pirituality is not a religion - But religions use spirituality in the right or the wrong way (that's when in spirituality you have to understand where religious people had filled the blanks from what they have been inspired in there own time whith they're own knowledges). Spîrituality is about to catch what is essential in life in time (and to understand that everything is contextual). A bold statement can be wrong as it can be right (depends on what we are talking about in the details).
About that :
A bold statement can be wrong as it can be right (depends on what we are talking about in the details)
or they ar simply void in any debate since, even only on once side they can't see (or don't want to take into consideration what is void in what they believe).
Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!
by LittleToe 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
RAF
-
press any key
There is but one only living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
reading this I kept hearing Monty Python voices in my head, Michael Palin I believe it was, making this paragraph a lot funnier than it seems
only comment on topic is that different theists tend to use the same words, say "god", to mean different things so learning what one group means is only going to be of limited use, whereas evos have a widely agreed vocab
cheers
pak
-
Seeker4
Touche, Little Toe. Thanks for the links, and congrats on the upcoming wedding.
I've read a lot of theology over the years, and agree with RAF's cut and paste quote that spirituality and religion often have very little in common. You and jgnat are my favorite believers!
S4
-
Narkissos
Regardless of the substance of the subject matter, on a regular basis Christians get taken to task for their beliefs. If you're going to engage the individuals then you had best have half a clue as to what they believe and why they are using certain terms (e.g. depravity). The alternative is continued miscommunication. If you're happy with that then so be it. Personally I don't find it satisfactory, and tend to read up on subjects that I want to contribute to, especially if I know little about them.
Ross, the problem with this is that there is no authoritative, commonly agreed set of definitions for people's beliefs and religious terminology -- especially in Protestantism. Assuming that they adhere to any "official" one is simply wrong most of the times. If you want to know what people believe, scholarly theology is of very little help. Should I address Calvin's ontological/epistemological notion of "depravity" while my interlocutors use that term in a trivially moral and psychological way (see the other thread) there is no communication either.
(Which is roughly what pak just wrote.)
-
LittleToe
Didier / PAK:I agree that there is some inconsistency, as there is with every subject, hence discussion ensues. Broadly speaking terms tend to have a vaguely similar definition, though, with centuries of arguments over the minutea. The example of "depravity" being a typical case, wherein few Christians (even of the Hyper-Calvinist camp) would use it to mean that an individual is a worthless piece of scum.
-
bernadette
3. Sin in the Life of the Human Race. Three points deserve consideration here:
a. The connection between Adam's sin and that of his descendants. This has been explained in three different ways.
(1) The earliest explanation is called the realistic theory, which is to the effect that God originally created one general human nature, which in course of time divided into as many parts as there are human individuals. Adam possessed the whole of this general human nature; and through his sin it became guilty and polluted. Naturally, every individual part of it shares this guilt and pollution.
(2) In the days of the Reformation the representative theory came to the foreground. According to this view Adam stood in a twofold relation to his descendants: he was their natural head, and he was their representative as the head of the covenant. When he sinned as their representative, this sin was also imputed to them, and as a result they are all born in a corrupt state. This is our Reformed view.
(3) A third theory, not as well known, is that of mediate imputation. It holds that the guilt of Adam's sin is not directly placed to our account. His corruption is passed on to his descendants, and this makes them personally guilty. They are not corrupt because they are guilty in Adam, but guilty because they are corrupt.
b. Original and Actual Sin. We distinguish between original and actual sin. All men are born in a sinful state and condition, which is called original sin, and is the root of all the actual sins that are committed.
(1) Original sin. This includes both guilt and pollution. The guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us. Because he sinned as our representative, we are guilty in him. Moreover, we also inherit his pollution, and now have a positive disposition toward sin. Man is by nature totally depraved. This does not mean that every man is as bad as he can be, but that sin has corrupted every part of his nature and rendered him unable to do any spiritual good. He may still do many praiseworthy things in relation to his fellow-beings, but even his best works are radically defective, because they are not prompted by love to God nor done in obedience to God. This total depravity and inability is denied by Pelagians, Arminians, and Modernists, but is clearly taught in Scripture, Jer. 17:9; John 5:42; 6:44; 15:4, 5; Rom. 7:18, 23, 24; 8:7, 8; I Cor. 2:14; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:18; II Tim. 3:2-4; Tit. 1:16; Heb. 11:6.
(2) Actual sin. The term 'actual sin' denotes not only sins consisting in outward acts, but also those conscious thoughts, desires, and decisions that proceed from original sin. They are the sins which the individual performs in distinction from his inherited nature and inclination. While original sin is one, actual sins are manifold. They may be sins of the inner life, such as pride, envy, hatred, sensual lusts, and evil desires; or sins of the outer life, such as deceit, theft, murder, adultery, and so on. Among these there is one unpardonable sin, namely, the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, after which a change of heart is impossible, and for which it is not necessary to pray, Matt, 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26, 27; I John 5:16.
LT I pinched the above off of one of the sites you linked to.
bernadette
-
bernadette
Hope I'm not going off topic but reading the above reminded me of all the alienation going on in humans. Today we have psychology and psychiatry. but in those days they only had religion.
bernadette
-
funkyderek
LittleToe:
Regardless of the substance of the subject matter, on a regular basis Christians get taken to task for their beliefs. If you're going to engage the individuals then you had best have half a clue as to what they believe and why they are using certain terms (e.g. depravity).
That's a good point. However, when someone uses a word that is common in the vernacular but has an additional specialist meaning, the onus is probably on the person using the word to clarify what they mean. For example, if I was discussing "selfish" genes, I would make it clear that I was using the word selfish only in a metaphorical sense.
The alternative is continued miscommunication. If you're happy with that then so be it. Personally I don't find it satisfactory, and tend to read up on subjects that I want to contribute to, especially if I know little about them.
As do I. I would say though, that its not always obvious when one's knowledge is lacking. If someone says they're depraved but don't mention the whole Calvinist idea that everyone's depraved except those whose behaviour God controls, it's not really a surprise if people interpret the word by its dictionary definition.
Scientists require this when engaging in discussions about evolution, and rightly so. Its a shame to see this not reciprocated when folks attempt to engage in discussion (or is it merely attack) of Christian beliefs. Most of the contributions to these subjects show a woeful ignorance, demonstrating vestiges of a WTS education.
Such vestiges are even more obvious when discussing evolution, but we're on an ex-JW board so that's to be expected. I don't mind correcting someone who has been misinformed by the WTS. I do mind when someone argues strongly from a position of ignorance. Similarly, I don't mind being corrected when my view of a topic is based on inaccurate information or a dearth of necessary knowledge, although I usually try to avoid such situations.
Of course there will be those who simply don't want to expend the effort, especially if they feel the topic is meaningless, and I can totally understand that. But, simply put, it cuts both ways. Ignorant (and I don't mean any of this in a pejorative sense) creationists make fools of themselves in discussions on evolution and ignorant [usually] atheists [often] make fools of themselves in discussions on beliefs.
If I don't want to make the effort to learn about a subject, then I won't normally post on a related thread. But sometimes the best way to learn is by posting and asking questions. Sometimes these questions may reveal a profound ignorance of the subject, but there is no shame in that, as long as the questioner actually considers the answers they get. It's incredibly frustrating to spend hours on a detailed response to a question only to have the questioner ignore or dismiss it.
This thread has given me some pause for thought, but I'm still not sure theology is a real subject any more than astrology. I don't think I need to know all the details of star charts to know that astrology is nonsense, and similarly, I don't need to be an expert on every single area of theology.
-
LittleToe
Again, I'm intentionally using the appropriate word "ignorant", and might similarly use the word "uneducated". These are terms that also get misunderstood on a regular basis, causing unneeded offense. All they really mean is that someone doesn't know something. Its no crime, and has an easy cure...
Derek:
Your post is an excellent balance to my own comments. Thanks for that.Such vestiges are even more obvious when discussing evolution, but we're on an ex-JW board so that's to be expected. I don't mind correcting someone who has been misinformed by the WTS. I do mind when someone argues strongly from a position of ignorance.
This is the only part I might marginally contest. It has been my experience that because folks have been part of one religion (i.e. JWs) they often have the misguided belief that they are experts in theology or the Christian faith. I concede that due to the "Creation Book" many have a similar view about evolution, but I'm not sure if its "more obvious" as the limited vocabulary and comprehension is similarly pronounced. Either way, I'm sure you'll agree, you can tell the ignorant a mile off...
I think that Bernadette makes an excellent point about the comparisons to modern-day Psychology.
-
Abaddon
Ross
I understand this. Empathy would reveal that a Creationist might feel a similar way about evolution due to missing links, etc.. My point is merely that both are ignorant starting points to enter into a discussion.
Oh, this was my take from my first post on the thread, to approach it as I perceive some Creationist's approach threads about evolution. That was the empathy bit. The being a bastard bit was me getting picky about the need for special vocabulary being rather one sided in the example you gave, if you think about it.
I totally agree that ANYONE wanting to have proper conversation about theology requires to learn the vocab.
Regardless of the substance of the subject matter, on a regular basis Christians get taken to task for their beliefs.
Hmmm? Weeeeeell. I would say that mostly 'they' get taken to task for when they seem to be using beliefs with no factual basis to insist they are right in the face of contradictory evidence. I don't see this as being either surprising or a big deal, except maybe to those it happens to.
As many don't ever do this (ignore evidence), or even accept what those other Christians might not, I don't think 'regulary' passes muster.
Very few atheists would care to barge into a discussion about transubstansiation (which they'd probably make an ass of themselves in as they don't know the terms etc., or not take seriously because they don't believe in god).
Thus it may seem to be always happening to theists and not to atheists, but it would do as it tends to be theists (of a very silly and minority faction) who barge into discussions about transitionals with their facts and terminology all awry. And we all know how often that happens.
How come theology seems to be defined as a 'Christian' science? Even people who worship rocks have a theology... or is that geotheology? Theogeology? But you know what I mean.
Two scientists in the same field will share a vocabulary. Is the vocabulary of Islamic, Vedic or Buhhdist theology the same?
Scientists require this when engaging in discussions about evolution, and rightly so. Its a shame to see this not reciprocated when folks attempt to engage in discussion (or is it merely attack) of Christian beliefs. Most of the contributions to these subjects show a woeful ignorance, demonstrating vestiges of a WTS education.
I actually don't see that many serious debates about theology on this board between atheists and theists (or Christians given the examples of theology we have been shown). Debates about the existence of god? Yes, but you don't need theological vocabulary for that. Various arguments from design et. al. vs Evolution, but again you don't need a theological vocabulary for that.
A specialised vocabulary is only neccesary when theists are discussing a religious tradition they share - unless different religous trandtions share many terms.
Ignorant (and I don't mean any of this in a pejorative sense) creationists make fools of themselves in discussions on evolution and ignorant [usually] atheists [often] make fools of themselves in discussions on beliefs.
... agreed with above caveats.