PDA

View Full Version : The Paradigm Effect



Clete
August 4th, 2015, 07:49 AM
I've mentioned several times in various posts that there's an obstacle having to do with overcoming a person's paradigm when attempting to have a substantive and productive conversation or respectful debate. I realized that I hadn't really spent a lot of time putting my thoughts into words and so I thought I'd start a thread on the topic and see if anyone has some interesting thoughts on the issue.

First of all we should start by defining what a paradigm is. A paradigm is a set of assumptions that we use, mostly unconsciously, to filter information of a given topic. They are quite useful, indispensable really. Without them we'd be forced to think through every idea every time it came up. This would of course make communication very cumbersome if not impossible. But how do you know that your paradigm is right? It's a rather difficult question to answer because your paradigm will tend to filter out any answer to that question that conflicts with the paradigm itself and you won't know its happened. This phenomenon is referred to as the Paradigm Effect.


The phrase "Paradigm Effect" was coined by Joel Barker; the actual theory was found by Thomas Khun.
This Theory states that what goes against one's paradigm (their world view, what they know to be true) will be nearly impossible for them to see. For example if someone was to quickly flip through a pack of cards that contained a black 5 of hearts, you would probably see it as a 5 of spades or clubs because your paradigm is that black cards are clubs and spades and red cards are hearts and diamonds. Someone who has never seen a deck of cards would see the black 5 of hearts for what it truly was because they had no expectations, or previous paradigms. - source (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_paradigm_effect_and_who_found_it)

Another phrase used to describe this psychological phenomenon is "Paradigm Paralysis". This is generally used to describe a situation in which important decisions are made (or more often not made) in ignorance even though the needed information is right under the decision maker's nose but is made invisible by their paradigm. "We've never done it that way before and its worked just fine!" is the mantra of the man suffering from paradigm paralysis.

I am convinced that the primary reason why very little progress is ever made toward convincing people of anything, not just here at TOL but anywhere, is because of the paradigm effect. Discussions very seldom reach to the level of paradigm analysis because almost no one is willing to question their paradigm. And when someone's paradigm is challenged the response is almost always to ignore the challenge and to deflect to another topic. This is especially true when its a religious or theological paradigm that is being challenged. Most people are simply not willing to touch their theological paradigm at all. It costs way too much.

People have invested their lives into the construction of their theological paradigm. A person inherits their theological paradigm from whoever raises them initially, even if that paradigm is an atheistic one, but typically, by the age of twenty a person has either made that paradigm their own or they've rejected it in favor of another. In either case, they've set out on a particular road that takes little effort to stay on but a very great deal of effort to get off of. Much more effort than most are even capable of, never mind willing to exert. It never even occurs to most people to ask whether or not the road they're on is the right one and most of the people who do think to ask such a question have no idea how to answer it. Those who do ask and manage to get an answer typically only accept the answer they happen to get reaffirms their theological paradigm. It is the rarest of men who both discover that their lives are on the wrong path and who are willing to discard the faith of their youth and to embark down unfamiliar theological paths in search for the objective truth.

In this thread, I'd like to explore different paradigm level ideas. You might find it rather difficult to discern which ideas are at paradigm level and which are not, I know I do! But that's sort of the point of this thread. To try to tease out the foundational ideas from the theological noise. I'll kick that process off by offering three good examples of what I think are clearly a paradigm level theological concepts.

1. Does God exist?

Obviously paradigm level stuff.

2. The attributes of God: Quality vs. Quantity

This concept of God's qualitative attributes vs. His quantitative attributes where clearly presented and brilliantly argued by Bob Enyart in a Battle Royale X (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711). Calvinists try to suggest that they give no preference to any of God's attributes over any others but they do and so does everyone else. It turns out that you are forced to and the fact that you are forced to choose is what makes this a paradigm level concept because a decision here effects almost everything that comes after.

3. Why was Paul made an apostle?

This is a question very few Christians ever think to ask but that all Christians answer whether directly or implicitly and the answer to the question has gigantic influence over the whole rest of your Christian philosophy. In fact, nearly every theological debate you can name hinges on the answer to this question. Everything from whether water baptism is need for salvation to whether one can loose their salvation or what foods you are allowed eat all hinge on how you answer the question, “Why Paul?”. I therefore consider it to be a paradigm level concept.


Okay, so there's three idea ideas, what are some more? Also, if you have any ideas about how to objectively analyze one's theological paradigm, I'd be very interested in reading that as well.

By the way, let's try our best not to debate the ideas here just let's try to figure out which ideas are at the paradigm level and which are not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

chrysostom
August 4th, 2015, 08:08 AM
I hate that word paradigm
but
I will play along

how many significant paradigms do we have here?

I will try to name them

mad
calvinist
catholic
protestant
non-trins

saying you are christian is not really telling at all

so who at tol are properly identified?

catholics and protestants

that's it
it is very hard to identify all the others
and
that makes it hard to understand what they are saying
so
this is where you start
start identifying yourselves

RevTestament
August 4th, 2015, 12:01 PM
My religious "paradigm" has been shifted several times in my life. I was born into a "Protestant" family, but I have always been a bit idealistic, and have always found myself questioning what I am presented with by the world. So maybe I am one of the "rare" persons you mention. But I really don't know that they are so rare as you suggest. People become Christian and non-Christian all the time, so there is one paradigm for your thread: Christian. I am constantly told on internet forums that I am not a "Christian" because I don't accept the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith or because I believe I can be like Christ, etc.
Another way to talk about paradigms is interpretive "boxes." I pose because of the very nature of language and words which "mean things," we all tend to put things into categories in order to remember them that way. So we have labels for people which we try to sort everyone we run across into each label.

I feel the very nature of God resists being put into a box, or labelled with "a trinity" for example. I try to let God tell me who He is rather than vice versa.

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

chrysostom
August 4th, 2015, 12:12 PM
I am constantly told on internet forums that I am not a "Christian" because I don't accept the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith or because I believe I can be like Christ, etc.

what is the best way to describe you

mormon?
or
christian?

Clete
August 4th, 2015, 03:23 PM
I hate that word paradigm
but
I will play along

how many significant paradigms do we have here?

I will try to name them

mad
calvinist
catholic
protestant
non-trins

saying you are christian is not really telling at all

so who at tol are properly identified?

catholics and protestants

that's it
it is very hard to identify all the others
and
that makes it hard to understand what they are saying
so
this is where you start
start identifying yourselves
I appreciate you playing along but are you sure those are paradigms?

I suppose in one sense they are but what I've got in mind has to do with the ideas that form the building block of things like Calvinism or Catholicism etc. It's the ideas that cause a Catholic not to get the point when a protestant (of any stripe) speaks about grace, for example. Its what causes words to have different meanings in the ears of a Calvinist than they have in anyone else's.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
August 4th, 2015, 03:27 PM
My religious "paradigm" has been shifted several times in my life. I was born into a "Protestant" family, but I have always been a bit idealistic, and have always found myself questioning what I am presented with by the world. So maybe I am one of the "rare" persons you mention. But I really don't know that they are so rare as you suggest. People become Christian and non-Christian all the time, so there is one paradigm for your thread: Christian. I am constantly told on internet forums that I am not a "Christian" because I don't accept the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith or because I believe I can be like Christ, etc.
Another way to talk about paradigms is interpretive "boxes." I pose because of the very nature of language and words which "mean things," we all tend to put things into categories in order to remember them that way. So we have labels for people which we try to sort everyone we run across into each label.

I feel the very nature of God resists being put into a box, or labelled with "a trinity" for example. I try to let God tell me who He is rather than vice versa.

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

By what standard do you judge the paradigm you have now and conclude that it is superior to the ones of your youth?

And on a side note...

Is God righteous?
Or would saying so be to put God in a box in your view?

Resting in Him,
Clete

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 01:54 AM
do you want to talk about this?




I am convinced that the primary reason why very little progress is every made toward convincing people of anything,

or waste a lot of time talking about what a paradigm is?


I appreciate you playing along but are you sure those are paradigms?

iamaberean
August 5th, 2015, 02:42 AM
Clete,

This is probably one of the most important post that could be made. How one believes the word of God, many times, is mainly what they were taught in church when they were children.

Ten years ago, my son went to a conference where they spent a week just praying and speaking about God and their beliefs. From that conference he came back a different man with a different perspective about God and the church. Shorty afterwards he ask me if I could confirm what he had learned. When he told me what that was I just knew he must have been taught something wrong. After a few weeks he came back again and ask me to please check it out. So the first thing I did was to go to God and ask him to show me, by scripture, if my son was right or not.

It took me a least two months of study but in the end I had a new understanding, a paradigm shift if you will, on how to understand God's word.

1. The old testament was written to the Jews, not us.

2. The gospels were written about the coming of the Jews messiah, Jesus, and his coming to earth as it was foretold to them in the old testament. (He didn't come as the Gentiles messiah.)

3. Jesus, as the Jews messiah, told them, Jews not Gentiles, that he would come in judgment of them because of their unbelief and rejection of him.

4. The epistles were written to the early churches, not to us.

5. The book of Revelation was about the judgment that was about to come upon the Jews.

The paradigm shift is to read the bible as we would a novel. It should not be read as if God is speaking directly to us. It has been written for our understanding as to how we should live and believe God.

Don't make it about you, because it isn't.

Most people will never get it!

annabenedetti
August 5th, 2015, 05:52 AM
I am convinced that the primary reason why very little progress is every made toward convincing people of anything, not just here at TOL but anywhere, is because of the paradigm effect. Discussions very seldom reach to the level of paradigm analysis because almost no one is willing to question their paradigm. And when someone's paradigm is challenged the response is almost always to ignore the challenge and to deflect to another topic. This is especially true when its a religious or theological paradigm that is being challenged. Most people are simply not willing to touch their theological paradigm at all. It costs way too much.

People have invested their lives into the construction of their theological paradigm. A person inherits their theological paradigm from whoever raises them initially, even if that paradigm is an atheistic one, but typically, by the age of twenty a person has either made that paradigm their own or they've rejected it in favor of another. In either case, they've set out on a particular road that takes little effort to stay on but a very great deal of effort to get off of.

I enjoyed reading your OP. I thought you might be interested in Leon Festinger, his study of a doomsday cult in the 1950s and their reactions when the world didn't end when they expected it to. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails)

I've posted about him here before, but I don't think those posts survived the recent pruning, except for this one quote:
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

Leon Festinger
Your topic is very interesting, even if we might not agree on particulars.

And a couple more links, if you're interested:

Disconfirmed expectancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disconfirmed_expectancy)

Cognitive dissonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Clete
August 5th, 2015, 06:21 AM
Clete,

This is probably one of the most important post that could be made. How one believes the word of God, many times, is mainly what they were taught in church when they were children.

Ten years ago, my son went to a conference where they spent a week just praying and speaking about God and their beliefs. From that conference he came back a different man with a different perspective about God and the church. Shorty afterwards he ask me if I could confirm what he had learned. When he told me what that was I just knew he must have been taught something wrong. After a few weeks he came back again and ask me to please check it out. So the first thing I did was to go to God and ask him to show me, by scripture, if my son was right or not.

It took me a least two months of study but in the end I had a new understanding, a paradigm shift if you will, on how to understand God's word.

1. The old testament was written to the Jews, not us.

2. The gospels were written about the coming of the Jews messiah, Jesus, and his coming to earth as it was foretold to them in the old testament. (He didn't come as the Gentiles messiah.)

3. Jesus, as the Jews messiah, told them, Jews not Gentiles, that he would come in judgment of them because of their unbelief and rejection of him.

4. The epistles were written to the early churches, not to us.

5. The book of Revelation was about the judgment that was about to come upon the Jews.

The paradigm shift is to read the bible as we would a novel. It should not be read as if God is speaking directly to us. It has been written for our understanding as to how we should live and believe God.

Don't make it about you, because it isn't.

Most people will never get it!
I'd agree with most of that except that the Pauline epistles and only the Pauline epistles where written to Gentiles. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and when he went to the 12 apostles to explain his ministry they all agreed that they (the 12) would ministry to the Circumcision (Jews) and he would minister to the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) (Galatians 2:9).

Which incidentally, defines the most important paradigm shift in my entire life by far. Once you see this, it changes nearly everything.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
August 5th, 2015, 06:22 AM
do you want to talk about this?



or waste a lot of time talking about what a paradigm is?

I think the former will be served by the latter.

iamaberean
August 5th, 2015, 07:27 AM
I'd agree with most of that except that the Pauline epistles and only the Pauline epistles where written to Gentiles. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and when he went to the 12 apostles to explain his ministry they all agreed that they (the 12) would ministry to the Circumcision (Jews) and he would minister to the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) (Galatians 2:9).

Which incidentally, defines the most important paradigm shift in my entire life by far. Once you see this, it changes nearly everything.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

I agree with the fact the epistles were written to Gentiles, but my comment was the fact that they were not written to us.
My closing comment was:
The paradigm shift is to read the bible as we would a novel. It should not be read as if God is speaking directly to us. It has been written for our understanding as to how we should live and believe God.

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 08:24 AM
I think the former will be served by the latter.

the word is already defined

why would you want to change it?

Clete
August 5th, 2015, 09:52 AM
Clete,

I agree with the fact the epistles were written to Gentiles, but my comment was the fact that they were not written to us.
My closing comment was:
The paradigm shift is to read the bible as we would a novel. It should not be read as if God is speaking directly to us. It has been written for our understanding as to how we should live and believe God.


Well my point being that we are Gentiles because we aren't Jews. And even if that logic didn't follow Paul's a epistles still apply directly to us because now there is no Jew or Gentile. There will come a time when God returns to Israel and then they'll be Jews and Gentiles again but for now everybody is just people and the epistles that apply directly are those written by Paul.

Which is an interesting distinction because I think that also is a form of paradigm. And or if it's not a paradigm the distinction is created by paradigm.

In any case I'm more interested in the process that you used to determine whether your current paradigm is superior to your previous one. How did you know that making this paradigm shift was the right thing to do?

Resting in Him,
Clete

northwye
August 5th, 2015, 10:05 AM
This is an important thread. One of the reasons Dean Gotcher is not liked in the churches is because what he is talking about is a paradigm shift, and in talking about that he is over the heads of almost all church members. And they do not like that. Gotcher is a preacher and a scholar, and they don't like that either. Because as a preacher he is a remnant leader and as a scholar he says things they do not understand but have some vague impression that he is being critical of the churches.

To be interested in and talking about paradigms is like being interested in and talking about epistemology.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

"As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? "

Epistemology is a study of the ways we create knowledge. Revelation from God to men of old by the Holy Spirit is a way we gain knowledge. And this knowledge is absolute truth and cannot be changed or compromised by man, though man has done so.

Experimental science is another way of creating knowledge. Depending on what is being observed and the methods used for observation and recording of data, scientific findings are knowledge, but are not absolute truth. Scientific knowledge can be changed, refined, and added to and rarely completely overturned - if the scientists that do the research are honest.

There is "hard" experimental science and there is "soft" experimental science. There are laws of physics which are based upon hard science, which is knowledge with a greater amount of truth, or absolute nature. Then, there is work in sociology and in some areas of psychology, that is soft science, which is not so absolute in truth because the methods of manipulation of variables and observation of results are not very exact and when the research is replicated the results are not exactly the same each time as in some experiments in physics.

But scientific knowledge is better than opinion, which could be considered to be another way of gaining knowledge.

Karl Marx comes along and begins to make use of the Hegelian dialectic as a way of changing the society through changing its paradigm, in order to set up a totalitarian government and society.

This is where Dean Gotcher loses most of his audience. They do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic can be used to change paradigms, even if they have some idea of what a paradigm is.

In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

Benjamin Bloom, who wrote the two volume book on the Taxonomy
of Educational Goal Objectives, by which all teachers must be
certified, said "We recognize the point of view that
truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and
fast truths which exist for all time and places.” (Benjamin Bloom, et
al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)

With the Hegelian dialectic, there are two opposing positions, or attitudes, or beliefs, and these two clashing positions are to be resolved in a compromise. The thesis and the anti-thesis conflict and the result is the synthesis, which is brought about to change paradigms.

In a culture dominated by Biblical Christian thought, the word of God is absolute truth. You cannot, or must not, compromise that absolute truth by running it though the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic, so that an argument in opposition to an absolute truth from Scripture results in a compromise which moves the position a little away from absolute truth, that is, it compromises it. Then, the same process is carried out again and the absolute truth is compromised a little more, and on and on. Finally, you have changed the paradigm, so in the minds of those who have been led into the dialectic mind set, there is no longer an absolute truth any more in scripture, but everything is relative and subject to change. Gotcher talks about relationships of affection being effective in bringing change to the positions people take, or to their truth.

Danoh
August 5th, 2015, 10:41 AM
I hate that word paradigm
but
I will play along

how many significant paradigms do we have here?

I will try to name them

mad
calvinist
catholic
protestant
non-trins

saying you are christian is not really telling at all

so who at tol are properly identified?

catholics and protestants

that's it
it is very hard to identify all the others
and
that makes it hard to understand what they are saying
so
this is where you start
start identifying yourselves

Your words hereinabove, a portrait of you own paradigm's unavoidable influence on your sense of "that word...paradigm."

Now... step up one level above your paradigm... and look down from there at your paradigm below you... see it? See its limits?

Look to its' left from up there above it...and look to its' right... notice all you left out of your conclusion...note your paradigm's limited perspective...

RevTestament
August 5th, 2015, 12:20 PM
what is the best way to describe you

mormon?
or
christian?

Thank you for asking Chrys. I think you are the only one who has ever asked me that! :)
I chose the LDS-Mormon moniker because LDS is acceptable to me, and I don't want people to think I am trying to deceive them.
I refer to myself as a LDS Christian. I don't use "Mormon" for several reasons.
First, that leads to being called the "Mormon Church" which makes a church the church of a man rather than the Church of Jesus so I try to avoid it.
Secondly, I don't accept the "Mormon" paradigm others put on me when that word is used. I don't really know what "Mormon" means to them. I don't believe everything every "Mormon" has ever written. What other people tend to think of when they say "Mormon" is not what I think of myself. I don't think of polygamy as "necessary" or exalting. I don't think of God having "spirit babies" in heaven, or other such nonsense. Yet, those are often the first things other Christians will think when they see "Mormon." I think of myself simply as someone trying to follow Christ since He is the Way.

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 12:36 PM
Thank you for asking Chrys. I think you are the only one who has ever asked me that! :)
I chose the LDS-Mormon moniker because LDS is acceptable to me, and I don't want people to think I am trying to deceive them.
I refer to myself as a LDS Christian. I don't use "Mormon" for several reasons.
First, that leads to being called the "Mormon Church" which makes a church the church of a man rather than the Church of Jesus so I try to avoid it.
Secondly, I don't accept the "Mormon" paradigm others put on me when that word is used. I don't really know what "Mormon" means to them. I don't believe everything every "Mormon" has ever written. What other people tend to think of when they say "Mormon" is not what I think of myself. I don't think of polygamy as "necessary" or exalting. I don't think of God having "spirit babies" in heaven, or other such nonsense. Yet, those are often the first things other Christians will think when they see "Mormon." I think of myself simply as someone trying to follow Christ since He is the Way.

so why would you call yourself christian?
we won't know if you believe Jesus is God
we won't know if you believe in free will
we won't know if you are saved
we won't know if you say the Lord's prayer
so
what does it mean to follow Christ?

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 12:41 PM
Your words hereinabove, a portrait of you own paradigm's unavoidable influence on your sense of "that word...paradigm."

Now... step up one level above your paradigm... and look down from there at your paradigm below you... see it? See its limits?

Look to its' left from up there above it...and look to its' right... notice all you left out of your conclusion...note your paradigm's limited perspective...

my paradigm is catholic
that tells you a lot about myself
and
you are protestant
so
what should that tell me about yourself?

RevTestament
August 5th, 2015, 01:05 PM
By what standard do you judge the paradigm you have now and conclude that it is superior to the ones of your youth?

And on a side note...

Is God righteous?
Or would saying so be to put God in a box in your view?

Resting in Him,
Clete
Is God righteous? Yes. The scriptures tell us so. But understanding that righteousness is probably different for different people - hence different paradigms or "boxes" of understanding. I think it is quite important to understand that we are interpreting what God has told us, and that it is possible that we have done so incorrectly, and that God doesn't fault us for that if our efforts have been sincere. If not how is anyone to find truth? If we are not open to understanding a new concept, how can we learn? From the moment we are born we start learning - trying things, failing, and learning from our experiences.

My earliest paradigm was everything my parents told me was the truth. But I soon learned they were imperfect. As I learned about God in Church, I began to form a paradigm of Him. But I eventually read things in the Bible which seemed to conflict with the doctrine of the trinity which declares Christ as co-equal with the Father. Christ did not know all things, and therefore was not omnipotent. Christ said it was not His to give to sit on His right or His left, but that would be given to whom it is prepared - indicating the Father knew others He would give that right to. The traditional paradigm I was taught just did not explain these things.

So I was willing to listen to missionaries from a new church I had never heard of before, and many of my questions were answered using the Bible. This is why I say the Bible converted me to the LDS Church when I talk about it.
How is that better or to use your word - "superior"? I am able to have a testimony that I am indeed following God in truth, and not just by the teachings of men. Yet, I developed further questions about the gospel while in the LDS church. I came to feel I did not understand the atonement, and feel that I eventually developed an understanding of it which was another paradigm shift for me. Rather than being just something that Jesus was doing for us, it is something He was teaching us. He is a teacher of example rather than force.

So by being willing to reexamine my own paradigms, I believe my understanding of God has grown over the years. When people bash me for not believing like them, I turn them off. When people invite me to believe like them, or to examine their paradigm, I am much more willing to believe it is of God, and to examine it for myself.

Christ is the way to the holiest of all. But what the "holiest of all" is can be quite different for a MAD vs Calvinist vs etc.
I see God as being in His own paradigm, which He teaches us in His Word. He is trying to teach us His paradigm. But I also believe there are things He has taught which are not in His Word, or at least weren't at one time. So I see Him as continuing to teach us. I see the Son as His revelation of Himself to us, so to understand Jesus is to understand the Father. That is basically my present paradigm.

Man.0
August 5th, 2015, 01:39 PM
I try to let God tell me who He is rather than vice versa.

Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation.

annabenedetti
August 5th, 2015, 01:43 PM
my paradigm is catholic
that tells you a lot about myself


Sort of. You're the only Catholic I know who believes in reincarnation and pantheism.

RevTestament
August 5th, 2015, 01:46 PM
so why would you call yourself christian? Because that is what most people identify as being a follower of Christ since the time the Way spread to Antioch, which is how I view myself.

we won't know if you believe Jesus is God Wow... the English G word which comes from Gott. I prefer to think of God in Hebrew words which give Hebraic connotations or meanings. But possibly to answer your question I believe although Jesus is not El Elyon, the Most High "God," He is JHWH Elohim with Him.

we won't know if you believe in free will Not all "Christians" seem to ie Calvinist. I believe we can choose between the good and the bad, but that there are aspects of our lives which are not necessarily "free." ie Read the story of Job.

we won't know if you are saved That is a word whose meaning can have several different connotations. Let's just say I believe I am presently saved, but I am a work in progress....
Others of course believe what they want.

we won't know if you say the Lord's prayer
so
what does it mean to follow Christ?
My personal take is that none of us do that perfectly. But if we are giving our true effort that is accounted as righteousness, and His atonement makes up the difference, which is how we are saved by grace.

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 01:47 PM
Sort of. You're the only Catholic I know who believes in reincarnation and pantheism.

is that a show stopper?

if so
please explain why

annabenedetti
August 5th, 2015, 01:53 PM
is that a show stopper?

if so
please explain why

Your paradigm isn't a Catholic paradigm.

It's uniquely your paradigm, but it's not an archetypal Catholic paradigm.

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 01:58 PM
Your paradigm isn't a Catholic paradigm.

It's uniquely your paradigm, but it's not an archetypal Catholic paradigm.

how is it inconsistent with the catholic paradigm?

no one else needs to believe this
I need it to make sense of the world I live in
few need to do that

annabenedetti
August 5th, 2015, 02:02 PM
how is it inconsistent with the catholic paradigm?

Because Catholicism doesn't teach either reincarnation or pantheism.


no one else needs to believe this
I need it to make sense of the world I live in
few need to do thatI'm not faulting you. It's your paradigm, and if you need it to make sense of the world you live in, and it works for you, I'm glad.

It's just that when you say you're Catholic, most people will assume that you believe in neither of those two things.

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 02:06 PM
Because Catholicism doesn't teach either reincarnation or pantheism.

I'm not faulting you. It's your paradigm, and if you need it to make sense of the world you live in, and it works for you, I'm glad.

It's just that when you say you're Catholic, most people will assume that you believe in neither of those two things.

that's okay
I am not promoting those beliefs
they are not necessary

Clete
August 6th, 2015, 06:25 AM
Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation.

How do you tell the difference?

chrysostom
August 6th, 2015, 06:35 AM
How do you tell the difference?

good question

do you have an answer for that?

SaulToPaul
August 6th, 2015, 07:07 AM
I will give anyone my pair of dimes in exchange for a quarter.

chrysostom
August 6th, 2015, 08:31 AM
Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation.


How do you tell the difference?


good question

do you have an answer for that?

anyone?

Danoh
August 6th, 2015, 09:24 AM
I will give anyone my pair of dimes in exchange for a quarter.

Exactly!

I remember a Fair I was at as a child, in a small town. Ice cones were a dime.

That summer I came to "know" what a dime was because, to my child's mind, back then, that torch on the other side of the dime, was "an ice cream cone - dimes are for ice cream..."

So I ask the old man for money for ice cream. He hands me a quarter and walks off. Needless to say, I was not too happy, lol.

From within my paradigm "happiness" was "a dime - ice cream money!!!"

In 1 Corinthians 2 the Apostle Paul relates that what he was speaking of, his spirit had received from God, by His Spirit, concerning the mind of Christ on the things of God:

12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

He then relates...

14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

He then returns to this contrast between those two in chapter 3:

1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

In chapter 12, he continues to deal with this problem:

1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

And in chapter 13, he compares the difference between how a child sees things, and how and adult will:

11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

What he is dong is relating a contrast between allowing oneself to look at things through the fleshly mind, and that mind that looks at things through the mind of Christ contained in Scripture.

2 Corinthians 10:

2. But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4. [For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;]
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Colossians 3:

16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

How can one know one's knowledge is of God through revelation, and not interpretation.

I just laid out how, as well as what the difference is between the two.

"Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom... that ye might know what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, Rom. 12:2 - through - His - Word - dwelling - in - you - through - time - in - His - Word - that "by reason of use" you might come to a "full age" your "senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

All else is the fleshly mind - its' owner "useth milk" he "is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe... yet carnal"

Hebrews 5:

12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of
strong meat.
13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

RevTestament
August 6th, 2015, 10:27 AM
anyone?

By the very nature of language we interpret the revelations of God we read. Since the time we began to learn our language we build a "paradigm" for each word we learn and what it "means." So we try to communicate back and forth using these "common" meanings. But one person's "common" meaning may not be another person's common meaning. I can give many examples of this. Jesus used the word "dog." Was He being derogatory or not?
The most common debate regarding biblical language is whether it is literal or not.
When I read the KJV the meanings of some of the archaic English words have completely changed. So I have to try to understand them within their original context. The same applies to the language patterns of the Hebrews. Using a straightforward literal interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek often will miss the context of the meaning.
It is important to know the Hebrews tried to understand scriptural language not in terms of a linear or fixed meaning or "box." They viewed it more in terms Pardes, or "layers" so to speak. God understood this so He spoke to them within this context. He also told the people that He used "similitudes" when speaking to them by the ministry of the prophets. Hosea
Here are the 4 main Pardes/approaches:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.
Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'sore') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
PRDS - PaRDeS
Jesus spoke in parables so that allegorical and inspirational meanings were hidden except to followers. Many of His deepest teachings on the kingdom were given this way. Why? I pose it is because there is much more to the kingdom than just being "saved." Paulines who jump up and down each week because someone is "saved" by accepting the name of Jesus are missing the vast tapestry of the word - imho of course.

Going back to what Man.O said "Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation" - what I do is get a feel for the meaning in a literal sense. If it seems to be symbolic, then I try to understand the symbolism being used. God usually teaches His symbolism.
For instance from Daniel we learn that stars can refer to men. Yet there is a poster on TOL who regularly posts about the falling stars of Revelation as being an asteroid or comet which is going to hit the earth...
From Daniel 7 we also learn that beasts are ruling countries, kingdoms or peoples. "King" can also be used this way rather than just referring to one individual.
We learn that in a prophetic vision "days" may refer to years, etc.

Books like Isaiah are couched in reams of allegorical and symbolic language. They simply cannot be fully understood from strictly a literal sense. To understand them one must thoroughly learn the language of God in His Word, and pray about what one doesn't seem to fully understand. We find Daniel doing as much in Daniel 9. In summation, to receive the revelation of scripture we must understand the paradigm of His Word from His Word.

Since God will only reveal some of His mysteries when the appointed time comes and probably to those for whom it is appointed, sometimes we will just have to be satisfied with our present understanding. For example the vision of Daniel 11&12 is a complex vision which says some will exalt themselves to establish the vision but will fail. According to it, the vision was shared by none but the angel and Michael (the ancient of days) Daniel 10:21, and is revealed when the Ancient of Days stands up at the end. To those who claim there will be no more "prophets," I guess this vision will never be established and is moot - they will not believe that the vision could be referring to our day, nor whoever reveals it.

Man.0
August 6th, 2015, 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by Man.0
Yes, we should have knowledge of God through revelation, not interpretation.
How do you tell the difference?

Interpret means to 'to explain the meaning of (something). : to understand (something) in a specified way' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

Revelation means: 'a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. b : something that is revealed by God to humans.' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with interpretation of the Scriptures. I believe it is only wrong when the interpretation is devoid of Divine understanding - which comes via revelation. And that's one way you can tell the difference. If your understanding has come from God, it is revelation. But if your understanding has come from yourself, your own reasoning, then it is your own interpretation. And what does the bible say about such interpretation?

'...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' (1 Peter 1:20-21)

Revelation, I believe, is necessary, to understand the spiritual meanings of Scripture. Would Philip have been able to correctly interpret the Scriptures, to the Ethopian, without having had revelation from God?

Revelation is certainly needed before one can correctly interpret. But what many carnal men are doing - through such practices as exegesis and hermeneutics - is trying to interpret the Word of God, without God. And in doing so, they arrive at many dreadfully wrong conclusions.

One of the main differences between revelation and personal interpretation is that revelation is objective, and comes from God; while personal interpretation is subjective, and comes from one's own mind.

If you are reading the bible and arrive at a conclusion through your own reasoning; then that is surely due to personal interpretation. On the other hand, have you arrived at a conclusion which you could not have reached by yourself? Then that is, I believe, because of revelation.

chrysostom
August 6th, 2015, 01:54 PM
By the very nature of language we interpret the revelations of God we read.




Revelation is certainly needed before one can correctly interpret.

so it really comes down to
who reveals it to us
and
how it is revealed to us
now
everyone can claim that it is God who is revealing it to them
who can argue with that?
who can prove it?
but
you would think God would reveal the same thing to everyone
so
we really need another test
and
there are many other ones

test of time
test of numbers
reason test
source test

even the bible tells us to test the spirits
maybe not your bible
but
most other bibles actually use the word test

Clete
August 9th, 2015, 08:58 AM
Interpret means to 'to explain the meaning of (something). : to understand (something) in a specified way' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

Revelation means: 'a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. b : something that is revealed by God to humans.' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with interpretation of the Scriptures. I believe it is only wrong when the interpretation is devoid of Divine understanding - which comes via revelation. And that's one way you can tell the difference. If your understanding has come from God, it is revelation. But if your understanding has come from yourself, your own reasoning, then it is your own interpretation.
I'm not sure you understood the question.

David Koresh claimed to have had divine revelation. In fact he claim he was divine revelation and he could stand in front of you, look you straight in the face and quote scripture all day long.

How would you have advised a Branch Dravidian to be able to determine before they all died (well most of them) that he was a liar?





And what does the bible say about such interpretation?

'...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' (1 Peter 1:20-21)

Revelation, I believe, is necessary, to understand the spiritual meanings of Scripture. Would Philip have been able to correctly interpret the Scriptures, to the Ethopian, without having had revelation from God?

Revelation is certainly needed before one can correctly interpret. But what many carnal men are doing - through such practices as exegesis and hermeneutics - is trying to interpret the Word of God, without God. And in doing so, they arrive at many dreadfully wrong conclusions.
How do you know this?

By what standard do you declare hermeneutics as being carnal?

Please, please show me biblically how hermeneutics is carnal but by all means do so without using hermeneutics or exegesis.


One of the main differences between revelation and personal interpretation is that revelation is objective, and comes from God; while personal interpretation is subjective, and comes from one's own mind.
Are you saying that you've heard God speak to you audibly and that He personally told you the your doctrine was correct?

If not what are you saying? How does this divine revelation happen? Describe the experience of receiving divine revelation.


If you are reading the bible and arrive at a conclusion through your own reasoning; then that is surely due to personal interpretation. On the other hand, have you arrived at a conclusion which you could not have reached by yourself? Then that is, I believe, because of revelation.
You believe its because of revelation or you know that it is?


Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
August 9th, 2015, 09:32 AM
good question

do you have an answer for that?
Yes, I do. I'll get there.

Clete
August 9th, 2015, 09:35 AM
Is God righteous? Yes. The scriptures tell us so. But understanding that righteousness is probably different for different people - hence different paradigms or "boxes" of understanding. I think it is quite important to understand that we are interpreting what God has told us, and that it is possible that we have done so incorrectly, and that God doesn't fault us for that if our efforts have been sincere. If not how is anyone to find truth? If we are not open to understanding a new concept, how can we learn? From the moment we are born we start learning - trying things, failing, and learning from our experiences.

My earliest paradigm was everything my parents told me was the truth. But I soon learned they were imperfect. As I learned about God in Church, I began to form a paradigm of Him. But I eventually read things in the Bible which seemed to conflict with the doctrine of the trinity which declares Christ as co-equal with the Father. Christ did not know all things, and therefore was not omnipotent. Christ said it was not His to give to sit on His right or His left, but that would be given to whom it is prepared - indicating the Father knew others He would give that right to. The traditional paradigm I was taught just did not explain these things.

So I was willing to listen to missionaries from a new church I had never heard of before, and many of my questions were answered using the Bible. This is why I say the Bible converted me to the LDS Church when I talk about it.
How is that better or to use your word - "superior"? I am able to have a testimony that I am indeed following God in truth, and not just by the teachings of men. Yet, I developed further questions about the gospel while in the LDS church. I came to feel I did not understand the atonement, and feel that I eventually developed an understanding of it which was another paradigm shift for me. Rather than being just something that Jesus was doing for us, it is something He was teaching us. He is a teacher of example rather than force.

So by being willing to reexamine my own paradigms, I believe my understanding of God has grown over the years. When people bash me for not believing like them, I turn them off. When people invite me to believe like them, or to examine their paradigm, I am much more willing to believe it is of God, and to examine it for myself.

Christ is the way to the holiest of all. But what the "holiest of all" is can be quite different for a MAD vs Calvinist vs etc.
I see God as being in His own paradigm, which He teaches us in His Word. He is trying to teach us His paradigm. But I also believe there are things He has taught which are not in His Word, or at least weren't at one time. So I see Him as continuing to teach us. I see the Son as His revelation of Himself to us, so to understand Jesus is to understand the Father. That is basically my present paradigm.
Would you say that what you've said in the above post is absolutely true?

Interplanner
August 9th, 2015, 09:44 AM
RevTestament:
Christ is indeed the revelation of the Father. Not a text about him, but what Christ did.

Danoh
August 9th, 2015, 10:02 AM
Interpret means to 'to explain the meaning of (something). : to understand (something) in a specified way' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

Revelation means: 'a : an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. b : something that is revealed by God to humans.' (Merriam-webster dictionary)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with interpretation of the Scriptures. I believe it is only wrong when the interpretation is devoid of Divine understanding - which comes via revelation. And that's one way you can tell the difference. If your understanding has come from God, it is revelation. But if your understanding has come from yourself, your own reasoning, then it is your own interpretation. And what does the bible say about such interpretation?

'...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' (1 Peter 1:20-21)

Revelation, I believe, is necessary, to understand the spiritual meanings of Scripture. Would Philip have been able to correctly interpret the Scriptures, to the Ethopian, without having had revelation from God?

Revelation is certainly needed before one can correctly interpret. But what many carnal men are doing - through such practices as exegesis and hermeneutics - is trying to interpret the Word of God, without God. And in doing so, they arrive at many dreadfully wrong conclusions.

One of the main differences between revelation and personal interpretation is that revelation is objective, and comes from God; while personal interpretation is subjective, and comes from one's own mind.

If you are reading the bible and arrive at a conclusion through your own reasoning; then that is surely due to personal interpretation. On the other hand, have you arrived at a conclusion which you could not have reached by yourself? Then that is, I believe, because of revelation.

What Peter was saying in that passage was that the Scriptures were even more reliable then Peter's and his fellow Apostle's eyewitness of the Lord Himself; then their having walked with Him.

He is saying that the Scriptures are more sure then our sense of sight, touch, and all the rest because the Scriptures did not originate in man; are not men's ideas.

He is saying that this is so because God set apart the men who wrote the Scripture for the express purpose of having them do just that - of revealing His will to them through writings He moved them to write.

How words are used, when and where they are, etc., reveal the meaning intended by the person using those words.

There, in those passages, the word "private interpretation" refers to "own origin."

Note what, who [Peter] Peter is talking about when he uses that phrase, where he does, as this gives us the sense of how he is using it.

I am doing all this through the passages - not through revelation other than what the passages, by how they used words, are giving men their intended sense, or meaning.

Peter first starts off aware that he will soon be gone. The issue for him is a continuing witness that all can rely on - the written Word.

Study Church history and what you find is the notions of men. What you find is that Peter's words here were ignored as to what is to be our only source of wisdom as to the things of God - the Scripture.

Paul said the same thing in 2 Corinthians 4:

13. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
14. Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Now, note Peter's concern...

2 Peter 1:

13. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14. Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

By what means and on what sure ground, Peter?

16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

He is saying they did not make these things up. He then expands on that thought he is trying to get across:

17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

He then goes into why it is a more sure word of prophecy - that they might be able to continue to remember these things by after Peter is gone:

20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

A lost person could understand what I have just laid out. But, he will conclude it foolishness unto him. That "that was just one of those men saying that back there."

The lost person can understand it but where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is "in believing."

The lost man will not know it to be true because that requires believing that it is. For, what evidence, according to Hebrews 8:1, does a "knowing" faith require?

RevTestament
August 9th, 2015, 05:03 PM
Would you say that what you've said in the above post is absolutely true?


John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Clete
August 10th, 2015, 06:59 PM
John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Is that a 'yes'?

Dan Emanuel
August 10th, 2015, 09:06 PM
anyone?Revelation:Interpretation
Mysterium:Sacramentum


Daniel

1.0

RevTestament
August 10th, 2015, 10:21 PM
Is that a 'yes'?

Yes
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him.

Clete
August 11th, 2015, 02:57 PM
Yes
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him.

I asked the question because your post essentially teachers that there is no absolute truth. You can believe what you want so long as you're sincere.

RevTestament
August 11th, 2015, 08:37 PM
I asked the question because your post essentially teachers that there is no absolute truth. You can believe what you want so long as you're sincere.

No, I think you slightly misunderstood me. My post teaches that we are all trying to understand the absolute truth which is God's paradigm. My post teaches that most of us fail at that endeavor, and that is ok if we are giving our sincere effort to understand Him - we can still become one in Him through the atonement of Christ. Indeed God doesn't expect everyone to completely understand his Word.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Now back to did Christ do all things He had seen the Father do?

John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Man.0
August 13th, 2015, 01:32 PM
David Koresh claimed to have had divine revelation. In fact he claim he was divine revelation

' “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.' (Matthew 7:15-16)

Many have been deceived by false teachers, who themselves are rather like fishermen. For each one has their own ideological net or hook which they throw out; and together with the power of charisma and other such persuasive tools, the fish come swimming in. If a fish isn't taken in by one fisherman, well, there is guaranteed to be another fisherman that will reel them in. One who is not deceived by a Billy Graham may well be deceived by a Joseph Prince or a Joseph Smith or a Joyce Meyer.

How can one be deception-proof? Only God can prevent one from being deceived. He reveals the Truth to whoever He chooses. Darkness can be discerned only when one has received Light. If not for God I wouldn't be able to discern, and be aware of, false teachers, such as David Koresh.

There are some certain things, certain indicators that one can look out for, to identify falsity. But I must reiterate at this point that a person can do all he or she can do to be aware of falsity, but if not for God, such attempts at avoiding deception are futile. Now, this is an indicator that Koresh was not of Christ: He was a member of a religious group. No religious group or sect or denomination is true. All are false. If religion is false, and Koresh was part of one, what does that make him?

It seems you yourself have not been deceived by Koresh. But could there be other false teachers, or teachings, which have ensnared you?

And Clete, how are you able to tell that Koresh was false?

It's a wild jungle out here, Clete. Those who have not been eaten by panthers have been devoured by tigers. And those who have not been devoured by tigers, have been pounced on by leopards. Only God can save a person from being devoured by deceptive beasts.

Only He can open the eyes, to see things as they really are. That's what God has done for me. I used to be deceived by both the Jehovah Witnesses and the Restored Church of God (offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, started by Herbert Armstrong). I now know that they are all false. Only by the grace of God.


and he could stand in front of you, look you straight in the face and quote scripture all day long.

The devil, who masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) is also a quoter of Scripture. So it is no surprise that his servants are also well-versed in the verses of the bible.


How would you have advised a Branch Dravidian to be able to determine before they all died (well most of them) that he was a liar?

Even if I'd advised them to look for this or that, at the end of the day it's down to God, and Him opening a person's eyes. Only by the grace of God would a Branch Davidian have been able to have escaped the deception of Koresh.


How do you know this?

By what standard do you declare hermeneutics as being carnal?

By the fact that it was devised by carnal men. You certainly wouldn't have found Peter or Paul using such a method to understand Scriptural text. Why? Because they had revelation. And when one has received revelation from God, in regards to the Scriptures, why should that person need to use the man-made method of hermeneutics/exegesis?


Please, please show me biblically how hermeneutics is carnal but by all means do so without using hermeneutics or exegesis.

Hermeneutics or exegesis or the practice thereof is not even mentioned in the bible, as far as I'm aware. So how do you ask me to show you biblically how hermeneutics is carnal? There is however, a verse that comes to mind, that speaks of private interpretation (which is what hermeneutics is):

'First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation' (2 Peter 1:20)

'this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,' (2 Peter 1:20 Young's Literal Translation)



Are you saying that you've heard God speak to you audibly and that He personally told you the your doctrine was correct?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I do not think that God has ever spoken audibly to me.


If not what are you saying? How does this divine revelation happen? Describe the experience of receiving divine revelation.

I'm saying that I've been enlightened, to some extent, by the One Who is Light Himself. Now, in regards to revelation... it just comes. It's like something being dropped into your mind, like a pebble being dropped into a puddle; or rather, it's like the windows of your mind being opened to receive light. That light is understanding and knowledge.


You believe its because of revelation or you know that it is?

I believe it is so, through faith. But I also know it so. This may seem contradictory to you, but let me ask you: Can one not believe and know something? Believing and knowing are not diametrically opposed to each other.


Resting in Him,

Have you endured and overcome? Do you know that endurance and overcoming is necessary before resting in Him?

Gurucam
August 13th, 2015, 01:47 PM
4
I hate that word paradigm
but
I will play along

how many significant paradigms do we have here?

I will try to name them

mad
calvinist
catholic
protestant
non-trins

saying you are christian is not really telling at all

so who at tol are properly identified?

catholics and protestants

that's it
it is very hard to identify all the others
and
that makes it hard to understand what they are saying
so
this is where you start
start identifying yourselves

Paradigm are like dna. Every one has a unique one and is ruled by the particular one which he owns.

(although parts of each of our paradigm can be similar to parts of those held by others, in totality each person has and is ruled by, an absolutely unique paradigm).

A person's religious and scientific paradigm is always only a part of one's total personal and unique paradigm and it is all delusions.

All paradigm are make belief, i.e. delusional and half baked.

At best only 5% of the creation is known. Therefore, all paradigm are founded on no more than this 5% of known data. The rest is imagined or assumed. However 95% of the people live by these "5%" known and "95%" baseless paradigm. . . . . even modern scientists.

This is the world.

Even the idea of going to heaven is anchored on only 5% (or less) of known data and 95% of varying, speculative data. Is there any doubt why many are called and few chosen?

The only Truth is that there can be and are no paradigm. They are all made up by man, mostly to rule over and exploit their fellow man.

A popular paradigm of a certain church is that, if you sell all you have and deliver the proceeds to them, you are sure to go to heaven when you die.

Fact is, the Lord Jesus came to deliver all smart humans from All paradigms.

The Lord Jesus confirmed very clearly that All Truth come only from the Spirit of Truth as discerned individually and privately, by each person through each of their own individual hearts or spirit, in real time, all the time. Truth is unique for each person and Truth is also an eternally changing and evolving thing according to time and place.

One's Truth can be know only at a particular time and place by checking in in real time with the Spirit of Truth, through one's own heart or spirit. In the next second one's Truth changes and dies (ceases to exist). . . . in order to give way to a new Truth. It is not possible to reiterate one's Truth or postulate one's paradigm.

Fact is 'paradigm' is simply a fancy word for all the absolute foolishness which passes for the wisdom of the world, under Satan's rule. Paradigm is the 'wisdom' of the foolish and earthly. Paradigm is 'the wisdom' of 'the unawares'.

Stripe
August 13th, 2015, 01:56 PM
I don't think it is the paradigms that are the problems; I think it is the people.

You can have any paradigm you like and as long as you hold it consistently and are willing to excise anything that is shown to be internally incoherent, the truth will shine through.

People don't refuse correction because of they don't want to change their paradigm, they refuse to change because they regard themselves as the determiner of what is right and wrong.

Man.0
August 15th, 2015, 05:18 AM
My post teaches that we are all trying to understand the absolute truth which is God's paradigm.

Does God even have a paradigm?

Clete
August 15th, 2015, 07:06 AM
I don't think it is the paradigms that are the problems; I think it is the people.

You can have any paradigm you like and as long as you hold it consistently and are willing to excise anything that is shown to be internally incoherent, the truth will shine through.

People don't refuse correction because of they don't want to change their paradigm, they refuse to change because they regard themselves as the determiner of what is right and wrong.
This is self contradictory in at least two ways.

They being the determiner of right and wrong would be the paradigm they are unwilling to change and not all paradigms contain within them anything about excising the internally incoherent. Or to put that last part another way, you're effectively saying that people can have any paradigm they want so long as it is your paradigm, which of course means they can't have any paradigm they want.

Having said all that, I don't think you're entirely wrong. If it weren't for human nature, there would be no such thing as a paradigm effect or paradigm paralysis in the first place.

Further, you hit on the whole solution! If people would simply excise those ideas that are incoherent (i.e. irrational), there would be no paradigm effect.

Rational thought. The right use of one's mind. That is the key! That which is true is consistent with itself. That is what the word 'true' actually means. If, for example, you lay tile in your kitchen floor and the grout lines are true, it doesn't just mean that you've laid them straight but that the depth and width of the grout lines are consistent. If you laid them true to a wall in the kitchen, it means that the wall was the standard and that if tiles are laid in a manner consistent with that wall. If we are talking about ultimate truths instead of floor tile then we need for our ideas to be not just internally consistent but consistent with objective reality.

This is what rational thought and the rules of logic are all about, intellectual internal and objective consistency.

Logic simply says that that which is, is what it is and that it isn't something else. Every rule of logic either states this directly (the law of identity) or is a corollary of it. It is the fundamental law of all thought and it cannot be denied or even argued against. Any attempt to argue against the law of identity or any of its corollaries makes use of the law of identity and its corollaries and thus defeats itself. Logic is therefore not a matter of opinion as are most other pillars upon which people build their paradigms. Logic is what makes objectivity possible and what gives the notion of objective truth meaning.

That's all I have time for at the moment. No time to edit right now, sorry about any typos!

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Zeke
August 15th, 2015, 10:10 AM
Man is born in duality, the first born's mentality is concerned with the things of the flesh that are observational, yet the stirring of the spiritual fetus within has concerns of reaching for eternity that are not observational to the first born.

Danoh
August 15th, 2015, 10:32 AM
Does God even have a paradigm?

Genesis thru Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon - Eph. 1:10 :)

Jerry Shugart
August 15th, 2015, 10:43 AM
Logic is therefore not a matter of opinion as are most other pillars upon which people build their paradigms. Logic is what makes objectivity possible and what gives the notion of objective truth meaning.

Is not thinking logically the foundation of what is said here about the way which Paul preached:


"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2).

When a person "reasons" is not that method based on thinking logically? Of course!

Let us look at the "bolded" part of the following verse and look at what is said in a "logical" way:


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

From a logical viewpoint can we not know that those who truly believe will not perish but instead will have everlasting life? And since this is an unconditional statement we can not also know that it is true 100% of the time?

So can we not know that when a Jew who lived under the law believed they were saved because John 3:16 says that they will not perish but instead will have everlasting life?

Can anyone find fault with my logic?

Stripe
August 15th, 2015, 10:56 AM
They being the determiner of right and wrong would be the paradigm they are unwilling to change and not all paradigms contain within them anything about excising the internally incoherent.I don't regard the determination of right and wrong as a paradigm. I would say it is the base function of rational beings; it is a universal trait that people will judge things as good or bad.


You're effectively saying that people can have any paradigm they want so long as it is your paradigm, which of course means they can't have any paradigm they want.I do believe that everyone determines right and wrong, the problem is, they want to do so over every aspect of their lives, refusing to cede to proper authority.

I would not call this a paradigm, as I believe it is a situation that must always be true.


Having said all that, I don't think you're entirely wrong.Phew. :)


If it weren't for human nature, there would be no such thing as a paradigm effect or paradigm paralysis in the first place.
How would you sum up human nature? I would say it is the tendency for men to establish his own word as true.


Rational thought. The right use of one's mind. That is the key! That which is true is consistent with itself. That is what the word 'true' actually means. If, for example, you lay tile in your kitchen floor and the grout lines are true, it doesn't just mean that you've laid them straight but that the depth and width of the grout lines are consistent. If you laid them true to a wall in the kitchen, it means that the wall was the standard and that if tiles are laid in a manner consistent with that wall. If we are talking about ultimate truths instead of floor tile then we need for our ideas to be not just internally consistent but consistent with objective reality.

This is what rational thought and the rules of logic are all about, intellectual internal and objective consistency. :up:

Clete
August 15th, 2015, 10:25 PM
I don't regard the determination of right and wrong as a paradigm. I would say it is the base function of rational beings; it is a universal trait that people will judge things as good or bad.
Do you mean determination of right and wrong in the sense of discernment or do you mean by determination that they get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

If the former then I wouldn't argue with you but if you mean the latter then it clearly is a paradigm. I mean you'd have to have one whopper of a reality filter in place to end up believing that you're the one who gets to decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't. Not that there is any shortage of such people.



I do believe that everyone determines right and wrong, the problem is, they want to do so over every aspect of their lives, refusing to cede to proper authority.

I would not call this a paradigm, as I believe it is a situation that must always be true.
This seems like you're talking about judging right from wrong rather than determining right and wrong.


How would you sum up human nature? I would say it is the tendency for men to establish his own word as true.
I think that gives men more credit than they deserve. Men (i.e. people), as a general rule, don't try to ESTABLISH anything. It's seems to me that people let their heart rule their mind rather than the other way around. The mind is where the battle takes place and scripture tells us that the heart of man is desperately wicked. People who "follow thier heart" have lost the battle before it begins and find frustration, depression, failure and defeat. It is those who live their life in knowledge, understanding and wisdom (matters of the mind) who find the desires of their heart not only changed for the better but substantially fulfilled. This heart/mind struggled I think is the central defining characteristic of the human condition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
August 15th, 2015, 10:57 PM
' “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.' (Matthew 7:15-16)

Many have been deceived by false teachers, who themselves are rather like fishermen. For each one has their own ideological net or hook which they throw out; and together with the power of charisma and other such persuasive tools, the fish come swimming in. If a fish isn't taken in by one fisherman, well, there is guaranteed to be another fisherman that will reel them in. One who is not deceived by a Billy Graham may well be deceived by a Joseph Prince or a Joseph Smith or a Joyce Meyer.

How can one be deception-proof? Only God can prevent one from being deceived. He reveals the Truth to whoever He chooses. Darkness can be discerned only when one has received Light. If not for God I wouldn't be able to discern, and be aware of, false teachers, such as David Koresh.

There are some certain things, certain indicators that one can look out for, to identify falsity. But I must reiterate at this point that a person can do all he or she can do to be aware of falsity, but if not for God, such attempts at avoiding deception are futile. Now, this is an indicator that Koresh was not of Christ: He was a member of a religious group. No religious group or sect or denomination is true. All are false. If religion is false, and Koresh was part of one, what does that make him?

It seems you yourself have not been deceived by Koresh. But could there be other false teachers, or teachings, which have ensnared you?

And Clete, how are you able to tell that Koresh was false?

It's a wild jungle out here, Clete. Those who have not been eaten by panthers have been devoured by tigers. And those who have not been devoured by tigers, have been pounced on by leopards. Only God can save a person from being devoured by deceptive beasts.

Only He can open the eyes, to see things as they really are. That's what God has done for me. I used to be deceived by both the Jehovah Witnesses and the Restored Church of God (offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, started by Herbert Armstrong). I now know that they are all false. Only by the grace of God.



The devil, who masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) is also a quoter of Scripture. So it is no surprise that his servants are also well-versed in the verses of the bible.



Even if I'd advised them to look for this or that, at the end of the day it's down to God, and Him opening a person's eyes. Only by the grace of God would a Branch Davidian have been able to have escaped the deception of Koresh.



By the fact that it was devised by carnal men. You certainly wouldn't have found Peter or Paul using such a method to understand Scriptural text. Why? Because they had revelation. And when one has received revelation from God, in regards to the Scriptures, why should that person need to use the man-made method of hermeneutics/exegesis?



Hermeneutics or exegesis or the practice thereof is not even mentioned in the bible, as far as I'm aware. So how do you ask me to show you biblically how hermeneutics is carnal? There is however, a verse that comes to mind, that speaks of private interpretation (which is what hermeneutics is):

'First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation' (2 Peter 1:20)

'this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,' (2 Peter 1:20 Young's Literal Translation)




No, that is not what I'm saying. I do not think that God has ever spoken audibly to me.



I'm saying that I've been enlightened, to some extent, by the One Who is Light Himself. Now, in regards to revelation... it just comes. It's like something being dropped into your mind, like a pebble being dropped into a puddle; or rather, it's like the windows of your mind being opened to receive light. That light is understanding and knowledge.



I believe it is so, through faith. But I also know it so. This may seem contradictory to you, but let me ask you: Can one not believe and know something? Believing and knowing are not diametrically opposed to each other.



Have you endured and overcome? Do you know that endurance and overcoming is necessary before resting in Him?
I had a whole response typed and ready to post on my iPad and because of the way Apple iOS handles switching from one tab to another I lost the whole post.
God must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it.

Have a wonderfully mystic life!

Resting in Him (right now),
Clete

Man.0
August 16th, 2015, 12:26 PM
I had a whole response typed and ready to post on my iPad and because of the way Apple iOS handles switching from one tab to another I lost the whole post.
God must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it.

Have a wonderfully mystic life!

Resting in Him (right now),
Clete

If you thought what you had written was really valuable and of worth, it wouldn't have bothered you to go through the effort of re-typing it. It just goes to show the value that you place in your own writings, doesn't it?

And why cause yourself to blaspheme by saying He 'must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it'? Why do you speak for God? How do you know that He didn't want me to see it - did He reveal that to you?

Are you not redoing it because He didn't want me to see it, as you suggest? But being that God does things for the benefit of others; why wouldn't He want me to see something that would be of benefit to me? Unless it was actually of no benefit at all; but then again, why would God do, give, or present things unto others that were of no benefit?

It certainly wasn't by accident that you lost it all.

Stripe
August 16th, 2015, 12:42 PM
Do you mean determination of right and wrong in the sense of discernment or do you mean by determination that they get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong?People do not get to decide what is right. They judge. Their judgement might be on the money or skewed.


If the former then I wouldn't argue with you but if you mean the latter then it clearly is a paradigm. I mean you'd have to have one whopper of a reality filter in place to end up believing that you're the one who gets to decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't. Not that there is any shortage of such people. :up:

I think the act of judgement is the foundation upon which a paradigm is placed. Everyone judges, so the paradigm on top of it, while important, is not the test of whether a man will act rationally.

If he has his paradigm and acts rationally, logic will dictate to him that he should change his worldview.


This seems like you're talking about judging right from wrong rather than determining right and wrong. Right. I should have said "judge" to be clear.


I think that gives men more credit than they deserve. Men (i.e. people), as a general rule, don't try to ESTABLISH anything.

Allow me to reword:

Human nature is the desire men have to establish their own word as true.

Clete
August 17th, 2015, 06:54 PM
If you thought what you had written was really valuable and of worth, it wouldn't have bothered you to go through the effort of re-typing it. It just goes to show the value that you place in your own writings, doesn't it?
Well there is the value of my writing (talent) and then there's the value of my time and there's always the expected benefit of expending either or both to consider.

The cost benefit ratio wasn't where it needed to be. And still isn't. Sorry.


And why cause yourself to blaspheme by saying He 'must not have wanted you to see it because I'm not redoing it'? Why do you speak for God? How do you know that He didn't want me to see it - did He reveal that to you?
Hey, you're the one that said that if God wants you to see it then you will and if He doesn't you won't, not me. I was just taking your idea and applying to the situation. I mean, how do YOU know God didn't want it deleted? Maybe my hitting the wrong button and wiping it from existence was really me hitting the right button and God was behind the whole thing!


Are you not redoing it because He didn't want me to see it, as you suggest? But being that God does things for the benefit of others; why wouldn't He want me to see something that would be of benefit to me? Unless it was actually of no benefit at all; but then again, why would God do, give, or present things unto others that were of no benefit?

It certainly wasn't by accident that you lost it all.
Maybe God doesn't want to benefit it you with it! Ever thought of that? How could you POSSIBLY know?

The entire point of my previous point is illustrated in this one, if it makes you feel any better. That point being that, based on what you've said on this thread, you KNOW nothing nor can you. Faith is not what you need to fill in the evidence gaps. That's paganism and stupidity. Faith in the Christian worldview is about accepting the substantive evidence (Hebrews 11:1). Your kind of mysticism leaves everything you say you know in an unfalsifiable state of religious ambiguity. You are literally without mooring lines, adrift in a murky religious ocean blown about by every wind of doctrine that feels right.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Dan Emanuel
August 18th, 2015, 11:57 AM
...Faith is not what you need to fill in the evidence gaps. That's paganism and stupidity. Faith in the Christian worldview is about accepting the substantive evidence (Hebrews 11:1). Your kind of mysticism leaves everything you say you know in an unfalsifiable state of religious ambiguity. You are literally without mooring lines, adrift in a murky religious ocean blown about by every wind of doctrine that feels right....I wanted to say that I agree with you here. But I wonder if you see it this way:

Since faith is the evidence of thing's not seen, then faith itself must be visible. The thing's not seen are in heaven, and/or strictly spiritual. They will become visible, at the end of time, when we have new body's with new eye's (presumably) so that we can see what we now only believe (1 Corinthians 13:9-10 KJV; 1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV).

The popes' teach that the invisible reality is really present in the Churches' seven sacrament's, each of which are established in Scripture. They divide between the visual element of the sacrament's, and there invisible reality: sacramentum and mysterium.

The seven sacrament's of the Church are the visible faith, which is the evidence of thing's not seen (Hebrews 11:1 KJV).


DJ

1.3

Clete
August 20th, 2015, 07:33 PM
I wanted to say that I agree with you here. But I wonder if you see it this way:

Since faith is the evidence of thing's not seen, then faith itself must be visible. The thing's not seen are in heaven, and/or strictly spiritual. They will become visible, at the end of time, when we have new body's with new eye's (presumably) so that we can see what we now only believe (1 Corinthians 13:9-10 KJV; 1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV).

The popes' teach that the invisible reality is really present in the Churches' seven sacrament's, each of which are established in Scripture. They divide between the visual element of the sacrament's, and there invisible reality: sacramentum and mysterium.

The seven sacrament's of the Church are the visible faith, which is the evidence of thing's not seen (Hebrews 11:1 KJV).


DJ

1.3

I'm not sure what you mean by all of this but I don't think I can say I agree with it. It's just not that complicated. The things of God are clearly evident to all men because God has shown it to them. Faithless men choose not to accept it and so their minds are darkened. Faithful men choose to accept it and are thereby enlightened by Logos, the light (John 1:1-5).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ktoyou
August 20th, 2015, 08:03 PM
For me, the first paradigm is the rise of Christianity. Jesus is God. Christianity flourishes under this belief. while Judaism falls to a marginalized status. Surely, all of Europe was, to a greater then lessor extent, under the paradigm of the divinity of Christ. What parallels this is the rise of the Church, they Catholic church and all it's appendages.

The next major shift, not to minimize the great schism, although that was of considerable effect, it would not be outside the Christian and Church paradigm. The paradigm shift was the Reformation and rise of Protestantism. along with a falling away of Church, first estate. absolute power. The Pope sitting in the seat of St. Peter.

This led to several Protestant schisms, and a general theological vicissitudes of beliefs, including the place of Paul being the flirt new apostle of Christianity. We have now, individual Christianity, not communal Christianity.

Form this point, I think it is hard to argue a new paradigm, yet it away well be in the making? Today, more Christians are reading to Scripture over the Church teachings.

Given all theism, the fist paradigm is still debated by many, as one sees here for those who deny the deity of Christ. Secondly. there are many who have remained with the bounds if the Catholic view. This, for me, is what make seeking through Scripture having so much more meaning. We do not appeal so readily to authority as we had under the Catholic church.

There has been a rise in new concepts, such as individualism, and personality, concepts which were not understood before the Reformation.

Clete
August 23rd, 2015, 05:57 PM
I found a quote by Tolstoy which encapsulates my point so well I had to post here. I love independently thinking the thoughts of great thinkers after them!



“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” ― Leo Tolstoy

Resting in Him,
Clete

musterion
August 23rd, 2015, 06:20 PM
This thread is worth 20 cents.

Ktoyou
August 23rd, 2015, 06:52 PM
I found a quote by Tolstoy which encapsulates my point so well I had to post here. I love independently thinking the thoughts of great thinkers after them!



“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” ― Leo Tolstoy

Resting in Him,
Clete

You would respond to ManO and some knuckleheads, yet when I post you ignore it? ManO is banned. :banned:

patrick jane
August 23rd, 2015, 06:57 PM
I found a quote by Tolstoy which encapsulates my point so well I had to post here. I love independently thinking the thoughts of great thinkers after them!



“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” ― Leo Tolstoy

Resting in Him,
Clete

great author. Tolstoy wrote "War . . . What Is It Good For" hhhaaaa ! say it again !

patrick jane
August 23rd, 2015, 06:58 PM
This thread is worth 20 cents.

i don't have 2 nickels to rub together ! -

Zeke
August 23rd, 2015, 08:49 PM
The only paradigm shift that matters happened around the third century, when the literal interpretation was forced on the world as being the only true one, the facts when researched show that is a false version fed to the illiterate masses at the the bottom of the pyramid scheme, intentionally infected with a lie that still survives.