Theology III

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anyway, maybe that story was off-topic, but hey, look at my title! (Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails) And even if it was off-topic, I think it teaches an important lesson - that the whole truth is important, and also that it matters a great deal WHO is holding the sharp knife.

That was a great story RÃ*an!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yeah. I've been warned by a college professor too that my views could easily get me into trouble if I broadcast them. Though that was actually because of his knowing my views on a different issue that I haven't ever gone into on Entmoot, because it has never come up, and my views there too are very non politically correct.

I'm still personally somewhat unclear as to when I should keep my mouth shut and when I should speak my mind. Doing the latter often gets me some abuse, which I'll accept to a degree, but sometimes doing the former is a better course. I'm not sure exactly how to draw the line between the two.

If I always kept my mouth shut on my non-politically correct views, I'd be allowing views I disagree with to freely proliferate, and I'd be failing in a major way to contribute to our democracy. That absolute silence, I know I'll never involve myself in.

But I know that sometimes keeping my mouth shut would be better. I currently try to only keep my mouth shut if I know that speaking will do no one any good, because the people involved are too set in their own ways to listen, and all I'll get is abuse by talking, with no one coming out of the situation the better for it. If it's lose-lose, I keep my mouth shut. Thankfully, that kind of situation is pretty rare.

Do you think, Jonathan, that that's the best time to remain silent, or are there other times also when one should?

It is a difficult question. I'll reply like this -
If you are aware that other people believe in different "truths" than you do and if you for just a second can step from your own beliefs and listen to the other people's arguments and identify how they think, you will be better at making the call whether you should speak or keep silent. And if you do speak, you will also be better at avoiding some of the abuse
(By "you" I mean people in general, not specifically you Lief )

If you are interested, this is how I see things -
We all have our own set of axioms - "truths" - on which we base our views and our sense of right and wrong. Since you Lief are Christian, many of your axioms come from the bible. As a consequence many non-Christians won't share your views.
If we peel away all the arguments behind a certain political view, what is left are our axioms. Few arguments could make an individual reject those axioms. For instance, wouldn't it be very, very hard for me to make you reject your religion simply by stating some arguments?

Important to note is also that arguments don't necessarily have the same meaning or "power" for people with different axioms. Our arguments will therefore rarely convince another person that they are wrong while you are right.

Since we only rarely can make people change their political views by using arguments and since we practically never can make them change their axioms, we resort to what we can do; pointing out the logical holes in their arguments. In my experience this is a very widespread form of debating on messageboards like this one.

I think we all believe in different truths, and your truth is just as real and true for you as is my truth for me. Everyone has their own "glasses" with which they observe the world. People forget this and think the world they see is the real and right one. So sometimes people fail to take in or respect the views of others. Then it might be better if they keep their mouths shut.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It is a difficult question. I'll reply like this -
If you are aware that other people believe in different "truths" than you do and if you for just a second can step from your own beliefs and listen to the other people's arguments and identify how they think, you will be better at making the call whether you should speak or keep silent. And if you do speak, you will also be better at avoiding some of the abuse
(By "you" I mean people in general, not specifically you Lief )

I agree with all this.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If you are interested, this is how I see things -
We all have our own set of axioms - "truths" - on which we base our views and our sense of right and wrong. Since you Lief are Christian, many of your axioms come from the bible. As a consequence many non-Christians won't share your views.
If we peel away all the arguments behind a certain political view, what is left are our axioms. Few arguments could make an individual reject those axioms. For instance, wouldn't it be very, very hard for me to make you reject your religion simply by stating some arguments?

Important to note is also that arguments don't necessarily have the same meaning or "power" for people with different axioms. Our arguments will therefore rarely convince another person that they are wrong while you are right.

Since we only rarely can make people change their political views by using arguments and since we practically never can make them change their axioms, we resort to what we can do; pointing out the logical holes in their arguments. In my experience this is a very widespread form of debating on messageboards like this one.

I think we all believe in different truths, and your truth is just as real and true for you as is my truth for me. Everyone has their own "glasses" with which they observe the world. People forget this and think the world they see is the real and right one. So sometimes people fail to take in or respect the views of others. Then it might be better if they keep their mouths shut.

Okay, I agree with all of this up to the last paragraph . So that's good. I think I agree with most of your last paragraph too, semantics aside, so that's very good .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think we all believe in different truths, and your truth is just as real and true for you as is my truth for me. Everyone has their own "glasses" with which they observe the world.

Here I hesitate to follow you, largely because I don't like this use of the word "truth". To me, "truth" is the nature of reality. It's pretty much equivalent with what is real, not with our perceptions about what is real. I think that when you use the word "truth," especially when you refer to it as "glasses," you imply that it's not necessarily all accurate. I agree that not everything everyone believes is factually accurate- that is obvious. But if it's not factually accurate, in my opinion it shouldn't go under the word "truth," but rather under the word "belief."

I put "truth" on a higher pedestal of honor than I think many liberals do, because they often use the word as meaning basically "human beliefs."

If you say that everyone has their own beliefs through which they see the world, their own worldviews, and those worldviews are their "glasses," then I agree . This is just me being nit-picky on semantics .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

People forget this and think the world they see is the real and right one.

Maybe it is, though . The fact that others have different views doesn't mean that these people don't have the factually accurate view.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

So sometimes people fail to take in or respect the views of others. Then it might be better if they keep their mouths shut.

I don't know that everyone needs to always respect the views of others. Sometimes a view can be heinous, and the view itself is not worth respecting, and by "view" I mean ideology. That ideology can be crummy and wicked and damned. I don't respect racism, for example. I might respect racists, but not racism. I might respect abortionists, but loathe the ideology that permits abortion. By "respect," I mean recognize their value as people and their good side too. Though sometimes doing this is very, very hard.

I agree with you that if people fail to "take it in," what the other person is saying, if by that you mean "understand it," then they should absolutely keep their mouths shut. Though I add in the word "absolutely," which you didn't include, because I take quite a hard line on this. If I don't understand what I'm hearing, I should not cast judgment on it.

Also, if I fail to understand the value of the people I am talking to, and so fail to respect them, then that too is probably a good time for me to keep my mouth shut.

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Oh sheesh, my music teacher is hugey anti-Catholic/Early Church.

Apparently:
Only monks were allowed to read.
It's weird that mediavals used actual numbers in desiging their church buildings rather than just making a simple corn cob hut.

And the "bone church" in Prague is creepy and evil, because they have bones there.

THis is a sad world. It is to bad some people have to make it that way. I haven't seen this thread before, so I was reading the first page. Monks were the onlyones allowed to read so the catholics would have complete control over their people. Like the slaves in America.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I actually find it a huge relief. To know that I don't have to rely on my choosing the right course with my "free will," to get to heaven or remain close to God, but to know instead that I can rely upon God's infinite wisdom, power and love, to bring me to his kingdom, and that I can just trust him to take me there rather than relying on myself and him to get me there . . . I can't tell you how relieved that makes me feel. Human abilities aren't to be trusted. God is to be trusted. Hence, that I don't have to rely on myself, and that I don't have to feel as though I'm going to get myself to heaven by refusing sin always by my free choice, is an absolutely tremendous freedom from burden, for me.

I used to worry that ten years from now, I might choose evil, come to hate God for whatever reason and so lose my place in God's kingdom. Now, though, as I know that I'm in God's hands ALONE and not also in my own hands AT ALL, I can relax and enjoy life and my relationship with God, without concern for my destiny. That's a matter of trust.

I can accept that point of view with one caveat. Are you able to accept the idea that others find just as much meaning from life as you do by holding a view like my own?

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here I hesitate to follow you, largely because I don't like this use of the word "truth". To me, "truth" is the nature of reality. It's pretty much equivalent with what is real, not with our perceptions about what is real. I think that when you use the word "truth," especially when you refer to it as "glasses," you imply that it's not necessarily all accurate. I agree that not everything everyone believes is factually accurate- that is obvious. But if it's not factually accurate, in my opinion it shouldn't go under the word "truth," but rather under the word "belief."

I put "truth" on a higher pedestal of honor than I think many liberals do, because they often use the word as meaning basically "human beliefs."

If you say that everyone has their own beliefs through which they see the world, their own worldviews, and those worldviews are their "glasses," then I agree . This is just me being nit-picky on semantics .

Maybe it is, though . The fact that others have different views doesn't mean that these people don't have the factually accurate view.

I don't know that everyone needs to always respect the views of others. Sometimes a view can be heinous, and the view itself is not worth respecting, and by "view" I mean ideology. That ideology can be crummy and wicked and damned. I don't respect racism, for example. I might respect racists, but not racism. I might respect abortionists, but loathe the ideology that permits abortion. By "respect," I mean recognize their value as people and their good side too. Though sometimes doing this is very, very hard.

I agree with you that if people fail to "take it in," what the other person is saying, if by that you mean "understand it," then they should absolutely keep their mouths shut. Though I add in the word "absolutely," which you didn't include, because I take quite a hard line on this. If I don't understand what I'm hearing, I should not cast judgment on it.

Also, if I fail to understand the value of the people I am talking to, and so fail to respect them, then that too is probably a good time for me to keep my mouth shut.

Very profound, I like. Did you know the crime rate went down substantially when abortion was legal though? The reason is because those babies that would be the ones to do crime were not being born. I don't think these crazed religious people need to be shooting up the abortion doctors either. I am not for abortion, but I am for birth control. I think the catholics need to give up expanding their religion and let their people stop having kids so they can afford to eat.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

THis is a sad world. It is to bad some people have to make it that way. I haven't seen this thread before, so I was reading the first page. Monks were the onlyones allowed to read so the catholics would have complete control over their people. Like the slaves in America.

Many, many people in the Middle Ages were able to read apart from monks. In fact, monastries were usually great centres of learning and often the only providers of education for lay-people. The idea that no one was "allowed" to read except the clergy is a complete myth

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I have shown, judgment is not punitive. I think I agree with you that the person is not responsible. However, the fact that the person is not responsible doesn't mean that the person is being unjustly judged. It is the person's nature that is condemned. It is self-condemned and self-destroyed. God's punishments of the person seek to bring the person back from this ultimate self-destruction and to holiness and joy. With some people, he knew and predestined that they would not heed his calls to repentance through either prophets or judgments. So one could argue that in these cases, where he's punishing people he knows will still reject him in order to bring them back to him when he knows they won't come, he's just torturing them. However, this hypothetical "one" who I'm presently arguing with would be wrong, as a point to it exists.

The point is that, by bringing judgments against those one knows will refuse to heed them and accept their lessons, these evildoers' natures are proven to be utterly wicked and utterly rebellious against God, even in the face of his greatest endeavors to bring them back to him. This proof of their wickedness becomes a lesson to those who remain after the wicked are no more. Seeing fully the depths of villainy, they appreciate more fully the heights of God's glory.

I guess I see responsible behavior and irresponsible behavior as existing, but I don't think anyone has the ability to choose between the two. We only do from our own limited perspectives. We will be ourselves.

Judgment is the natural result of an evil nature and is not punitive. Unless it's punitive in the Final Judgment, which I don't know enough about to discuss. But in all cases prior to the Final Judgment, it is not punitive.

Evil natures naturally produce evil actions, and righteous natures naturally produce righteous actions. They didn't have the ability to choose, but they rather were what they were. Evil natures are condemned. Evil is condemned, evil natures condemned, and evil man too, for he has an evil nature and becomes utterly wicked. Consciousness too, when enmeshed with evil, is and produces a terrible new depth of wickedness. Witnessing it and its destruction is a valuable lesson for God's followers.

The judgment is not based on responsibility but rather is self-produced in nature, except for the judgment through which God calls people to righteousness.

I understand your points about judgement, but I can't see any reason for "lessons" in a predestined reality. If some people are destined to be good, no lessons are needed.

When you say...

This proof of their wickedness becomes a lesson to those who remain after the wicked are no more. Seeing fully the depths of villainy, they appreciate more fully the heights of God's glory.

Aren't all those things that would earn someone the designation of "good" the exact things that god has already predestined in that individual (i.e. the ability to distinguish wickedness)?

There is no lesson, or need for the wickedness, when the strength of the good in a person is predetermined in advance.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I understand your points about judgement, but I can't see any reason for "lessons" in a predestined reality. If some people are destined to be good, no lessons are needed.

When you say...



Aren't all those things that would earn someone the designation of "good" the exact things that god has already predestined in that individual (i.e. the ability to distinguish wickedness)?

There is no lesson, or need for the wickedness, when the strength of the good in a person is predetermined in advance.

God predestines that we become more good through lessons. We become better through tests he lays on us. It's his way of developing our maturity. I think that that development will continue forever, as God is infinite.

A person's eventual goodness may be predetermined, but it isn't all there in the start. God predetermined that it develop and increase in a certain way, to bring us to the kind of maturity and fullness he wants us to reach in the way he wants us to reach it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and here it is

I held my son still so the man could get at him better.

And that's the truth.

But it's not the whole truth.

The rest of the truth is that I was at an emergency room, where I had taken my son, who had developed a post-operative infection after hernia surgery, and the man's name was Dr. Hansen, and he had anesthetized the infection site, and by cutting into my son with that sharp knife, he let the infected stuff out (really yucky! I had to sit down afterwards - it made me a bit green about the gills!) so that my son could heal.

The reason I thought of that story was that I felt that this free-will discussion, though an interesting one (I love to discuss just about anything!) was just part of the truth, and the part that was left out completed the picture, just like in my story.

It also illustrates why people should abstain from rash judgement (like my kick 'em in the balls suggestion ) when it comes to situations where "the whole truth" can not be known.

And there no greater example of such situations than those involving theology.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

God predestines that we become more good through lessons. We become better through tests he lays on us. It's his way of developing our maturity. I think that that development will continue forever, as God is infinite.

A person's eventual goodness may be predetermined, but it isn't all there in the start. God predetermined that it develop and increase in a certain way, to bring us to the kind of maturity and fullness he wants us to reach in the way he wants us to reach it.

So it's more like directing than instructing?

That makes sense, though one obvious question would be why some good people are made to go through such extreme lessons, while others hardly go through any at all.

Is the one who has gone through more lessons more good?

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Many, many people in the Middle Ages were able to read apart from monks. In fact, monastries were usually great centres of learning and often the only providers of education for lay-people. The idea that no one was "allowed" to read except the clergy is a complete myth

Objection! It was not complete myth. Many catholics were prosecuted for writing. The problem was not general writing about your family pet, but writing about the stuff the church doesn't want. Like science, or the world not being the center of the universe. (Not exactly that, it was just the thing on the top of my head.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I can accept that point of view with one caveat. Are you able to accept the idea that others find just as much meaning from life as you do by holding a view like my own?

I personally still have quite a long, long way to go in my personal maturing in Christ, and I don't have as many years of experience as you do. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to compare my own personal appreciation of life and the meaning I see, with that which you have. Maybe you see more meaning than I do, or equal, or less. I just don't know.

But I do think that the meaning and appreciation of life you have is because of your experience and is in spite of your worldview rather than because of it, for the logical conclusion of your worldview is that everything is meaningless.

I do believe that one mature in Christ will have a far greater insight into the meaning of life than one can gain while having such a worldview as yours. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." If he is the life and the truth, then one who is deepening his or her relationship with that life and truth, the only life and truth, is naturally going to find deeper meaning than one who rejects both.

[elven dragonrider]

Go Lief! Not only do you name yourself for someone I admire (I did a project on him), but you like Oscar Wilde!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So it's more like directing than instructing?

That makes sense, though one obvious question would be why some good people are made to go through such extreme lessons, while others hardly go through any at all.

Is the one who has gone through more lessons more good?

Different people in life experience all kinds of different lessons, the lessons that God wants for each of them individually.

Is an architect better than a mathematician? Or a doctor than a physicist? Aren't they all necessary because of their differences, rather than in spite of them?

I believe that God plans that highly different people each fulfill different predestined purposes, and receive correspondingly different lessons.

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 12:12-20, 27

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If a foot should say, "because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body . . .

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

All who follow Christ are united in his body, each fulfilling a different function, and Christ is the head of the body.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Go Lief! Not only do you name yourself for someone I admire (I did a project on him), but you like Oscar Wilde!

Love Oscar Wilde . I also greatly admire the real life Leif Ericsson .

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Very profound, I like.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in the abortion thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Objection! It was not complete myth. Many catholics were prosecuted for writing. The problem was not general writing about your family pet, but writing about the stuff the church doesn't want. Like science, or the world not being the center of the universe. (Not exactly that, it was just the thing on the top of my head.)

I agree that heretical teachings were prosecuted, but sunstar is also quite right that monasteries were centers of learning and education for the lay people. The same was true of churches.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I personally still have quite a long, long way to go in my personal maturing in Christ, and I don't have as many years of experience as you do. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to compare my own personal appreciation of life and the meaning I see, with that which you have. Maybe you see more meaning than I do, or equal, or less. I just don't know.

But I do think that the meaning and appreciation of life you have is because of your experience and is in spite of your worldview rather than because of it, for the logical conclusion of your worldview is that everything is meaningless.

But that's my whole point. It isn't about the "logical conclusion", it's about what happens along the way.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I do believe that one mature in Christ will have a far greater insight into the meaning of life than one can gain while having such a worldview as yours. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." If he is the life and the truth, then one who is deepening his or her relationship with that life and truth, the only life and truth, is naturally going to find deeper meaning than one who rejects both.

I don't reject Jesus, I just see him as one among a long line of deep and thoughtful human thinkers. I embrace his words, just not his divinity.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Love Oscar Wilde .

Have you read The Fisherman and his Soul?

It's one of my all-time favorite stories.

[Jonathan]

Lief, glad you and I agree on so many things

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I put "truth" on a higher pedestal of honor than I think many liberals do, because they often use the word as meaning basically "human beliefs."

If you say that everyone has their own beliefs through which they see the world, their own worldviews, and those worldviews are their "glasses," then I agree . This is just me being nit-picky on semantics .

Replace "truth" with "axiom", "belief" or whatever. As long as you get my point

Me: People forget this and think the world they see is the real and right one.

Lief: Maybe it is, though . The fact that others have different views doesn't mean that these people don't have the factually accurate view.

Their perception of an issue is of course totally real and correct to them. But not everyone will agree. Thus one can argue whether anyone can ever claim they see an issue "as it really is".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't know that everyone needs to always respect the views of others. Sometimes a view can be heinous, and the view itself is not worth respecting, and by "view" I mean ideology.

Well you're right about this one.
I think it's always a good thing if you try to understand different views and don't just think "I can't get how people can have these opinions!". Because often, you actually can if you think a little. For instance, I'm pro-abortion but I can see perfectly well why other people aren't. But Lief, you are correct that there are views that one simply cannot respect.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, if I fail to understand the value of the people I am talking to, and so fail to respect them, then that too is probably a good time for me to keep my mouth shut.

That's when insults start pouring

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Objection! It was not complete myth. Many catholics were prosecuted for writing. The problem was not general writing about your family pet, but writing about the stuff the church doesn't want. Like science, or the world not being the center of the universe. (Not exactly that, it was just the thing on the top of my head.)

You were talking about people not being "allowed to read". The problem with that is that there were various kinds of literacy in the Middle Ages, and it's not possible to talk about the medieval period as if nothing changed between 500 and 1500. In the oral culture of the early Middle Ages, someone could be well-educated without necessarily being able to read or write themselves. "Literate" originally meant having the ability to read Latin, but of course it was possible to be able to read and write in one's native tongue without understanding Latin. The medieval definition of an educated or a literate person was not be the same as it would be today, so one can't really apply modern standards of literacy to the medieval period.

As for medieval science, I suggest you have a look at an article like this one to see the many kinds of science which were studied in the period