Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Switch to Forum Live View What is "Biblical"?
7 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2010 - 8:35AM #51
Kimball
Posts: 984

Wavering,


  I will have to respond to your points in a separate posting.  Kevin was concerned about the intermingling of quotes on this subject.


  Kimball



Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2010 - 8:45AM #52
Kimball
Posts: 984

Oct 15, 2010 -- 6:14PM, Kevinponeill wrote:


Hello Kevin and Good Morning!


A Biblical point of view is a point of view that is based on a person's (or group's) understanding of the Bible.  To some degree but not exclusively.  But that is why we have the creeds and the historic witness of the confessing Church.


The person (or group) making a Biblical argument may believe that it is true (or Truth itself).  Such a brief is based on their use of a particular method, or a particular experience.  The choice to use one method over another is a personal one, therefore the results of that method are subjective.To some degree, again.   But we still have a rudder in the creeds and the historic witness of the church.  I said that in my first few postings. 


Knowledge gained from personal experience is also subjective. Subjective knowledge is not less true than knowledge gain by objective meansI strongly disagree.  Hitler and Stalis both had subjective knowledge that what they were doing was right and proper.  Believing that murder is wrong is a communally verified idea.  There is however nothing objective about this knowledge.  It is just a shared subjective belief. I believe murder is wrong, but I do not believe that this view is objectively true.And Adolf and Joe did not believe that murder was necessarily wrong.   Nor do most serial killers.  But the Bible teaches that it is wrong.  Accordingly, I will go with what is "Biblical."


Jehovah's Witnesses have a Biblical point of view.  One that I reject.  One cannot say that their Christology is less Biblical.  It may be invalid according to historic Christianity, but that does not mean it is not Biblical.Most honest students of the Bible would differ with you on this, Kevin.  


Therefore one can believe one's position is the only correct one. Claiming that one's opinion is the only Biblical one is therefore false by definition.Not at all.  The confessing church has a consensus about what is "Biblical."  You seem to be saying that all truth is subjective.  If that is what you really believe, kevin, you would not look to the left and to the right before you crossed a street.  After all, oncoming cars are simply subjective phenomena.


Kimball





Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2010 - 9:00AM #53
Kimball
Posts: 984

Oct 15, 2010 -- 3:11PM, WaveringCC wrote:


Oct 14, 2010 -- 9:08AM, Kimball wrote:


Oct 15, 2010 -- 3:11PM, WaveringCC wrote:


Oct 14, 2010 -- 9:08AM, Kimball wrote:


Oct 13, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Kevinponeill wrote:


Wavering,


I hope this does not sound patronizing and must ask your forgivness if it does.  But you seem to be an honest seeker of truth and a person who attempts to "think outside of the box." I really appreciate the lack of posturing in your postings.  You bring a refreshing style to the Anglican forum.


With that being said, I think you have let your negative experience in the RCC to color your view of any traditional religious authority.   Just because the RCC may have gone too far in certain areas, does not invalidate the need for objective, traditional truth in matters of the Christian faith.  I hope you will be able to throw some "hard ball" questions at the rector with whom you will be speaking about your possible church affiliation.  In other words, don't let him "weasel out" by relegating traditional Anglican truth to the dustbin of history.  Your reflections on your experience in your upcoming class will be very interesting should you decided to share them with us on Beliefnet.


Kimball

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2010 - 10:54AM #54
Kimball
Posts: 984

Oct 16, 2010 -- 9:23AM, Kevinponeill wrote:


Kimball,


Please edit post reply to WaveringCC. Your post implies that I wrote the reply to Wavering CC


Kevin, I went back and read the note.  There were a mix of voices on there so I edited it down to show the dialogue between me and Wavering. 


Kimball





Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2010 - 12:03PM #55
Kimball
Posts: 984

Wavering,  Kimball in green. Do you think that is crystal clear? For the most part.


For example, in Les Miserables, a man is condemned to prison for stealing bread - he stole it to prevent a child starving to death.  So, while conceding that he broke a civil law it is less clear as to whether he broke a moral one--was he also morally wrong to steal food in order to prevent a death?  (p.s. Wavering in red, in case it's unclear who is writing what.)The stealing was still unbiblical; it is just that the greater practical wrong would have been to let the child die.  If you are on a sinking ship and passing out the last life jacket, do you give it to the young mother or to her child?  Or take the example of Corrie Ten Boom, the Dutch Christian woman, who harbored Jews in her attic during the German occupation.  When the Gestapo types came to her house and asked if there were any Jews there, she lied and said that there were none.  Obviously, the greater evil would have been to turn them over.  This does not mean that lying is necessarily Biblical.  It simply means that there are greater wrongs and when confronted by a choice, a Christian must decide.


Some  do not consider the doctrine of "trinity" to be "pure" monotheism - including those who wrote the OT.  Again, all is not as crystal clear as you state. I think it is pretty obvious that the New Testament teaches that God is triune and that trinitarian theology is monotheistic.   The early Church also came to this conclusion as have most Christians in the last 2000 years. 


Come on - resorting to absurd examples like this could be evidence that you don't have a well-thought out answer to Kevin's question.The example of cannibalism is not absurd at all.  I really recommend that you get a copy of the debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Coppleston.  At one point, Coppleston asks Russell how he knows what is right.  Russell responds that he just instinctively knows it.  Well, if Russell had been ship wrecked on an island with cannibals, would he have told them that they instictively should know that eating him (Russell) is wrong?  Would they have listened?  


I used the extreme example of cannibalism simply to show the point that not all societies accept the same moral values.  Just take a look at Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR.


The RCC believes that the NT clearly indicates that it alone has the "keys" to interpreting scripture.  It says that it is guided by the Holy Spirit in this interpretation of scripture.  Clearly you do not agree - a billion Protestants disagree also.  And even a majority of RCs don't buy "infallibility."  Sure they are wrong in that.  But that still does not imply that they are wrong on the fundamentals of the Christian theological framework.


Kevin is right - unless you agree with the RCC's interpretation of scripture about its HS-guided role as the infallible interpreter of scripture, there is no objective way to "know" which interpretations are "truth" and which are simply "best guesses at the moment given the interpreter's personal education, knowledge, objectiveness, culture, gender, age, religious background, nationality, etc etc etc"I just cannot agree with your point.  I realize that it is the position of militant Roman Catholics, but I think they miss the point that all Christians agree on the most basic doctrinal issues as described in the early creeds and in 2000 years of moral practice.  To be sure, we all come to the Bible from various cultural, educational and linguistic backgrounds, but there is still a remarkable agreement on key matters.


YOur points about the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are accurate to a point but still the most fundamental issues are not in question.  If you want to go over those one at a time, we can do so.


I'm still bogged down with completing a project, houseguests, and concerns about an elderly relative in the hospital.  I haven't had time to read through this entire thread. Someday I will catch up. I empathize with you.  My own mother and my mother-in-law had protracted medical problems and it is physically and emotionally draining. I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch - not even close. I won't pretend to come off as an "expert" at all - but just looking at this one exchange, and not knowing what preceded it (so I may be off base), I would just like to observe that the various examples you give, Kimball, are prohibited in almost all cultures (religious and otherwise) - people pretty much universally accept that murder and these other acts you cite are wrong. As does the Bible. And most in the world  do not accept this code of right and wrong behavior because of Christian scripture, since most of the world's population is not familiar with christian scripture. Yes, but we are discussing Kevin's basic question on, "What is Biblical?"  And we can say that murder is not Biblical.  He seemed to be unwilling to even go that far. Most of the world's religions include the same moral rights and wrongs, and the "golden rule" is found in the sacred writings of most world religions - but even athiest socieities accept certain commonly shared understandings of right and wrong behaviour in regards to specific actions (at least in terms of their civil laws) - That is generally true, but there are times such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or other instances where certain basic morals are abandoned. murder is not legal in China or the old Soviet Union either.  There is a certain moral code that seems to guide humanity - adopted by most if for no other reason than to "keep the peace." Following Biblical mandates does generally bring tranquility.   It's a practical matter for survival - often codified in most religions, but still definitely independent of "christian biblical revelation."Well, we are getting into the area of natural law which is the subject of another thread.  But for the time being, my only point to Kevin is that we can know with some degree of certainity many things which are "Biblical."   He seemed to be saying that everything was subjective.


Kimball



Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook