Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, T-Bone said:

…guess you have to start somewhere...I’ve always had a love for science, even as a kid – but doggone it – I got sidetracked into giving religion priority over science when I joined The Way Ministry :asdf:

hmmm...

in spite of any similarities, it appears my start was actually quite different.  Not in always have a love for science (which I did from a VERY young age... and still do), but rather, in when it (forever) took a back seat (so to speak) to learning about God and the Lord Jesus Christ.  Suffice it to say, it was most certainly before I ever knew or heard anything of the Way Ministry.  

There is a point (or gap, if you prefer) at which (sooner or later) there is an unfathomable chasm reached between what is (and can or ever will be) knowable through the senses and what is (or can be) knowable through the spirit.  Want it more specifically?  Think of life after death.  Science neither can, nor will it ever, get you there. There, meaning, genuinely believing it.  And quite frankly, as hard as "religion" tries to get you there, neither do I think that it (name any religion you want) is capable of it (i.e., getting anyone "there")  - although some will undoubtedly think and contend otherwise.

The way I see it, there's one (and only one) way that anybody can ever truly believe "it" (that there is life after death.)  The precursors to anyone's arrival at the way (not meaning TWI or "the Way Ministry") can vary greatly, but it seems that invariably it envelopes some innate recognition and acceptance of one's own failure, or falling short. (However you want to look at or phrase Rom. 3:23.)  But, in a manner of speaking, when the reality of the perfect man(Christ)'s death subsequently hits us between the eyes... and our own shortcomings and failures are rendered as being insignificant... the only (totally overwhelming) thing that makes sense is that God raised him from the dead.  At that point in time (for me... and I suspect that I am not alone), there was nothing else that mattered nor made any sense.  The "loose pieces" clicked... and I understood... well, in so many words, .. that he loved me, and laid down his life for me.  It suddenly became very "personal..." and there was absolutely no doubt (nor has there ever been since then) that God raised him from the dead, and that he lives forevermore.

So, like I said previously... science has (and will forever) take a back seat to something which I know in my heart is true beyond any and all doubt.  While it may not be said of many things, on that, I suppose one might say that I am "fully persuaded."  Yet, from a purely "scientific" perspective, I am well aware that it is quite "impossible" to prove it, or perhaps, even more logically explain it.    

What is unfortunate, is that it appears you (and some untold number of others) may have muddled this...  how should I say it... fundamental aspect of Christianity with something learned or associated with TWI, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ himself.   Or maybe I just misunderstood something written in your post that only made it seem like you were putting science back in the drivers seat .  If so, perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your position on it.              

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So if we get to the place where we decide atheism IS a religion, then do we also have to go down the road of deciding whether it is an ORGANIZED religion or not?  aka Dana Carvey's routine - "la, la,

I used to think that atheism was an overreaction to leaving The Way. In my case, it was a good long time between leaving TWI and rejecting theism, so I doubt very much that it can be categorized

Or, as they used to say at the university: You spend four years in to the School of Engineering learning to ask the question, How can we make it? You spend four years in the School of Manage

6 hours ago, TLC said:

hmmm...

in spite of any similarities, it appears my start was actually quite different.  Not in always have a love for science (which I did from a VERY young age... and still do), but rather, in when it (forever) took a back seat (so to speak) to learning about God and the Lord Jesus Christ.  Suffice it to say, it was most certainly before I ever knew or heard anything of the Way Ministry. 

(SNIP)...

So, like I said previously... science has (and will forever) take a back seat to something which I know in my heart is true beyond any and all doubt.  While it may not be said of many things, on that, I suppose one might say that I am "fully persuaded."  Yet, from a purely "scientific" perspective, I am well aware that it is quite "impossible" to prove it, or perhaps, even more logically explain it.    

What is unfortunate, is that it appears you (and some untold number of others) may have muddled this...  how should I say it... fundamental aspect of Christianity with something learned or associated with TWI, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ himself.   Or maybe I just misunderstood something written in your post that only made it seem like you were putting science back in the drivers seat .  If so, perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your position on it.              

 

Yeah I guess it does sound like I’m putting science back in the driver’s seat – however, I might add that in this analogy you suggest I have my faith as an onboard GPS Navigation System…I think that is what gives me what the direction to go in if I am pursuing more details on some aspect of science – and now more than ever I am concerned with my faith not distorting the science…

when I spoke of giving priority or precedence to science over religion – I meant that in terms of where the deference should go – so basically I ask myself if the Bible fails to hold true to fact or what science has already proven – then I adjust my interpretation of the Bible accordingly – which sometimes means making accommodations for the cultural mindset or intellectual limitations of that time . I will return to this point further down – but for now - I hope I’m not detracting from the main purpose of this thread – so I’ll try to be as brief as possible in my attempt at clarification ( please bear with me for a few minutes...I do apologize in advance – obviously by the length that follows you can see I still have not thought all this out – but I’m working on it.)

Usually a fundamentalist interpretation takes the Bible as literally true…as wierwille said in PFAL the Bible doesn’t contain the word of God - it IS the word of God – and thus is perfect on any subject it mentions…that’s where I now disagree. I believe the Bible CONTAINS the word of God – an inspired book, yes – but clearly written by imperfect humans – exhibiting “warts and all”, the shortcomings and foibles of people, and even contradictions, factual, historical and scientific errors.

Ok – let’s pause for a sec – I know what I just said might freak out some folks – so let me walk you through how I got there…I think there’s an assumption by some folks (and I was one of them) that when God inspired or gave revelation with a specific message – that it was something almost like a document drafted by top notch lawyers – in that every angle was covered – no loopholes or inaccuracies – that could come back later and bite an author in the a$$  :evilshades: ...Some folks are willing to go part way and say “yeah God inspired these writers but they used their own vocabulary and writing style” – but why do we assume the limitations of knowledge back then or the shortcomings of human nature do not come into play also?

And what if God was only concerned with a certain type of message – information of a spiritual nature…I mean after all God mandated that humans should rule the earth back in Genesis 1 – one should ask how that might be realized. I believe the march of time from the beginning of recorded history will show that humans have been very busy in carrying out God’s directive to rule the earth – the constant advances in science, technology, medicine, “noble” experiments in government, etc. … Genesis 1  says that humans were made in the image of God to rule…yes that image is tainted because of sin – so you have the good and bad side of people reflected in the misuse of science, technology, government, etc…

I remember certain wierwille teachings that emphasized all inventions come by revelation – that type of thinking totally disregards AND disrespects the potential of people who are social, creative and constructive beings made in the image of God. Why does God have to hold our hands every step of the way in progress? If God is anything like human parents – maybe he wanted us to grow up and stand on our own two feet. What if God’s laissez-faire policy is merely been holding up his end of the deal in Genesis 1 – when he said humans should dominate the earth…

I will not even attempt to address God’s sovereignty in all this…something I do believe but understand so little about…which is how God works behind the scenes…God’s sovereignty and our freedom of will is indeed one of the toughest conundrums of the Christian faith…But let me be clear on this – I’m not one of those folks who thinks God is on my side and is pulling strings for me all the time – I don’t think there’s any scripture to support that kind of thinking…but there is something to following the moral dictates of your conscience…and I believe God created a moral universe and justice will prevail…but how God…or some higher power will work all that out is beyond me.

== == == ==

 

Now back to a point in the first paragraph. Contrary to my former fundamentalist mindset of taking everything so literally in the Bible – I did a “180 degree” on what I think of evolution. Considering all the evidence and the research that is constantly being updated I now think it is a distinct possibility that God has guided the evolutionary process. The message I think that the ancient writers were trying to convey had nothing to do with scientific accuracy – but simply that God in the beginning created.

I must say – loving science and being raised in a Christian home – my “a priori” has been the wonder of the universe  suffused with faith…of seeing the mind and hand of God in the cosmos…and in trying to get back on track with that – there is perhaps the “a posteriori” of interpreting an ancient book with a modern mind…perhaps if anything has been muddled it’s the forcing-of-a-square-peg-in-a-round-hole mentality of fundamentalists who argue for the “scientific accuracy” of the Bible…not sure if I used those terms properly – I’m new at this – thought I ‘d give it a try...and do bear in mind what I've said elsewhere about my thought process - I'm shooting for a synthesis...which means I'm assuming that a harmony of science and faith is possible...

...well TLC - I don't know if all that clarified anything but I do feel a whole lot better now that I got all that off my chest :biglaugh:

... of course, this is all just my opinion I could be wrong.

what's the diff ?

Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

Edited by T-Bone
formatting...and I'm truly sorry for this atrocity of verbosity
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Usually a fundamentalist interpretation takes the Bible as literally true…as wierwille said in PFAL the Bible doesn’t contain the word of God - it IS the word of God – and thus is perfect on any subject it mentions…that’s where I now disagree. I believe the Bible CONTAINS the word of God – an inspired book, yes – but clearly written by imperfect humans – exhibiting “warts and all”, the shortcomings and foibles of people, and even contradictions, factual, historical and scientific errors.

This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up...  

Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.)  I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God."  Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that:  1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God;  2.) is perfect;  3.) is spiritual;  and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.)

Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.) 

On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.) 

Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all  agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.)  The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere.  Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible. 

 

Edited by TLC
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, T-Bone said:

when I spoke of giving priority or precedence to science over religion – I meant that in terms of where the deference should go – so basically I ask myself if the Bible fails to hold true to fact or what science has already proven – then I adjust my interpretation of the Bible accordingly – which sometimes means making accommodations for the cultural mindset or intellectual limitations of that time .

So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible?  Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, T-Bone said:

And what if God was only concerned with a certain type of message – information of a spiritual nature…I mean after all God mandated that humans should rule the earth back in Genesis 1 – one should ask how that might be realized.

That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth.  When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill.  So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TLC said:

This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up...  

Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.)  I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God."  Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that:  1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God;  2.) is perfect;  3.) is spiritual;  and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.)

Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.) 

On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.) 

Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all  agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.)  The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere.  Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible. 

 

Yes I apologize to all for this major detour I have introduced - so I’ll try to be very brief - perhaps if anyone wants to discuss anything in further detail you can start another thread -

anyway my reply to this post is simply the point I was trying to make - that there are numerous historical and scientific  errors in the Bible , texts or whatever is still in existence ...

...I was not attempting to split hairs on what’s inspired versus what’s given by revelation...either way - what I was suggesting is that the important content of the message speaks of spiritual matters - which by the way  there is no way to verify if it has errors  (there is no fact-checker for the spiritual realm :rolleyes: ) - and so that is the part my faith latches onto.

i believe the Bible is very much a product of the times - that also has a timeless message .

Edited by T-Bone
Revision for clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TLC said:

So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible?  Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death? 

I’m not aware of any scientific proof that indicates there is no life after death 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TLC said:

That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth.  When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill.  So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.

I think those are assumptions on your part... the directive was to man made in the image of God - and there’s scriptural support to suggest men and women have not lost that image - and so I believe the mandate still stands and in fact is being fulfilled.

Edited by T-Bone
Revision
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think proving there is no life after death is a logical fallacy?

 

TLC did describe the realm of what is known, and what we don't know.  There's a boundary between the two which we are constantly expanding onward, likely forever.  Science helps with articulating the known from the unknown.  Religion helps us face the unknown?

If I'm understand this thread correctly it's about definitions.  Is atheism a non-belief in gods or a belief there is no gods?  How do we define gods?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what a logical fallacy is.

You're thinking of a conundrum -- in order to prove there's life after death, one would have to die. But once you have died, you can't come back to report your results.

A logical fallacy is when you draw a conclusion from premises using a methodology that is flawed. 

"You can't prove there's no life after death, so it's just as likely to be true as false." This is a logical fallacy. Propositions do not have 50-50 probabilities. So you can make an evidence-based argument that one probability is, in fact, much higher than the other.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

(Snip)...

If I'm understand this thread correctly it's about definitions.  Is atheism a non-belief in gods or a belief there is no gods?  How do we define gods?

 

Maybe a good question might be “how do you define a religion?”

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I’m not aware of any scientific proof that indicates there is no life after death 

Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked.  I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is.  Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth.  Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven.     

Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?

Edited by TLC
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I think those are assumptions on your part... the directive was to man made in the image of God - and there’s scriptural support to suggest men and women have not lost that image - and so I believe the mandate still stands and in fact is being fulfilled.

Perhaps they are (on my part.)  However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?

Edited by TLC
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TLC said:

Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked.  I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is.  Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth.  Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven.     

Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?

I'm sorry - but I don't understand your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

Maybe a good question might be “how do you define a religion?”

Short answer is I'd look at the functional aspect first, next historical, and possibly political.  I take it to be a natural phenomena.  I find this word to be somewhat of a moving target.  

(Is The Way a religion?  No, any system can be hijacked :biglaugh:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TLC said:

Perhaps they are (on my part.)  However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?

I never said anything about choosing or replacing any other directives...I'm just saying I'm not aware of any scripture that revokes or replaces the mandate of Genesis 1

Edited by T-Bone
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bolshevik said:

Short answer is I'd look at the functional aspect first, next historical, and possibly political.  I take it to be a natural phenomena.  I find this word to be somewhat of a moving target.  

(Is The Way a religion?  No, any system can be hijacked :biglaugh:)

I'd probably look first at some reference on line

Wikipedia 

merriam webster

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I never said anything about choosing or replacing any other directives...I'm just saying I'm not aware of any scripture that revokes or replaces the mandate of Genesis 1

Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TLC said:

Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

I don't see anything in that verse that would suggest the mandate of Genesis 1 was revoked - banished from Eden is perhaps one small specific location - upon this entire earth wherein humans would rule Genesis 1

...so currently humans cannot rule in the garden of Eden - it's off limits to their jurisdiction, authority...whatever

Edited by T-Bone
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Maybe a good question might be “how do you define a religion?”

The truth is, there are a LOT of good questions here.

How do you define atheism?

How do you define religion?

How do you define god?

All need answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 - banished from Eden is perhaps one small specific location - upon this entire earth wherein humans would rule Genesis 1

Perhaps you'll allow me to say that is an assumption on your part.  But you're not alone, by any means.  It's just not my view of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I'd probably look first at some reference on line

Wikipedia 

merriam webster

I see those, thanks.

Yes if we set up  or vary definitions we get different answers.  TWI perhaps was good about making definitions strict, to keep one in a logic box.  If we agree on definitions we could set up a bit of logic, but do we really get to the heart of the questions or understand one another?  Maybe I don't know.  Just thinking.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...