The apparent difficulties of faith?
Yes and no. God could create an object where when your mind thinks "is it blue" it responds yes and to "is it red" no.
Smoke and mirrors.
Or God could create an object that reflects blue frequency light north and red frequency light south.
But the blue side is blue and the red side is red. And yes, it sort of, kind of works that way. In fact,
the National Research Council can help you understand that what you're describing is rather mundane.
Let's put a test to the theory. Go out in a car and start driving through red lights. And then tell the officer that the light was green.
Or perhaps God could create objects with different properties in different dimensions.
Yes, I suppose there
is that. And the Goddess might raise the Great Pumpkin out of my ass come Samhain.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by the Holy Spirit. He does not always say "Do this " or "Do that" using english words.
I can't imagine where that idea entered the discussion.
Also the Holy Spirit is usually involved in healing us and not decision making
So by what date in the future or past is the healing to have taken place to your satisfaction in order to appease your doubts about the workings of the Holy Spirit?
Christ, man ... a little faith never killed a soul. Quite the contrary, as I hear it explained.
We have freewill to make decisions and that is one of the gifts that God gave us.
Are we back to this point again? Why don't you make a list of the
Dramatis personae of the Robinson appointment and tell us all about each of their consciences, their priorities, and their faith? If Mary Magdalene was standing before you, it seems you would dare cast the stone. Do you really dare presume the ways and workings of God?
No, but there is no reason for me to think that the Holy Spirit told each bishop to vote for Robinson.
Thematically speaking, it seems
faith is the one thing you don't want to allow for consideration. Perhaps you should consider the merits of atheism.
Otherwise He would have told everyone there to vote for him.
Yes, but I didn't assert obedience to direct revelation. I asserted trust and faith. And you seem to have a
serious problem with faith.
Also because I'm not of that Church I could have the interpretation that their church has fallen away and that this is just a sign of it.
"Could"?
You seem to be justifying your lack of trust in the Holy Spirit with your judgment of the propriety of other people's faith, as well as the judgment of other people.
Either way it is illogical to use the Holy Spirit working through their church as a valid argument.
I'm speaking of
faith as pertains to Christianity and you're attempting to invoke
logic?
I was countering your view that the early church did not consider Jesus God incarnate.
Well what makes your point valid if the source material you use to make it is not valid?
Why
do you run around in circles like that? I mean, is Ignatius only valid when and in the context you choose?
Also the view that Ignatius gives is not "if you see your bishop doing evil then let it slide". It is to do everything with the support of the bishop
So do you think the bishopric would approve of someone condemning the decisions of the bishops? Especially on the ground that their personal faith motivates their usurpation of established church faith?
We can and should rebuke others like John said.
You know ... I always wondered what the "J" stood for in those WWJD bracelets. Thank you for clearing that up.
Well, only if you have no sense of metaphor. But then ... that would explain your take on the Bible.
The extant that Robinson is doing it crosses the line. It is like making arguments that "you shall not murder" be interpreted only when your not in extreme rage.
Okinrus, get this through your filthy bigoted skull:
murder hurts people; love does not.
What the hell is your problem, boy? You who don't throw stones would equate love to murder just because you don't like what it looks like?
You should. Talk about some crazy bible stuff. And they were ... slightly influential.
He owes no justification to me because I'm not in their church.
Then how dare you claim to judge him?
I mean, his appointment seems to strike you as unacceptable.
You can have just as much faith in God's judgement as to faith in what is wrong.
Yes, just like Kramer and Sprenger.
If we believe that what Robinson teaches is wrong, then should we not try to protect ourselves from this wrong?
As I said before, you ought to start a topic about those teachings. That would be a much more useful discussion than your present course.
I mean, you need to understand on this occasion that I'm not going to go out and bother looking them up myself because
(A) If his position was truly outlandish, a congress of bishops would have been unable to push through such a controversial candidate. Robinson, in order to win approval, had to address these issues in a manner satisfying to sober and literate people.
(B) I do not need Bishop Robinson's teachings to offer me a route to understanding the benefits that come with his appointment. I think this is a step in the right direction, and insofar as I can determine from a lifetime's experience dealing with Christianity and its bigotries, I think Robinson's appointment is a reinvestment in faith for all of the reasons I've reiterated to the point of cliche in this topic.
Try separating two ideas for a moment.
- How can I object to your opinion as a human being? You're as entitled to it as the next guy is to his.
- To the other, though, you
are a Christian, and in professing that faith you accept certain limitations of conduct in defense of your integrity of faith.
As a human being, you're doing fine. I've met enough people in the world that I don't worry about your degree of homophobia
except in the argumentative where such homophobia attempts to aggrandize itself for propaganda value. You've a right to these ideas, but I
will growl and snarl and stuff them back in the shoebox from time to time because that aggrandization is what gives an otherwise benign condemnation practical and effective weight in the Universe.
As a sinner, you're doing
great. With such a heavy investment in the presumption of the worst in people you're giving a steady stream of faith that will give Jesus extra joy to forgive for the sheer magnitude of its failure.
But as a Christian ... please understand,
Okinrus, it's not that Christians are the worst people in the world or anything, though some make it easy to make the assertion. And while I have no doubt about the strength of your convictions, I can also tell you squarely that the manner in which you have presented yourself in this discussion is an excellent example of why rational people are becoming more and more wary of Christianity and Christians. Regardless of sect, Christianity is becoming less and less relevant to modern ethical considerations. As if the opinions making the most significant representations of Christianity in the culture weren't dangerous and bizarre enough, the foundations of this strange diversity of faiths becomes ever more tenuous.
Quite simply, Nature no longer supports a Christian world-view. Specifically, Nature never did. However the relationship between humanity and Nature's other expressions is such that Nature no longer tolerates a Christian world-view. The single biggest reason for this is that canon and doctrine, the two things which should most directly influence faith, take a back seat to desire. We know you're human, too. And I'm sorry that being human isn't enough for you.
Maybe in a reincarnating Universe, I could understand that. But when all the Universe points toward your life or mine being a one-shot deal, I choose to celebrate my humanity instead of pray against it.
:m:,
Tiassa