The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Ilefeb]

If I said that the Bible does not answer every question about your faith, would you agree?

[Tarsonis]

If I said that the Bible does not answer every question about your faith, would you agree?

Well the Bible itself proclaims it’s not exhaustive so I’d be tentatively inclined to agree. Depends where you’re going with this

[Minachia]

If I said that the Bible does not answer every question about your faith, would you agree?

Yes. Even as an adherent to Sola Scriptura, I have to say that there are some things that can't be answered through Scripture. Indeed, there are some things about our faith that can't be answered at all, at least in a way that is comprehensible to humans.

[Tarsonis]

If I said that the Bible does not answer every question about your faith, would you agree?

Yes. Even as an adherent to Sola Fide, I have to say that there are some things that can't be answered through Scripture. Indeed, there are some things about our faith that can't be answered at all, at least in a way that is comprehensible to humans.

I think you mean sola scriptura

[Minachia]

Yes. Even as an adherent to Sola Fide, I have to say that there are some things that can't be answered through Scripture. Indeed, there are some things about our faith that can't be answered at all, at least in a way that is comprehensible to humans.

I think you mean sola scriptura

wow, that was stupid

thanks

[Tarsonis]

I think you mean sola scriptura

wow, that was stupid

thanks

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the irony that sola scriptura, isn’t scriptural.

[The Union of the West]

…What?

The Orthodox church pointed that out. Remember?

Bruh what? If you go in an Orthodox Church, you’ll probably see more images than in a Roman Catholic Church (in the form of icons).

We have an entire feast day dedicated to how great icons are.

[Ilefeb]

If I said that the Bible does not answer every question about your faith, would you agree?

Well the Bible itself proclaims it’s not exhaustive so I’d be tentatively inclined to agree. Depends where you’re going with this

So here's where I'm going with this. Way too often, whenever a question about why Christians believe what they believe, it seems to me that a lot of people say "Because the Bible says so," but I can't help but think "Where in the Bible does it say something like that?" So if there is no reference in the Bible, why do we (meaning us collectively as Christians) still use this terminology?

[Tarsonis]

Well the Bible itself proclaims it’s not exhaustive so I’d be tentatively inclined to agree. Depends where you’re going with this

So here's where I'm going with this. Way too often, whenever a question about why Christians believe what they believe, it seems to me that a lot of people say "Because the Bible says so," but I can't help but think "Where in the Bible does it say something like that?" So if there is no reference in the Bible, why do we (meaning us collectively as Christians) still use this terminology?

Laziness

[The Union of the West]

So here's where I'm going with this. Way too often, whenever a question about why Christians believe what they believe, it seems to me that a lot of people say "Because the Bible says so," but I can't help but think "Where in the Bible does it say something like that?" So if there is no reference in the Bible, why do we (meaning us collectively as Christians) still use this terminology?

Laziness

Poor catechesis

[Kowani]

Laziness

Poor catechesis

Ignorance.

[Lower Nubia]

Catholics have idols in a sense let's discuss.

Exodus 25-26:

“And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount. Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.”

Told to adorn the temple curtain with Cherubim which were shown in heaven. Proving not only that we can depict heavenly objects, but that they can then be holy objects (temple veil) too.

Exodus 26:31-35:

“And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made: And thou shalt hang it upon four pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold: their hooks shall be of gold, upon the four sockets of silver. And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.”

The veil with the icons on it divides the heavenly and earthly, sounds like what an Icon does.

Exodus 25:17-20:

“And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.”

The heavenly objects were adorned on top of the Ark of the Covenant. Sounds like a statue.

Christ is a man, and God. If we can depict creatures purely of the heavenly realm, why not a man?

If I said that the Bible does not answer every question about your faith, would you agree?

It literally cannot answer any of my questions. Primarily because before you start reading you need to have an interpretative framework through which the verses can make sense. Even a verse as common and “simple” as John 3:16, is interpretated vastly differently across Christian denominations.

To Baptist’s it means Once Saves, Always Saved. To Catholic’s it means the faith of James 2:17.

So how can I look at the bible for answers, when depending on my methodology, I might derive different answers? I first need a ‘blank’ to standardise the interpretation, from which I can then derive values.

I understand that that blank is historical analysis of Church doctrine and ecclesiology.

Once you have that, the Bible is unlocked and can be used as a vast repository on the faith, lifestyle, and doctrine, but not until then, otherwise you can fall into sin, heterodoxy, heresy, or even apostasy. As per the account in Acts 8:27-35:

“And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

If the Ethiopian has read on his own, he may of come to the conclusion that the verse spoke of Elias, and thus he would of remained a Jew, and would have been outside of Christ’s Church.

[Duhon]

So this has been making the rounds on Twitter as of late, this tweet (and retweet) by Jerry Falwell Jr, made in response to a pretty boilerplate cri de coeur over conditions at camps around the US border with Mexico:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Just here to ask -- why this weird flex on payrolls and organizational ability? Never mind that he thinks being an "employee" is an insult -- is this kind of talk commonplace among American evangelical congregations these days?

[Camelone]

So this has been making the rounds on Twitter as of late, this tweet (and retweet) by Jerry Falwell Jr, made in response to a pretty boilerplate cri de coeur over conditions at camps around the US border with Mexico:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Just here to ask -- why this weird flex on payrolls and organizational ability? Never mind that he thinks being an "employee" is an insult -- is this kind of talk commonplace among American evangelical congregations these days?

This seems more political than relating to anything this thread really deals with.

[Duhon]

So this has been making the rounds on Twitter as of late, this tweet (and retweet) by Jerry Falwell Jr, made in response to a pretty boilerplate cri de coeur over conditions at camps around the US border with Mexico:



Just here to ask -- why this weird flex on payrolls and organizational ability? Never mind that he thinks being an "employee" is an insult -- is this kind of talk commonplace among American evangelical congregations these days?

This seems more political than relating to anything this thread really deals with.

Given Falwell's standing as both a religious leader and a Trump supporter, his religiosity cannot but be brought up elsewhere -- but I'm not asking about that, I'm asking if talk of payrolls and organizational expertise is at all relevant among evangelical Christian circles.

But if you think the abovequoted is too political for this thread, please set it aside.

[Tarsonis]

This seems more political than relating to anything this thread really deals with.

Given Falwell's standing as both a religious leader and a Trump supporter, his religiosity cannot but be brought up elsewhere -- but I'm not asking about that, I'm asking if talk of payrolls and organizational expertise is at all relevant among evangelical Christian circles.

But if you think the abovequoted is too political for this thread, please set it aside.

No it’s not really relevant in these circles any more than any other circle

[Lower Nubia]

So this has been making the rounds on Twitter as of late, this tweet (and retweet) by Jerry Falwell Jr, made in response to a pretty boilerplate cri de coeur over conditions at camps around the US border with Mexico:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Just here to ask -- why this weird flex on payrolls and organizational ability? Never mind that he thinks being an "employee" is an insult -- is this kind of talk commonplace among American evangelical congregations these days?

No, not even in the fundamentalist circles. However, they will defend vigorously the GOPs actions, even if that goes against their "Church" teachings.

I've not only witnessed it, but I've also heard it preached too many times. "Love your neighbour" proceeds to gets angry over political developments and "Libs". As an example of this, I went into one church, and the preacher was talking about the love of God and the resurrection. When he suddenly did a 180-degree flip, raising his voice, to essentially yell at everyone that what is happening in New York with abortion up to 40 weeks is evil! How the Democrats are propagating evil! How the Bible belt is standing strong for Christian, Republican, values. It was weird, especially seeing as I live in England! Now regardless of your political opinion on abortion, saying everyone is a minion of Satan isn't going to get everyone on your side, it's just going to entrench the thinking.

Then there is "Test everything, hold fast that which is true", proceeds to be detrimentally partisan in politics. "If you see a man without a coat, and you have 2, give him your coat", proceeds to explain that foreign aid, or welfare, is "spending money we don't have on others, what about me?" and are specifically against, not the methodology of those systems, but the principle of giving money to those who needed it more. As if that isn't what charity is about.

Of course, this happens in reverse too, those churches with more "liberal" dogmas hold dogmatically to liberal political groups. Though because fundamentalist evangelicals are so socially conservative this is a side which is definitely in the minority.

The irony is that they meet up on Sunday twice, spend an hour each time; 30 minutes singing, 30 minutes on the sermon, then that's it, that's all their religious engagement ever involves. There's nothing to do at home, no prayers, no need for repentance, it's not demanded by the structures of those churches. As all their churches have statements of faith with about 10 bullet points, it's easy to gather the "ecclesiology" of an evangelical Church or their doctrine, as it's theologically simplified, and even so, apart from those 10 bullet points, there's nothing else to know for them. So the only other thing to engage in from a Christian perspective is the conservatism of political discourse, even if latching onto the conservatism of their home country makes them hypocrites (though they won't see it). They will try and justify that party before they reject it.

[Nea Byzantia]

Descended from Quakers, raised Episcopalian, now atheist, but developing a strong affinity for militant Calvinism and anti-Catholicism.

You make me sad.

[Europa Undivided]

Descended from Quakers, raised Episcopalian, now atheist, but developing a strong affinity for militant Calvinism and anti-Catholicism.

“Militant” Calvinism?

[Nea Byzantia]

Descended from Quakers, raised Episcopalian, now atheist, but developing a strong affinity for militant Calvinism and anti-Catholicism.

“Militant” Calvinism?

[WayNeacTia]

Descended from Quakers, raised Episcopalian, now atheist, but developing a strong affinity for militant Calvinism and anti-Catholicism.

“Militant” Calvinism?

Probably allied with those Atheist Catholics.

[Bear Stearns]

Descended from Quakers, raised Episcopalian, now atheist, but developing a strong affinity for militant Calvinism and anti-Catholicism.

You make me sad.

Why?

[Bear Stearns]

Descended from Quakers, raised Episcopalian, now atheist, but developing a strong affinity for militant Calvinism and anti-Catholicism.

“Militant” Calvinism?

We must secure a future for Congregationalist and Dutch Reformed Children.

[Bear Stearns]

“Militant” Calvinism?

[Nea Byzantia]

You make me sad.

Why?

Because you Calvinists have no joie-de-vivre, and your understanding of the Bible is totally wrong.