It's a reading of 1 Kings 7:23
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:01 pm

Jayelle, while yes, that could be interpreted that way, the Bible was not trying to give scientific measurements, only a general idea of the shape. Its not going to say, "and a line of 31.415927..... cubits measured its circumference.
Lemme throw some more fuel into the fire. Not all people who do not believe in god are atheist. Buddhism is a religion where there is no god (If I'm wrong here, I'm gonna be annoyed because thats what my world history teacher taught us.) So we can't assume that every person that doesn't believe in a god is atheist. CT, any thoughts here?
"atheist" comes from the Greek "a" meaning "without" +"theos" meaning "a god" . So even Buddhism is also a branch of atheism (unless buddhists consider buddha to be a god?)
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:48 am

Oh, so now you are allowed to interpret the bible? About scientific matters? Peculiar, for that's exactly what i had been doing.

Where does this "right to interpret" extend to? Who decides it? you?
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:35 am

Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:21 am

Of course many of those explanations work, somewhat. But work if you realize that who is writing it is a human being, without good knowledge on mathematics or engineering, as little scribes did.

The "pi bullshit" is just a small reminder that the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God. It was written by men, and even while being written it was an interpretation. A scribe or a king wouldn't care if the rim was 30 or 31 cubits, as long as it was very big. But God wouldn't say "it was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around". At the very worst would say "and almost 31 cubits and a half".

That's my whole point: written by men without technical knowledge, probably many years after the events transpired. You can't trust the Bible for technical or scientifical knowledge. But pi isn't the only example: the ignorance with which leprosy is treated is enough to scare anyone. Certainly not the kind of advice that would come from God.
Image

Jayelle
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
Title: Queen Ducky
First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
Location: The Far East (of Canada)

Postby Jayelle » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:13 am

Jayelle, while yes, that could be interpreted that way, the Bible was not trying to give scientific measurements, only a general idea of the shape. Its not going to say, "and a line of 31.415927..... cubits measured its circumference.
Wasn't saying I agreed with it (I don't), just pointing out the reference.
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:05 pm

Thanks, Jan. It never occurred to me that someone would take that literally.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:03 pm

Me neither, but thanks for that internet link. thats pretty much the point I was trying to get across.

Saying the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God is only true to the point that we cannot read the original interpretation. 3 was an approximation, and given that we STILL have not found any pattern or end to the value of Pi, we can hardly expect these ancient prophets to. as that internet link said, the Bible wouldn't be just used up giving the EXACT lousy measurement. 3o foot circumference is an approximation, just like what YOU wanted: 31.4. Who cares?! both are about right!

ANYWAY, this forum was discussing free will. I challenge anybody to find a Bible verse that states clearly that man has the free will to do good. I have already given my verses on predestination, now I want to see yours.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

human.
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:02 pm
Title: pequenino

Postby human. » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:53 pm

However, some people don't use the Bible to understand how their lives are governed.. so I don't understand why Bible verses are necessary. Why can't evidence from this time period be used? I'm not saying I particularly have any, but I don't particularly understand how everything can be already decided, and how the Bible proves that it is. Everything is A LOT of stuff, and extremely intricate while still seeming random.. I don't know. It doesn't really make sense to me that I go through extreme emotional states just to make decisions sometimes if I was already going to make that decision the whole time.

But my point was, what about looking at facts that were not put in writing approximately 2000 years ago?

Also, I had this thought just now about solipsism. If solipsism were reality, then it would completely be free will, right? Because everything exists only in your mind, so you decide everything that you do. Yet, you don't have control of your own life at the same time.. Because everything doesn't always go to plan, and assuming you're not a masochist, shouldn't it work the way that makes you happiest? So possibly you don't have control of what you create, but you do have free will in the choices you make within the reality created in your mind? But you can't change the reality, consciously.. Which actually is the way I always pictured god to be when I was a Christian..

But anyway, not sure if that was coherent.. but it was something that made me curious.

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:59 pm

The reason I use the Bible is because it is, to me, the highest authority in existence; therefore, any support found for any argument found in the Bible carries much more weight to me and others who trust the Word of God.

Solipsism is rather strange. In the famous words of Descartes, "I think, therefore I am." How do I know that you, human, are real and in existence? Because if you weren't, then who am I talking to. I wonder if Solipsism was created by some fanatical fan of the Matrix series... :?: 8)

In all seriousness, though, I don't think our minds are capable of that. Solipsists flatter themselves too much believing that they are smart enough to create all this. besides, what possible proof could they have?! I really do want to know. any solipsists out there who can answer my question?
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:29 am

Against my better judgement, ill try some biblethumping:

Since the Bible is the top authority, ill ask: where in the Bible says that all of it is the innearrant word of God? Also, where does it say that it's the only source of authority?

Didn't Jesus tell you to submit to the authorities that God brought to the Earth, because there is no source of authority beyond Him? Well, scientists are the intellectual authorities brought by God (He gave them the talent to understand better and have insight in the workings of the material world) to you, so you can have a better understanding of the Universe.

This post doesn't intend to reflect my beliefs on intellectual authority.
Image

User avatar
Luther95
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:32 pm

Postby Luther95 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:21 am

Since the Bible is the top authority, ill ask: where in the Bible says that all of it is the innearrant word of God? Also, where does it say that it's the only source of authority?
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work"

2 Peter 1:21 "for no prophesy (word from God) was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"

And I love the passage in Job where a frustrated young Elihu speaks up on account of the lack of wisdom shown by some of the elder men in the group..."the breath of the Almighty gives a man understanding". It is in this same sense that the word 'inspired' in 2 Tim is used. It literally means 'God-breathed'. Great stuff.
Sola Scriptura

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:43 am

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work"
As far as i know, righteousness isn't the same thing as natural science. Of course, we arrive at a metaliteral point. When Paul says that in his letter to Timothy, did he know that this letter would become scripture?
And still, this doesn't actually favor the scriptura sola teaching, as Paul was adding to the scripture himself.

2 Peter 1:21 "for no prophesy (word from God) was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"
*nods* but beyond Daniel, there is little fortune-telling in the Bible. Most prophecies are actually unfulfilled, and that's why they have to take them out of context to make them about Christ, or about the fall of Satan.
Image

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:25 pm

The only prophesies that are really unfulfilled are either those concerned with revalation or those made by false prophets.

Also, I do not understand how you (jota) think that Paul was somehow violating Sola Scriptura by writing scriptures.

Sola Scriptura: Latin. Ablative; On scriptures alone. Martin Luther (the original, lol) put this doctrine into words after his break from the Catholic faith, which believed that tradition had just as much authority. Luther disagreed with this in his 95 theses, and helped establish protestant doctrine.
Paul's letters to Timothy in no way violate this. They are scripture because they do not violate any other fact presnted in scripture, and because they have been found to be absolute truth by the original composers of collected scripture and by all subsequent generations.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:41 pm

And nevertheless, Paul and Peter start the tradition themselves, because not every of their teachings was writting, but passed on orally to their disciples. Telling apart scriptura from tradition is very difficult.
Image

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:06 pm

Not all that difficult when "tradition" strays from Scriptures, as it did in the Catholic faith. Huss was one of the first to see this and was executed for going against the church. When Luther began to see the differences between Catholic tradition and scriptures, people began to accuse him of being a heretic like Huss. He did not know what Huss taught, so they stuck him in a room with a bunch of Huss's writings, and when he came out, he said that Huss was right. John Calvin and Zwingli soon followed suit, and those who valued scriptures over tradition formed the protestant reformation.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:35 am

And a few years after Luther's death, the Catholic church called the Council of Trent, and agreed that stuff was pretty dang screwed up when Luther was kicking up a fuss, and made some significant changes.

Just as a note, there is a big difference between "tradition" and "Tradition". "Tradition" includes such things as "The Bible is the written Word of God" and "Jesus is God"; "tradition" deals more with passing fads that may or may not be theologically sound or supported by the Church, for example, selling indulgences (which is, for the record, strictly banned by the Church, ever since the Council of Trent, I believe).

One of the big issues of discarding Tradition is the issue of the process of canonisation of Scripture. This was largely done by a process of considering the texts circulating at the time and whether they fit with the Traditions surrounding what people believed integral to the Christian life. And once Tradition says a text is Scripture, people get up in arms when other people try to axe it, which leads to the Church stating officially that said texts are part of Scripture and cannot be axed. This is part of why books like Esther and James kept getting added back into the Bible by Luther's followers (and Menno Simon's, and probably several others) after Luther tried to ditch them.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:57 pm

Just as a note, there is a big difference between "tradition" and "Tradition". "Tradition" includes such things as "The Bible is the written Word of God" and "Jesus is God"; "tradition" deals more with passing fads that may or may not be theologically sound or supported by the Church, for example, selling indulgences (which is, for the record, strictly banned by the Church, ever since the Council of Trent, I believe).
While this is probably true, Luther and his followers simly rid themselves of all the "Tradition" which contradicted the Bible, such as the Pope being able to commune with God, and the Bread and wine turning into the literal body and blood of Christ. Luther saw these mistakes, and got rid of everything that was not Biblical.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

User avatar
Taalcon
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
Title: Prodigal Son
Location: Cumming, GA
Contact:

Postby Taalcon » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:40 am

While this is probably true, Luther and his followers simly rid themselves of all the "Tradition" which contradicted the Bible, such as the Pope being able to commune with God, and the Bread and wine turning into the literal body and blood of Christ. Luther saw these mistakes, and got rid of everything that was not Biblical.
While I think Luther had many very good points, and did faithfully attempt to separate erroneous (and harmful) traditions based on his understanding, I think in many cases, he went too far with his counter-reaction, and threw the baby out with the bath water.

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:38 pm

Like what cases?
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:22 pm

Removing books from the Bible, such as Esther and James; the former because it never mentions God, and the latter because of the emphasis upon works, if I recall correctly.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Taalcon
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
Title: Prodigal Son
Location: Cumming, GA
Contact:

Postby Taalcon » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:51 pm

What Rei said, for one.

Also, in my opinion, the concept of an organized priesthood. Luther seems to have not been able to separate the idea of abuse and expansion of rights of claimed priesthood from his perceived wickedness of the institution itself. I believe Luther had many things right in this regard, such as:

1. Priesthood should not be a 'noble' political class, something that places holders in a more separated 'spiritual' (or especially temporal) caste/category
2. All baptized members should have a right of access to the righteous authority assumed in the concept of priesthood.

He did not appear to see any legitimacy left in the Roman Priesthood, and his conclusion was that the concept itself must then be faulty - not just the implementation thereof. For if it was just a problem of implementation, he would have had no authority to do anything about it.

User avatar
Crazy Tom: C Toon
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm

Postby Crazy Tom: C Toon » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:25 pm

I think Luther was right to abandon the Catholic faith: No one believer should have special privileges that others do not (e.g. The Pope can talk to God). I know that he also left because of the Indulgence issue, but he and Huss discovered several major flaws in the Catholic faith a la Luther's 95 theses.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:56 am

Removing books from the Bible, such as Esther and James; the former because it never mentions God, and the latter because of the emphasis upon works, if I recall correctly.
Also, although maybe not totally relevant to the thread, Jude was also nearly removed due to it alluding to the book of Enoch.


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 3 guests