- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For Episcopalians, God is Officially Gender Fluid (or whatever)
Posted on 2/9/18 at 12:31 pm to skrayper
Posted on 2/9/18 at 12:31 pm to skrayper
quote:So? Matthew wasn't written by the same author who wrote John. Why should we believe any of them?
I Corinthians isn't written by the same people who wrote the Gospels.
0
Posted on 2/9/18 at 1:15 pm to skrayper
Agree.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 1:23 pm to FooManChoo
I tend to agree with this question. Its infallible (the originals) or its not. And every church body that strays from this seems to get further and further from what the Bible actually says and morphs into a social justice gathering.
However a different line of thinking would say that we believe because the events took place...not because they were written down perfectly.That's a little too abstract for me. But possible.
To me that would be more relevant in comparing not having a bible to having one. Oral tradition vs God's Word.
However a different line of thinking would say that we believe because the events took place...not because they were written down perfectly.That's a little too abstract for me. But possible.
To me that would be more relevant in comparing not having a bible to having one. Oral tradition vs God's Word.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 1:24 pm to HaveMercy
God having ANY gender is retarded. Nothing to see here.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 1:28 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
God having ANY gender is retarded. Nothing to see here.
We were told how to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven..."
Posted on 2/9/18 at 1:33 pm to tigersbh
quote:
We were told how to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven..."
By a then patriarchy. Now times are changing. Sentiment should still be the same. God having a gender is stupid
Posted on 2/9/18 at 2:13 pm to tigersbh
quote:
We were told how to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven..."
Our Creator is more accurate anyway. God didn't bang our moms.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 5:06 pm to Champagne
quote:the HS absolutely can be a "messenger" but not an "emanation." the latter term suggests that the HS and the father are conflated. the main thing is to avoid modalism. these are good summaries
I keep going back to the idea that the Son is the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit is an Emanation that we have seen serving as a Messenger.
trinity
koukl is a good resource
another resource
quote:that doesn't diminish the personhood of the HS
There is nothing in scripture demonstrating that the Holy Spirit ever spoke to anyone
pneumatology summary
the HS speaks to people directly, hence paraclete. I'm not sure it's important that the HS aurally "speak" to a few people in the same way Jesus did. that's not really the role of the HS
Posted on 2/10/18 at 6:04 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
By a then patriarchy. Now times are changing. Sentiment should still be the same. God having a gender is stupid
So you don't believe the men writing the Bible were guided by God. I do.
Posted on 2/10/18 at 7:54 am to Ebbandflow
quote:Jesus?
By a then patriarchy
Posted on 2/10/18 at 9:11 am to Ebbandflow
quote:You say this as if God had no part in the transmission of His own message of truth.
By a then patriarchy. Now times are changing. Sentiment should still be the same.
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:08 am to Champagne
quote:as much as we love our jewish spiritual relatives, their view is incomplete for obvious reasons. Jesus' statements on the matter are clear and his followers explicated them numerous times. btw, they were jews.
The Jewish theological view on the Holy Spirit is interesting to note. Some of them say the HS is:
"a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes".
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:11 am to skrayper
quote:that's not what i'm asking. in that case, the person is making the positive assertion that it is not. iow, that something else is the case. i'm asking that person to prove their belief. of course holding the winning hand, i know they can't.
"proving the negative" is a logic flaw.
this speaks to the presumption of atheism which many, many people have been fooled by. thus, atheism becomes the default position and is in no need of substantiation, which is obviously ridiculous
quote:another typical misunderstanding. the burden of proof is on anyone asserting anything. there is no person/position that does not bear the burden of proof
The burden of proof would be on the people who believe it IS divinely inspired, not the other way around
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:16 am to skrayper
quote:to be clear, we did inherit a sinful nature from adam however, part of the reason is because had we been in adam's shoes, we would have done (and still do) the same
People are quite capable of sinning without Adam having ever existed
quote:nor with me. that is why i am not favorable to the young earth position. it makes God out to be deceptive by making the world seem older than it actually is. while i respect the effort, i think flood geology is very ad hoc. and i feel A LOT better that billy graham was open to theistic evolution.
intentionally misleading people by altering the world before discoveries could be made, does not sit well with me.
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:18 am to indianswim
I attended Catholic schools and Presbyterian church all my life. I also went to Sunday School after church.
Never once heard anything politically motivated.
Arch Bishop did come to school to explain why condoms were evil. That is about it. Some nonsense about lower birth rates among Catholics but if you look at the last 30 years, he was probably right.
I'm sure there are tons of fire and brimstone political churches. I've just been lucky enough to avoid them.
That church pictured would not be one I would ever attend.
Never once heard anything politically motivated.
Arch Bishop did come to school to explain why condoms were evil. That is about it. Some nonsense about lower birth rates among Catholics but if you look at the last 30 years, he was probably right.
I'm sure there are tons of fire and brimstone political churches. I've just been lucky enough to avoid them.
That church pictured would not be one I would ever attend.
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:27 am to FooManChoo
quote:awesome point! yes, God has a plan for creation. and no, there isn't a "better world" for us. people are always complaining "why couldn't God have eliminated suffering" or whatever. those people just haven't studied/contemplated this level of theological subtlety - that God has a providential plan and that this world could not have a better balance, certeris parabis. i usually don't get an answer to the question of how someone can authoritatively prove that their version would actually work irl. it's always a case of smuggled in authority
The guilt of Adam being applied to all humanity is the basis by which God can apply the righteousness of Christ towards those who haven't earned it, themselves. It's the entire point of the Gospel.
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:34 am to crazyatthecamp
quote:this is the evidential method that geisler and turek use in their coauthored book. it's a solid "bottom - up" approach, although there are others, such as the "top - down" classical method; aquinas, etc
Believe in the resurrection and then other items follow after that to various degrees.
Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:41 am to crazyatthecamp
quote:but the reader can't get to the events without the text
we believe because the events took place...not because they were written down perfectly
phenomenon of reading-> reader-> text-> author-> event
liberal christians have progressively moved from the right to the left. now, all they have is the phenomenon of reading. the events themselves are irrelevant. the text is only relevant in what it does to the reader. the reader is even irrelevant to the degree that presuppositions can cloud the reading experience. what does the text do to you? that is where the meaning lies for liberals/progressives. never mind this creates substantial semiotic problems, authoritative problems (both text and author), hermeneutic problems, exegetical problems (the events and the original audience). let's just ignore those problems because what's more important is that everyone feel welcome and not judged.
Posted on 2/11/18 at 5:42 pm to tigersbh
quote:
So you don't believe the men writing the Bible were guided by God. I do.
Even if you believe that they were Guided by God surely you would understand that the easiest thing for their literal brain to make sense of would be the fact that God's a man because they lived in a patriarchy. Just because they say he doesn't mean God's mail it's just what they can relate to. Shurely that concept can't seem too alien to you
This post was edited on 2/11/18 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 2/11/18 at 6:54 pm to Ebbandflow
Wow. Jesus referred to the Father.
Not good enough for progressives I guess.
Not good enough for progressives I guess.
Page 14 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News