RE: The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?
July 12, 2013 at 8:47 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2013 at 8:57 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
GC, I'm sorry but everything you're doing has been responded in full in my last post. If you really are going to merely say that I haven't defined the word - a lie, as I, inresponse to you, stated that it is equivalent to "all-loving"- then you're hopeless to talk to.
In addition, when I called bullshit on your claim that "no Christian uses that term", you just fall back to hiding behind "any Christian can say whatever they want but, that does not necessitate it being true". Duh. My point was that Christians DO use it, regardless of if YOU do not.
Er, I don't think so, but I'll hear you out since I tend to like your inputs. Since I'm specifically referring to interpretations of text(s) in question that cause fundamental conclusions with respect to salvation.
Actually, not quite. What I'm referring to is differing soteriological beliefs from differing interpretations of the same wellspring. Gnostics would have been a different denomination of Christian in their own time, hence why some early church fathers felt the need to try and demonstrate that they (the Gnostics, etc.) were not of the "true" Christian faith.. But if there really is in fact a problem with using Gnostics as an example, I could simpy swap it with, say, Marcionite Christians -as their soteriology was quite different despite using most of Paul's letters and one of the Gospels- could I not?
And when did I refer to non-Trinitarians? And what in my usage of denominations here is incorrect?
I said nothing about "forcing" belief on anyone. Well, lemme rephrase that. What is the difference between God revealing himself to a would-be prophet, and revealing himself to anyone else in a similar way. This is the crux of the argument. It obviously couldn't be "forcing" them to believe, so clearly it must be the case that God clearly revealing himself to people is not contrary to his nature and capability, yes?
In addition, when I called bullshit on your claim that "no Christian uses that term", you just fall back to hiding behind "any Christian can say whatever they want but, that does not necessitate it being true". Duh. My point was that Christians DO use it, regardless of if YOU do not.
(July 12, 2013 at 7:26 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: P4) There have been - and still are - denominational disputes amongst God's followers - with said disputes often having to do with differing interpretations of the holy texts - and these disputes have included even what is necessary to achieve [P3] (saved by faith, saved by works, having special knowledge (ancient Gnostic Christians)).
This bit I think fails.
You're not talking about denominations, but fundamental differences as between different religions.
Er, I don't think so, but I'll hear you out since I tend to like your inputs. Since I'm specifically referring to interpretations of text(s) in question that cause fundamental conclusions with respect to salvation.
Quote:If you want to call gnostic Christians and non trinitarian Christians "denominations" then you have a serious misunderstanding of what denomination means.
Actually, not quite. What I'm referring to is differing soteriological beliefs from differing interpretations of the same wellspring. Gnostics would have been a different denomination of Christian in their own time, hence why some early church fathers felt the need to try and demonstrate that they (the Gnostics, etc.) were not of the "true" Christian faith.. But if there really is in fact a problem with using Gnostics as an example, I could simpy swap it with, say, Marcionite Christians -as their soteriology was quite different despite using most of Paul's letters and one of the Gospels- could I not?
And when did I refer to non-Trinitarians? And what in my usage of denominations here is incorrect?
Quote:Secondly, the Christian God never forces belief upon us. We are free agents to choose what we want/are free to act as our wills dictate. Love is not love without the freedom to choose it.
I said nothing about "forcing" belief on anyone. Well, lemme rephrase that. What is the difference between God revealing himself to a would-be prophet, and revealing himself to anyone else in a similar way. This is the crux of the argument. It obviously couldn't be "forcing" them to believe, so clearly it must be the case that God clearly revealing himself to people is not contrary to his nature and capability, yes?
