Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Doctrine

adeptdebate
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 4:15:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians ASSUME that the first followers of Jesus got his message right, and that they grasp it clearly, even though Jesus stated that those who think they see, are actually blind, and need to become blind, i.e. to realize that they do not see the full truth. Christians also ASSUME that God would not allow them to be deceived in their doctrinal beliefs. What if they are wrong in both of these assumptions?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 5:19:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 4:15:28 AM, adeptdebate wrote:
Christians ASSUME that the first followers of Jesus got his message right, and that they grasp it clearly, even though Jesus stated that those who think they see, are actually blind, and need to become blind, i.e. to realize that they do not see the full truth. Christians also ASSUME that God would not allow them to be deceived in their doctrinal beliefs. What if they are wrong in both of these assumptions?

I am nor sure I understand your question?

The reality, in every church I have been in, is not one of full understanding - even among the clergy. The church(es) establish a doctrinal basis of understanding, but those simply define the churches positions and practices - and they evolve, albeit slowly in most cases.

In its simplest form, and as it has been taught since the first time I walked into a church, is that we are who we are and our individual understanding of the gospel will evolve over time. In its simplest form, take age. As an 18 year old boy, the gospel, even understood, had large gaps in full understanding. How does an 18 year old boy, for example, understand the roles of a husband in marriage when he is not yet married? Who has not yet faced the challenges of balancing work, church, and family? Later in life, we read these same passages with a greater depth of understanding and new insights. Some, grasped when we are 18 remain firm, others evolve.

Yet when we think we understand every last aspect of the gospel, then problem eluded to in such a case is arrogance. So long as we live, we learn ... and when we stop learning, there is an aspect to life that has stopped. A critical one. If we reach a point where we believe we 'know everything', then perhaps it is better to stop and look at our pride first and foremost.

This applies well outside the gospel as well. Take for instance Clausewitz. And amateur can read and understand Clausewitz. The entire thing, written in the dialectic, deliberately conveys contrasting realities of battle. We can intellectually grasp them, whether we experience battle or not. However, twenty years after first reading Clausewitz, after experience is two major wars, Clausewitz made an entirely different kind of sense. Some aspects of battle that an inexperienced reader might not appreciate, make a hell of a lot of sense to a combat veteran.

Again, if we think we understand all aspects of war, we'd be idiots, and the constant need of professional armies to push that understanding is difficult, demanding, and not always correctly understood. There too though, arrogance and pride can cause problems, like assuming an uneducated enemy (like the Taliban) is stupid as well as uneducated. Pride has consequences, serious consequences in all aspects of life - and that is the wring coveted by the passages you list.

I'm not sure its wrong? I'm, honestly, not sure it can be?
TheBiscuit
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:36:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 5:19:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 4:15:28 AM, adeptdebate wrote:
Christians ASSUME that the first followers of Jesus got his message right, and that they grasp it clearly, even though Jesus stated that those who think they see, are actually blind, and need to become blind, i.e. to realize that they do not see the full truth. Christians also ASSUME that God would not allow them to be deceived in their doctrinal beliefs. What if they are wrong in both of these assumptions?

I am nor sure I understand your question?

The reality, in every church I have been in, is not one of full understanding - even among the clergy. The church(es) establish a doctrinal basis of understanding, but those simply define the churches positions and practices - and they evolve, albeit slowly in most cases.

In its simplest form, and as it has been taught since the first time I walked into a church, is that we are who we are and our individual understanding of the gospel will evolve over time. In its simplest form, take age. As an 18 year old boy, the gospel, even understood, had large gaps in full understanding. How does an 18 year old boy, for example, understand the roles of a husband in marriage when he is not yet married? Who has not yet faced the challenges of balancing work, church, and family? Later in life, we read these same passages with a greater depth of understanding and new insights. Some, grasped when we are 18 remain firm, others evolve.

Yet when we think we understand every last aspect of the gospel, then problem eluded to in such a case is arrogance. So long as we live, we learn ... and when we stop learning, there is an aspect to life that has stopped. A critical one. If we reach a point where we believe we 'know everything', then perhaps it is better to stop and look at our pride first and foremost.

This applies well outside the gospel as well. Take for instance Clausewitz. And amateur can read and understand Clausewitz. The entire thing, written in the dialectic, deliberately conveys contrasting realities of battle. We can intellectually grasp them, whether we experience battle or not. However, twenty years after first reading Clausewitz, after experience is two major wars, Clausewitz made an entirely different kind of sense. Some aspects of battle that an inexperienced reader might not appreciate, make a hell of a lot of sense to a combat veteran.

Again, if we think we understand all aspects of war, we'd be idiots, and the constant need of professional armies to push that understanding is difficult, demanding, and not always correctly understood. There too though, arrogance and pride can cause problems, like assuming an uneducated enemy (like the Taliban) is stupid as well as uneducated. Pride has consequences, serious consequences in all aspects of life - and that is the wring coveted by the passages you list.

I'm not sure its wrong? I'm, honestly, not sure it can be?

If you don't fully understand his question ask, him to elaborate and explain his question before you try and answer it. What I see is a question that I would have like to be asked a bit more clearly and an unclear answer to a question that you did not have (or did not think you had) full understanding of.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 7:36:55 AM, TheBiscuit wrote:
At 8/21/2014 5:19:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 4:15:28 AM, adeptdebate wrote:
Christians ASSUME that the first followers of Jesus got his message right, and that they grasp it clearly, even though Jesus stated that those who think they see, are actually blind, and need to become blind, i.e. to realize that they do not see the full truth. Christians also ASSUME that God would not allow them to be deceived in their doctrinal beliefs. What if they are wrong in both of these assumptions?

I am nor sure I understand your question?

The reality, in every church I have been in, is not one of full understanding - even among the clergy. The church(es) establish a doctrinal basis of understanding, but those simply define the churches positions and practices - and they evolve, albeit slowly in most cases.

In its simplest form, and as it has been taught since the first time I walked into a church, is that we are who we are and our individual understanding of the gospel will evolve over time. In its simplest form, take age. As an 18 year old boy, the gospel, even understood, had large gaps in full understanding. How does an 18 year old boy, for example, understand the roles of a husband in marriage when he is not yet married? Who has not yet faced the challenges of balancing work, church, and family? Later in life, we read these same passages with a greater depth of understanding and new insights. Some, grasped when we are 18 remain firm, others evolve.

Yet when we think we understand every last aspect of the gospel, then problem eluded to in such a case is arrogance. So long as we live, we learn ... and when we stop learning, there is an aspect to life that has stopped. A critical one. If we reach a point where we believe we 'know everything', then perhaps it is better to stop and look at our pride first and foremost.

This applies well outside the gospel as well. Take for instance Clausewitz. And amateur can read and understand Clausewitz. The entire thing, written in the dialectic, deliberately conveys contrasting realities of battle. We can intellectually grasp them, whether we experience battle or not. However, twenty years after first reading Clausewitz, after experience is two major wars, Clausewitz made an entirely different kind of sense. Some aspects of battle that an inexperienced reader might not appreciate, make a hell of a lot of sense to a combat veteran.

Again, if we think we understand all aspects of war, we'd be idiots, and the constant need of professional armies to push that understanding is difficult, demanding, and not always correctly understood. There too though, arrogance and pride can cause problems, like assuming an uneducated enemy (like the Taliban) is stupid as well as uneducated. Pride has consequences, serious consequences in all aspects of life - and that is the wring coveted by the passages you list.

I'm not sure its wrong? I'm, honestly, not sure it can be?

If you don't fully understand his question ask, him to elaborate and explain his question before you try and answer it. What I see is a question that I would have like to be asked a bit more clearly and an unclear answer to a question that you did not have (or did not think you had) full understanding of.

I did ask, and he is free to answer as he sees fit.

I then offered insight into the passages he asked opinions on.

He is free to respond as he wishes.
TheBiscuit
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:43:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 7:39:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 7:36:55 AM, TheBiscuit wrote:
At 8/21/2014 5:19:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 4:15:28 AM, adeptdebate wrote:
Christians ASSUME that the first followers of Jesus got his message right, and that they grasp it clearly, even though Jesus stated that those who think they see, are actually blind, and need to become blind, i.e. to realize that they do not see the full truth. Christians also ASSUME that God would not allow them to be deceived in their doctrinal beliefs. What if they are wrong in both of these assumptions?

I am nor sure I understand your question?

The reality, in every church I have been in, is not one of full understanding - even among the clergy. The church(es) establish a doctrinal basis of understanding, but those simply define the churches positions and practices - and they evolve, albeit slowly in most cases.

In its simplest form, and as it has been taught since the first time I walked into a church, is that we are who we are and our individual understanding of the gospel will evolve over time. In its simplest form, take age. As an 18 year old boy, the gospel, even understood, had large gaps in full understanding. How does an 18 year old boy, for example, understand the roles of a husband in marriage when he is not yet married? Who has not yet faced the challenges of balancing work, church, and family? Later in life, we read these same passages with a greater depth of understanding and new insights. Some, grasped when we are 18 remain firm, others evolve.

Yet when we think we understand every last aspect of the gospel, then problem eluded to in such a case is arrogance. So long as we live, we learn ... and when we stop learning, there is an aspect to life that has stopped. A critical one. If we reach a point where we believe we 'know everything', then perhaps it is better to stop and look at our pride first and foremost.

This applies well outside the gospel as well. Take for instance Clausewitz. And amateur can read and understand Clausewitz. The entire thing, written in the dialectic, deliberately conveys contrasting realities of battle. We can intellectually grasp them, whether we experience battle or not. However, twenty years after first reading Clausewitz, after experience is two major wars, Clausewitz made an entirely different kind of sense. Some aspects of battle that an inexperienced reader might not appreciate, make a hell of a lot of sense to a combat veteran.

Again, if we think we understand all aspects of war, we'd be idiots, and the constant need of professional armies to push that understanding is difficult, demanding, and not always correctly understood. There too though, arrogance and pride can cause problems, like assuming an uneducated enemy (like the Taliban) is stupid as well as uneducated. Pride has consequences, serious consequences in all aspects of life - and that is the wring coveted by the passages you list.

I'm not sure its wrong? I'm, honestly, not sure it can be?

If you don't fully understand his question ask, him to elaborate and explain his question before you try and answer it. What I see is a question that I would have like to be asked a bit more clearly and an unclear answer to a question that you did not have (or did not think you had) full understanding of.

I did ask, and he is free to answer as he sees fit.

I then offered insight into the passages he asked opinions on.

He is free to respond as he wishes.

Sorry if I came off as rude, I'm on the go and only have a phone to work with.