RE: The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?
July 13, 2013 at 1:57 am
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2013 at 2:31 am by fr0d0.)
(July 12, 2013 at 8:47 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: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?
Yes there were many offspring's, all of which have been assessed/ challenged, and in the bible too. The error of their interpretation was explained. Faulty interpretation abounds, but I don't think we should blame the source for that. Sometimes humans get it wrong. All we can do is test and question ourselves honestly.
My use of non trinitarian was to illustrate a type of deviation that sets that interpretation beyond the label 'denomination'. A denomination is an acceptable variation by the group. The Christian church accepts some 30,000 denominations. Some churches /beliefs fall outside of the mainstream classification even though by dictionary definition those churches /beliefs are christian.
(July 12, 2013 at 8:47 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: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?
The recipient has to discern the source is all. What the biblical record contains is verified cross reference establishing source. Without the check we shouldn't assume source/ we follow a process to ascertain it.
(July 13, 2013 at 1:53 am)genkaus Wrote:(July 13, 2013 at 1:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think the Christian belief is that God is love. All loving makes no sense to me. Love and just also tie together... Some people confuse justice with unloving/ use that to demonstrate the problem with omnibenevolence.
Then that is a nonsensical proposition. Love is an emotion - not an intelligent entity. It'd make no sense to ascribe other qualities like just or benevolent to it.
Justice is a subset of love. It doesn't contradict it. Christians and Jews are saying this is the essence of this entity.
