Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.
Doxology
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heav'nly host;
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Amen.
1 Corinthians 15
I won't include the entire text of this chapter, but it is an creedal statement that dates between two and 5 years after Jesus' death. It is considered to be too close to the events to have been corrupted by later additions, as those mentioned in it would have been available to correct any errors.
28 comments:
Jesus' actual teachings?
I mean, score one for, Communion of the saints, but otherwise...
Thanks for pointing that out!
That is quite the conclusion.
While they don't contain direct quotes of Jesus' teachings, they do contain summaries of distinctively Christian beliefs. To reduce the Christian worldview to only certain "teachings" of Jesus (especially to reduce it to only the "teachings" in public sermons) seems to artificially reduce the broader scope of the Biblical witness.
You, as an individual, are free to reduce/edit/parse/redact Scripture as you will. Much like Jefferson did. But to expect your personal, individual, imperfect, subjective, human, hunches to apply beyond yourself seems both bizarre and arrogant.
Craig:
You, as an individual, are free to reduce/edit/parse/redact Scripture as you will. Much like Jefferson did. But to expect your personal, individual, imperfect, subjective, human, hunches to apply beyond yourself seems both bizarre and arrogant.
You mean, like the way you presume your particular human traditions that you associate with Christianity ARE Christianity and that those who disagree with YOUR traditions are not espousing Christian ideas?
Yes, bizarre and arrogant.
Craig:
While they don't contain direct quotes of Jesus' teachings, they do contain summaries of distinctively Christian beliefs.
That is, they contain summaries aligning with the traditions of men who claimed they were speaking for Christianity? Yes, that is precisely what those "creeds" are.
That's one of the things I like about historic Baptist and anabaptist traditions: NO CREEDS. Local church autonomy. Priesthood of the believer. On that much, Baptists, you got it right, at least in the past. Not so much today, at least in conservative Baptist traditions.
Craig, once again:
You, as an individual, are free to reduce/edit/parse/redact Scripture as you will.
Yes. Yes, I am, as are you. As we all are. We ALL have the responsibility to follow God as we best understand God, ever with an eye on the ideals of Loving God and Loving Everyone. When we stray away from Love, Grace, Acceptance, Welcome and the fight for Justice, we can start to recognize that maybe we're not following God, at all.
And lest I was not clear: Yes, you all too, in your human traditions, are welcome to have your creeds and pledges and say, "This is what people in my tradition have long affirmed..." Even if it's bland and weightless and not really reflecting Jesus direct teachings, his good news that he came to preach, according to him literally, to the poor and marginalized.
As long as you continue to affirm, This is what WE HUMANS believe, you're gold and welcome to it. It's when any of y'all start to insist, This is what God/Jesus want ALL of us to believe... and if you don't affirm OUR human creed, you're not part of the church that you've moved away from what's your opinion and speaking for God in a presumptuous manner.
The church belongs to no set of humans.
"You mean, like the way you presume your particular human traditions that you associate with Christianity ARE Christianity and that those who disagree with YOUR traditions are not espousing Christian ideas?"
No.
Thank you for acknowledging that you choose to focus on your individual, unproven, hunches based on your subjective, feelings and imperfect Reason. I appreciate your honesty.
I'll simply note the reality that "No Creeds" is a creed.
Yet, you strangely keep arguing contrary to the above comment. You continue to demand that I accept your unproven individual, personal, hunches as "reality" and that your definition of the gospel is the only acceptable definition.
I guess it will be fruitless to note that equating Scripture, or the doctrinal statements that have withstood the test of time and criticism for hundreds/thousands of years could be considered a horse of a different hue, than insisting that novel, new, unproven, unscriptural, extrabiblical, hunches grounded solely in the imperfect, subjective, human Reason of one individual might carry slightly different weight.
I've been attending a Baptist church for several months now. I would say everything I've heard from sermons there aligns pretty well with those creeds.
I'll also point out how Dan admits preferring outfits which make up their own shit, rather than remain dedicated to Christianity.
He then goes on to use his favorite catch-phrases chosen because they evoke emotions without being specific in just how they're to be understood or applied. Ambiguity is essential to Dan's pretend-Christianity.
Dan likes to speak of the good news Christ came to preach without every demonstrating he has any idea what that good news is. He's far more concerned with to whom he believes Christ came to preach it, rather what Christ came to preach.
He also insists on his desperately needed belief that we defend "OUR" creed as opposed to Christianity.
While there might be some "no creeds" elements to Dan's pet denominations, I'd argue that all of them still hold to the majority of the contents of both of the most common Protestant creeds, and likely sing the Doxology as well. Long ago, Dan made a claim that Anabaptists believed "X", so I did the research and discovered that Dan was wrong about that particular belief, and I provided the receipts to demonstrate it.
I noticed that very thing. It explains so much about Dan's "theology" (or lack thereof) and his insistence that his Reason is his final arbiter of what he believes to be true.
Being emotion driven and ambiguous are two things that I think of when I think of Dan.
Dan seems to want to elevate one aspect of Jesus message, over any other aspect of Jesus message. Despite that fact that Jesus and the Jerusalem Church didn't actually model the things Dan demands are the exclusive focus.
Craig opined...
"than insisting that novel, new, unproven, unscriptural, extrabiblical, hunches grounded solely in the imperfect, subjective, human Reason of one individual might carry slightly different weight."
1. You might be unaware of this in church history, but there is a long and sober list of scholars and other rational people disagreeing with relatively modern conservative religious opinion since the church began.
Did you not know this?
2. My positions are extremely biblical. I would suggest way more biblical than your human traditions. Indeed, as you even admit, your human traditions' creed does not contain Jesus' words.
3. ALL of humanity opinions about God are literally based upon some humans' reasoning.
Show me I'm mistaken.
YOUR personal human interpretations... what are they based upon if not YOUR personal human reasoning?
Do you presume to speak perfectly for God?
No. We know the answer to that.
1. I'll note that you haven't can't mention one that affirms any of your novel, personal, unproven hunches. Just one more example of Dan hiding behind a logical fallacy.
I do know that there is a long history of all sorts of crazy stuff coming from people claiming to be within the Church. I also know that there is a long history of orthodox responses to the various heresies. For example, the Pelagian heresy that you regularly flirt with if not embrace, was countered and dealt with effectively.
2. If you say so.
3. If you say so.
If quoting scripture verbatim is "my personal human reasoning" or if quoting the formulations of others verbatim is "my personal human reasoning" then I guess so. That a creed, doctrine, or theological position does not contain "Jesus' words" does not mean that it is false, or unbiblical. I'll simply note that the creed in 1 Cor 15, is literally Biblical and does not contain "Jesus' words".
Of course, by that standard, the 10 Commandments do contain "Jesus' words".
"Do you presume to speak perfectly for God?"
No, but then I've never claimed to. Nor have I ever answered this often repeated question in any other way. As an aside, I'm truly sorry to see how badly your memory is fading. I'd have thought that as often as you ask this question, that you'd remember my previous answers so you didn't have to ask again.
"No. We know the answer to that."
If, as you should because of how many times I've answered this idiocy, you "know the answer", then why waste the time to ask the question. Hell, you regularly answer questions for me, but for some reason you continue to ask this idiotic bullshit.
Craig:
If quoting scripture verbatim is "my personal human reasoning" or if quoting the formulations of others verbatim is "my personal human reasoning" then I guess so.</IL
Stop it. Just stop it. YOU may sometimes quote scripture verbatim, just like the racist and slaver might have done the same. I, too, quote scripture verbatim. I believe in a loving God who of course loves all including gay folks and wants the best for all including gay folks, including the joy of marriage. I think this because the Bible
1. Literally does not call itself a rulings book for how to do marriage.
2. Would be hella depraved IF that claim was made in the Bible... but it's not.
3. Literally doesn't have authors condemning gay folks marrying.
4. Literally, has a God or authors who say, "I know the plans I have for you... plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" and "ALL things work together for Good for those who love the Lord."
5. Has authors who state things like "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things..." WHATSOEVER things. Clearly, two gay folk, two lesbians marry are true, honest, just and pure. That's me LITERALLY quoting Scripture, which, as I note, does not call itself a weddings rule book.
6. The point being, we ALL are quoting Scripture, you, the racists and rapists, me... all of us who value the Bible. And we're all influenced by its teachings. But, YOU use YOUR REASONING perforce, to draw conclusions out from the things that you quote and the things you don't quote. So, that you "quote scripture" just puts you on equal footing with the racists and slavers and rapists. You read scripture THEN YOU interpret it using YOUR REASONING.
That IS reality. You'll have to explain what you're using if NOT your personal human reasoning to decipher those words if you want to somehow try to make an actual case that you're NOT using your reasoning.
I mean, what else? Do you pull a log o' poop out of the toilet and parse the contents seeking signs that TELL you what to think? OR, do you use your human reasoning? What possible resource do you have if NOT your reasoning?
(And sadly, if you're not using your reasoning, don't you think you should be a bit ashamed to admit as much?)
https://anabaptistworld.org/of-creeds-and-confessions/
"To take being “confessional” as being anti-creedal, however, goes way beyond what most of the first Anabaptist leaders, theologians and evangelists intended. Anabaptism has been a diverse family of beliefs and character from the start. But the Anabaptist groups which survived, thrived and spread were those which hewed most closely to the ancient Christians creeds. With a few exceptions, their writings, sermons and histories typically display the language, the mindset and the assertions of the creeds on such matters as the incarnation, the trinity, the virgin birth, that “Christ died for our sins . . . the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting,” and that “he shall come again to judge the living and the dead.” Rarely was their aim to overthrow the creeds, as much as it was to live out the faith of the creeds consistently, at least for the groups that survived and thrived, despite being the kind of Anabaptism that the creedal state churches found most worth persecuting. They were threatened because of how much the Anabaptists shared with them in belief, as well as because of how much they differed in their expression of it."
https://anabaptisthistorians.org/2020/10/22/some-reflections-on-early-anabaptists-and-the-creeds/
"Nevertheless, insofar as the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds can be said to summarize the essentials of the Christian faith, the earliest Anabaptists upheld these teaching with only a few exceptions."
https://murraycampbell.net/2022/02/23/baptists-creeds-and-confessions/
"In 1611 Thomas Helwys wrote a declaration of faith for English Baptists living in Amsterdam. Since then, no fewer than 50 Baptist Confessions of faith have been written, published and affirmed by various baptists across the centuries. Both the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833/1853) remain in use today across many baptist networks. In other words, any blanket statement about baptists being anti-creedal cannot be sustained. The historical record demonstrates that Baptists are among the most prolific writers of confessions among all Christian denominations. And these do not include all the statements of faith and doctrinal bases that are in use today across baptist fellowships."
https://christthekingrbc.org/creeds-confessions
"At Christ the King Reformed Baptist Church, Scripture holds our highest allegiance and is our ultimate source of authority as it testifies to Jesus the living Word (John 5:39). We do affirm biblically-faithful, orthodox and historic Christian creeds and confessions (The Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed (325 AD), Athanasian Creed, and Chalcedonian Creed) and find them to be vitally important, very edifying and incredible helpful. "
https://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/hbd.htm
Once again, when it comes to bold claim about what Anabaptists and Baptists "believe", Dan's mouth (keyboard) writes a check with insufficient intellectual funds to be cashed.
It's clear that while Anabaptists and Baptists seem to prefer confessions and statements of faith to creeds, that seems to be more about semantics than theology. They clearly seem to agree with the creeds, and their objections seem to be more about the misuse of the creeds or the insistence that the creeds supersede scripture. That even creedal denomimations would agree with both of these areas of concern seems relevant here as well.
Let alone the fact that "No Creeds" is a creed.
An entire comment full of Dan's personal, subjective, human hunches, presented as if they were factual and beyond questioning.
I see no reason to do anything but let his screed stand as it is.
Craig, failing to get the point, said...
I also know that there is a long history of orthodox responses to the various heresies. For example, the Pelagian heresy that you regularly flirt with if not embrace
Rightly understood:
I also know that there is a long history of
PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME FORMING THEIR HUMAN OPINIONS
to
these various ideas I personally disagree with.
Craig:
For example, the Pelagian heresy that you regularly flirt with if not embrace
I DO deny your human tradition's extrabiblical theories and unproven opinions about your pet theory of "original sin," a term and idea NOT found in the Bible and certainly NOT found in Jesus' teachings.
Is it okay with you if I disagree with the opinion you and your friends hold? OR, if I dare to disagree with your little theories, does that make me a heretic?
I further deny your personal human interpretation of believing the Adam spoken of in the clearly mythic creation story found in Genesis was a literal human and that his "sin" was magically "passed down" (VERY mythic motif, that) in any sort of literal fashion. But by all means, get our your microscopes and search your bodies and find data and evidence of that "orginal sin" passed down to you and we can talk.
I DO recognize the observable reality that humans are imperfect and, as such, will make mistakes. But then, that's observable and definitional. Imperfect people are, by definition, imperfect.
Speaking of this human theory, the conservatives over at Biblestudytools.com...
Pelagianism emphasizes a person’s responsibility for their own sinful nature.
What a nasty, crazy, irrational position: That people are responsible for their own imperfect behavior. Do you disagree with that? Do you think that's old Father Adam, sneaking in our brains and hands to make us do naughty bits?
But if your personal human tradition considers it "heretical" to not believe in an historic Adam literally passing on naughtiness in our naughty genes and thus making us "totally depraved..." Then IN THAT HUMAN TRADITION's mind, I am a heretic. But that human tradition does not speak authoritatively and objectively for God. THAT would be heretical and blasphemous, wouldn't it?
"My positions are extremely biblical. I would suggest way more biblical than your human traditions."
Yeah...defense of homosexuality and abortion are totally Biblical. Not sure of which book, chapter or verse of Scripture confirms it, but Dan assures us it is.
"ALL of humanity opinions about God are literally based upon some humans' reasoning."
When I think of the word "reasoning", I presume an intention of discerning truth. Whey Dan uses the word, it's to rationalize that which reasoning cannot discern as true, such as Dan's defense of homosexuality and abortion, which in no way does the Bible defend.
"Do you presume to speak perfectly for God?"
That depends upon the issue on the table, as it's not impossible to perfectly nail God's will on some issues, nor is it impossible to know God's will with high probability on most others. But if I was to say "I speak for God", it's simply that I speak of that which is impossible or unlikely to rebut because of how explicitly or implicitly the issue of which I speak is. I do not speak so distinctly on that upon which Scripture is not likewise so distinct. I do not speak of what is likely about that which Scripture implies is most likely. I support both with Scripture itself in ways Dan has never been able to overcome with Scriptural citations of his own...none which can't be then countered yet again with more direct and distinct Scripture supporting my position. This has been our history despite his constant unsupported denials.
Then allow me. The idiocy is just too rich for me to let stand without response:
"Stop it. Just stop it. YOU may sometimes quote scripture verbatim, just like the racist and slaver might have done the same."
This is intentional libel. We never quote Scripture as racists or slavers do. I would insist that YOU do this with far greater frequency than do we, which is easy since we never do. The truth of this will become apparent as I move on with this lunacy.
"I, too, quote scripture verbatim. I believe in a loving God who of course loves all including gay folks and wants the best for all including gay folks, including the joy of marriage. I think this because the Bible"
And there it is immediately. There's no Scripture which supports any of this in the manner it's forced into Scripture intentionally by Dan. If we were to say that God wants the best for perverts, it would be to repent of the perversion and live righteously, which would not include SSM. There's no basis for Dan's fiction.
"1. Literally does not call itself a rulings book for how to do marriage."
Dan's never explained how the Bible is required to label itself a "rulings book" in order to be one nonetheless, nor that by not having so labeled itself such it therefore isn't one. It's a superfluous claim at best.
2. (Just going by the numbers now) What would make it "depraved" if the Bible would so label itself? Given your penchant for ignoring rules you find inconvenient, as well as your inserting rules of your own, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. So explain this perverted claim.
3. Literally doesn't need to since the likelihood of any observant Jew marrying someone of the same sex and then indulging in homosexual sex with him is zero. That's because the behavior is abomination and worthy of death (and still is). It's enough for Biblical authors to condemn the behaviors because God did to infer that two pervs committing themselves to a lifelong marriage-like union would be condemned as well. This the only conclusion which true, honest and intelligent reason can compel.
4. This relies on a devotion to God's Will and is dependent on His terms.
5. This also is a statement dependent upon God's terms, not the terms of sexual perverts acting in direct and willful rebellion against His Will. Dan assumes the authority for dictating what constitutes "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good". There's nothing at all in Scripture which so much as hints any of us have that authority. Because Dan regards having sex with sheep as lovely, he's to think on such and pretend he's acting in concert with this Scriptural passage. He proves this point with what follows:
"Clearly, two gay folk, two lesbians marry are true, honest, just and pure."
Not even close. They're depraved and perverted and in clear and unquestionable rebellion against God. Dan has no Biblical support for supposing any SSM can be anything else but rebellion. None. But his quoting this passages about "whatsoever is true...etc." is exactly the type of Scriptural perversions typical of slavers and racists. Dan is in very bad company and clearly seems content and proud to be so.
And again with the "not a 'weddings' rule book" childishly pathetic Dan-ism!
6. Here, Dan exposes himself as a total dick by daring to include us with him, racists and rapists and worse, by suggesting that he and his friends care about Scripture.
"And we're all influenced by its teachings."
There are absolutely no teachings which have influenced your love of sexual perversity and infanticide. Don't libel Scripture, too.
Nor do we "interpret" or "use reasoning" in any way comparable to the likes of Dan and his fellow racists and rapists. We don't in any way dare suppose that what we personally find "lovely" equates to what Scripture means by using the word. We seek to determine what Scripture means and restrict our notions of lovely to align with Scripture. Scripture in no way, anywhere within its covers so much as hints at homosexuality being something it regards as lovely, or at marriage being anything other than one man/one woman.
To Dan, "reasoning" is akin to reading the cooking instructions on a can of soup and then "reasoning" it means to jam a fork in his eye. What he "reasons" has no discernible relation to the text. That's because he wasn't "reasoning" at all, but rather, he inserts his desired meaning into Scripture to rationalize his support for his favored sexual perversions and disregard for human life.
Asshole...I mean, "Dan" (which is the same thing), then goes on to dare disparage our reasoning...more to the point, the very notion of "reasoning"...in order to attempt to shame those of us who don't regard Scripture as a log of shit he's pulled from his diaper. That he regards that shit as "reasoning" and worse, informed by Scripture, is about as sacrilegious and blasphemous as one can be.
"Clearly, two gay folk, two lesbians marry are true, honest, just and pure."
Not even close. They're depraved and perverted and in clear and unquestionable rebellion against God. Dan has no Biblical support for supposing any SSM can be anything else but rebellion. None. But his quoting this passages about "whatsoever is true...etc." is exactly the type of Scriptural perversions typical of slavers and racists. Dan is in very bad company and clearly seems content and proud to be so.
And again with the "not a 'weddings' rule book" childishly pathetic Dan-ism!
6. Here, Dan exposes himself as a total dick by daring to include us with him, racists and rapists and worse, by suggesting that he and his friends care about Scripture.
"And we're all influenced by its teachings."
There are absolutely no teachings which have influenced your love of sexual perversity and infanticide. Don't libel Scripture, too.
Nor do we "interpret" or "use reasoning" in any way comparable to the likes of Dan and his fellow racists and rapists. We don't in any way dare suppose that what we personally find "lovely" equates to what Scripture means by using the word. We seek to determine what Scripture means and restrict our notions of lovely to align with Scripture. Scripture in no way, anywhere within its covers so much as hints at homosexuality being something it regards as lovely, or at marriage being anything other than one man/one woman.
To Dan, "reasoning" is akin to reading the cooking instructions on a can of soup and then "reasoning" it means to jam a fork in his eye. What he "reasons" has no discernible relation to the text. That's because he wasn't "reasoning" at all, but rather, he inserts his desired meaning into Scripture to rationalize his support for his favored sexual perversions and disregard for human life.
Asshole...I mean, "Dan" (which is the same thing), then goes on to dare disparage our reasoning...more to the point, the very notion of "reasoning"...in order to attempt to shame those of us who don't regard Scripture as a log of shit he's pulled from his diaper. That he regards that shit as "reasoning" and worse, informed by Scripture, is about as sacrilegious and blasphemous as one can be.
Wow. I should have proofread better. I contradicted myself several times.
Feel free.
"Rightly understood:"
How insane and out of touch with reality must one be to take what I actually wrote, rewrite in into some twisted perversion of what I wrote, than have the gall to claim that the straw man is what is "rightly understood". But we should absolutely trust you with scripture when you pervert something so simple, so easily.
"I DO deny your human tradition's extrabiblical theories and unproven opinions about your pet theory of "original sin," a term and idea NOT found in the Bible and certainly NOT found in Jesus' teachings."
Misrepresent and deny all you want. But that doesn't mean you get to make up your own Truth.
That you think that Genesis is a myth, is all well and good. That you can't prove it, is a problem for you. But I'll deal with that later.
As soon as you get out your microscope and show me the data and evidence on intrinsic goodness and freedom from Sin, we can talk. Until you do what you demand of others, I see no reason to take your foolishness seriously.
"The Pelagian heresy is a set of beliefs, condemned by the Christian church, that denies original sin and asserts that humans are born in a state of innocence, capable of achieving salvation through their own free will and efforts without the need for divine grace."
"Humans are fully capable of choosing to obey God's commandments on their own.
Nature of grace:
Divine grace is not seen as a necessary, transformative power to overcome sin, but rather as assistance in the form of God's law or the example of Jesus Christ.
Possibility of human perfection:
Because humans are capable of choosing good, it is possible to live a sinless life and achieve perfect righteousness through personal effort. "
So it's a little more complex than your cherry picked snippet. But I appreciate you acknowledging that you hold a Pelagian position.
"Is it okay with you if I disagree with the opinion you and your friends hold?"
Let's start with the fact that this is not some "opinion" that I 'and my friends" hold. It's literally the historic, default position of thousands of years of experts. By all means, disagree with historic Christian doctrine all you want. Your unwillingness to consider alternative views is legendary, I wouldn't want to get between you, your pride, and your Reason. Although, if given the choice to side with Augustine of Hippo or Dan of Louisville, I know who I'd feel more confident in siding with.
"OR, if I dare to disagree with your little theories, does that make me a heretic?"
Again with the straw man bullshit. Pelagius was labeled a heretic by people with much more gravitas than you as an individual posses. If you choose Pelagius, draw your own conclusion.
Do you disagree with that? Do you think that's old Father Adam, sneaking in our brains and hands to make us do naughty bits?
"But if your personal human tradition considers it "heretical" to not believe in an historic Adam literally passing on naughtiness in our naughty genes and thus making us "totally depraved..." Then IN THAT HUMAN TRADITION's mind, I am a heretic."
Again with the straw man/misrepresentation. When you clearly can't articulate the positions you claim to oppose, how could you possibly think that you'd be taken seriously? But if you want to wear your heresy with pride, you do you.
"But that human tradition does not speak authoritatively and objectively for God. THAT would be heretical and blasphemous, wouldn't it?"
Not if it accurately represented YHWH.
As far as the Genesis as "myth" excuse. Let's try this on.
The Hebrew scriptures were passed down orally for hundreds/thousands of years before they were written down. We know from actual scientific studies based on data driven research that orally transmitted history is passed down with a very high degree of accuracy.
We further know that the Hebrew Scriptures were written down as a response to the exile of the Jews from Israel. At the time they were written down there were other cultures, with alternative origin myths.
What if, the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures (at least the Torah) chose to transcribe their accurate, oral, historical, traditions in ways that were similar to those opposing myths? What if the goal of that stylistic choice was to give the exiled Hebrews an origin story that was similar in style, but different in substance?
I had just about come to the end of my response to this comment of Dan's...one very detailed so as to provide no opening for any of Dan's nonsense, though he always finds a way...but instead of copy/pasting a link to another window to research what Dan claims belittles the bit about the Pelagian heresy, I hit "open" and doing so erased my unfinished comment. You touched on some of what I covered. The rest is simply pointing out each time he defaulted to one of his pet tactics instead of actually presenting any evidence to prove we're wrong, instead defaulting to labeling facts we present and support as "opinion" or "theory", which he believes allows him to avoid doing what he demands of us.
It's notable that he once again proves he's far more reverent of science than he is of Scripture. If the Spiritual doesn't conform with the Laws of Nature, the the miraculous never happened. Of course, it doesn't matter science is incapable of measuring or repeating a miraculous event...such as Creation, or the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...thus it certainly can't measure our sin nature despite the fact we all have one.
That is simply how Dan operates, he insists that we're wrong without proving that we're wrong, but won't actually insist that he's right because he can't prove that he's right. So he hides in the ambiguity and never has to prove his own claims.
One more comment of Dan's aborted.
First, because he failed to answer the question as asked, not even trying and simply asking more questions.
Second, because he is clearly obsessed with finding a loophole around the fact that he's been asked to stop with the condescending crap.
Post a Comment