Satan, Inc (TOL's heretic's list)

[Lon]

Having identified as a Universalist/Allegorist in this thread, Ask Mr. Religion quickly rose to the occasion to ‘truthsmack’ me. But his comments highlight what I see as a deep problem in Christianity and its relationship to truth.

Jesus showed us the power of prescriptive or moral truth and how this truth was hated by the religious hierarchy of His day. He was murdered for telling them more truth than their darkened hearts could comfortably hear, and they conspired to have Him put to death for it (Jn 8:37, Jn 8:40) Truth has no place in the darkened heart (Jn 3:19).

Human hatred for Truth can be seen in the number of philosophies which seek to deny it or place its power in human, not God’s, hands. A modern example is the tendency in universities everywhere to teach (both directly and by inference) relativism and moral skepticism to our young people as “enlightened” programs.

Here’s the problem. In his idea that Christians shouldn’t divide over doctrine, AMR states, “Anyone here who feels compelled to push the boundaries on core doctrines won’t find some very welcoming…I…remain convinced of the wisdom of the forefathers that came before us when I read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. Not a week goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith; despite their having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years. Thus I become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge the core aspects of our faith. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would ask that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative.”

What AMR states here is typical of evangelical Christianity’s demeanor toward unorthodox interpretations of the Bible, especially toward allegorical interpretations.

What’s worse, a great many traditional Christians will quickly and unreflectively agree with AMR’s position.

The problem, for those who tend to quickly align with the status quo [tradition] without analysis or investigation, is that the mindset framed by AMR is immediately closed to any consideration whatever of any interpretation standing outside tradition. Though tradition’s champions will, when pressed, deny or soft pedal the charge, this position essentially equates one's doctrine with truth. This position says, “I know automatically, without having to even investigate your claim of warranted belief, that you’re wrong because you’re different than the majority view.” This position is immediately circular and displays a deep disconnect from a pursuit of truth.

:nono: 1) Universalism has been address, there is a history so it's not like it is 'something new' and that is what AMR was addressing by his comments and 2) It isn't likely that you or any other can articulate better than has already been done and finally 3) Rarely has any challenge to orthodoxy ever been conceded, it would be incredible and extraordinary that any would entertain what is marked as heresy, no?

Some may not understand the significance of this, so I’ll use an example.

Most atheist arguments are based on a circularity. The atheist insists that only real things are open for discussion and the things that are real are those available to the five senses or that occupy points in time and space. Having defined the only arena in which he is willing to debate, the atheist then tells the Christian, “Now then, tell me all about this God of yours.” Obviously, the Christian has already lost all her arguments because the spiritual realm and God lie outside material reality and are deemed “not real”.

If one allows as valid only those beliefs and arguments that one embraces, then all competing positions are automatically wrong. This is a serious logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

Of course it isn't. A guy named Mikiel has a 500 page thread on TOL on this very topic and a good many of us participated. Sound like a closed door at 500 pages? I can tell you with the likes of it, that door gets smaller as you come on the scene. Of course it does. Try not to accuse. 500 pages is a fair hearing, yet there you are and here we are. You missed it only by weeks however...

Like the atheist, many Evangelical Christians automatically deem all interpretations of the Bible that fall outside tradition false—not by virtue of their having been proven false, but simply because they seem to be in opposition to accepted doctrine.

Again, 500 pages.

But Christian doctrine is not the same as truth. Evangelical literalism has many tensions. Tensions are unresolved problems. They point up inaccuracies in a system of thought. The Calvinist-Arminian tensions have been unresolved for more than 400 years. Absolute truth or certitude can only exist when all tensions have been resolved. Arminians invent and are satisfied with often awkward explanations to gloss over tensions in their doctrine, and Calvinists do the same. They’ve each had centuries to build such arguments, but the fact that hotly contested debates still rage shows that the tensions of each remain unresolved to this day.

Yet we reside in each other's churches. It is very much an 'in-house' debate. Not so universalism (which was started and goes hand in hand with Unitarianism).

This is why I asked AMR, “If you're only willing to accept as true doctrines those which fall into the traditional camp, how are you in any sense qualified to judge, with any degree of accuracy or objectivity, those interpretations of Scripture which challenge your own?”

And he didn't answer. You assume the answer which isn't accurate in this case.

The question points up difficulties that need resolution.
* How can a mind closed to the pursuit of truth be united with Truth Himself (Jn 14:6) or satisfy the qualification of Jn 10:27?
* How can the mind unwilling to even consider any understanding of the Bible except his own be qualified to “truthsmack” one who holds a different understanding?
* How can we swear obedience, love and honor to the living Truth if we have no interest in the pursuit of any truth but our own?

In this case, because a few of us have repeatedly been over this conversation with the cultists. 500 pages is giving the proposition its due. It was found wanting and especially dismissive, in our opinions of the words and teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Some are annihilationists on TOL, but those are, I think within the camp though heterodox. Universalism has been well outside of our acceptable discussions for 'in-house.'

Think of it this way: If you applied this kind of thing to Mormonism, you'd have to entertain all kinds of things you've already dismissed as heresy. You don't have to open up the discussion every single time a new pair of suits knocks at your door, discussing what you've already decided was heresy. Universalism is held by a few others on TOL and most of them are decidedly not Christian by their own self-assessment, so we've talked with both those who claim Christianity and those who are not about universal salvation.

In a quick nutshell, this doctrine does harsh damage to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and completely eliminates a need to even know or ever read even one verse of scripture AND if you are right, you certainly don't have to tell me or anybody else about it. It is a COMPLETE none-issue and all communication regarding it is non-essential and redundant. Most often, I don't think Universalists think far enough through their own theology to realize how poorly it actually pans out. it is utterly ridiculous and very much against the New Testament. No Christian 'can' hold onto it for very long. It is logically untenable. Most of this is covered in the 500 page thread.

 

[Choleric]

This is why I asked AMR, “If you're only willing to accept as true doctrines those which fall into the traditional camp, how are you in any sense qualified to judge, with any degree of accuracy or objectivity, those interpretations of Scripture which challenge your own?”

The issue is that your claims don't merely challenge me or AMR. Your claims stand diametrically opposed to the 3rd grade reading of the Scriptures. I may grant that I don't claim 100% accuracy in my interpretation of all biblical truths,but I can claim 100% accuracy of the Scriptures, which clearly and unequivocally teach basic fundamental truths, ie eternal torment for the lost.

The question points up difficulties that need resolution.
* How can a mind closed to the pursuit of truth be united with Truth Himself (Jn 14:6) or satisfy the qualification of Jn 10:27?

Truth has an arrival point. We are expected to reach a certain level of truth and move on.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
2Ti 3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
2Ti 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,


These men were accused of failing to come to truth and Paul exhorts Timothy do "know my doctrine". That is not "being open" to other view points. It is being certain of what God said, believing it and acting upon it.

* How can the mind unwilling to even consider any understanding of the Bible except his own be qualified to “truthsmack” one who holds a different understanding?

In order to be a universalist, you have to come to the bible with "white out" and simply erase certain passages of Scripture, or invent a theological system, that you apply sparingly when convenient to do away with the things you don't like.

* How can we swear obedience, love and honor to the living Truth if we have no interest in the pursuit of any truth but our own?

We would argue that it is you and meshak and others who "oppose yourselves" by denying the Scripture. We have come to a knowledge of truth based on taking God at His word. You and others have fallen prey to satans oldest trick "hath God said?" That is where all heresy starts, it is one of authority. Do you believe God, or don't you.

Heb_6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

A foundation has been laid. You can either stand on it, or be blown about with every wind of doctrine.

 

[Bociferous]

As Solomon says, there's nothing new under the sun. The last two posts are prime examples of why real, intelligent discussion on theology message boards is by and large absent. Folks like L and C are a dime a dozen, parroting the party line like good little robots, offering the same knee-jerk mantras, never actually addressing issues raised. Notice that not a single issue raised was actually addressed above...

Your claims stand diametrically opposed to the 3rd grade reading of the Scriptures

These men were accused of failing to come to truth and Paul exhorts Timothy do "know my doctrine". That is not "being open" to other view points.

Universalism has been address, there is a history so it's not like it is 'something new' and that is what AMR was addressing by his comments

A guy named Mikiel has a 500 page thread on TOL on this very topic...500 pages is a fair hearing, yet there you are and here we are.

* How can the mind unwilling to even consider any understanding of the Bible except his own be qualified to “truthsmack” one who holds a different understanding?

In order to be a universalist, you have to come to the bible with "white out" and simply erase certain passages of Scripture, or invent a theological system, that you apply sparingly when convenient to do away with the things you don't like.

A foundation has been laid. You can either stand on it, or be blown about with every wind of doctrine.

Thinkers who actually understand the propositions raised in my last post remain silent. Thinkers understand truth when they hear and see it. Rather than presenting personal opinions and never actually addressing the issues, let me gently suggest, L and C, that you study the structure of propositional logic, brush up on truth criteria and its importance to intelligent discussion, read up on epistemology and the laying out of warranted belief. Once you understand these things you'll be better equipped to engage in constructive criticism.

Haters gonna hate. Chirpers gonna chirp. Thinkers gonna think.

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Lon]

As Solomon says, there's nothing new under the sun. The last two posts are prime examples of why real, intelligent discussion on theology message boards is by and large absent. Folks like L and C are a dime a dozen, parroting the party line like good little robots, offering the same knee-jerk mantras, never actually addressing issues raised. Notice that not a single issue raised was actually addressed above...

:chuckle: You are a hoot. Remember accusations nearly always have 3 fingers pointing back. Reread your diatribe that way and you'll see what I mean, cultists simply don't like being ignored :chuckle:

Thinkers who actually understand the propositions raised in my last post remain silent. Thinkers understand truth when they hear and see it.

Amen, and people who love thinking finish the twelfth grade :noway:

Rather than presenting personal opinions and never actually addressing the issues, let me gently suggest, L and C, that you study the structure of propositional logic, brush up on truth criteria and its importance to intelligent discussion, read up on epistemology and the laying out of warranted belief. Once you understand these things you'll be better equipped to engage in constructive criticism.

Let me propose there are 2% of you cultists on the outskirts of Christendom including Mormons. Let me further propose that you all vehemently argue with one another about essential doctrine. Let me further suggest that most of the rest of us on TOL disagree on many things but NOT essential doctrine.

Let me further propose that you've no idea my prowess or interest. I bet you didn't even read one of the 500 pages after I suggested it. See, you really are the hypocrite here, not us.

Haters gonna hate. Chirpers gonna chirp. Thinkers gonna think.

Yep, I hate the Deceiver and his lies. Chirping comes from the minority, and thinkers actually read instead of soapboxing.

Nothing new under the sun.

Nope, but not the way you'd tell it. Think about this verse a bit more. You are trying to tell me there is something new under the sun. You realize you are an attempted manipulator as well? This kind of thing will NEVER change a persons mind. In your efforts to be vindicated and clever, you cut your own proverbial throat. There really is nothing new under the sun, but Jesus gave us a better way. Try it sometime.

 

[PureX]

The problem, for those who tend to quickly align with the status quo [tradition] without analysis or investigation, is that the mindset framed by AMR is immediately closed to any consideration whatever of any interpretation standing outside tradition. Though tradition’s champions will, when pressed, deny or soft pedal the charge, this position essentially equates one's doctrine with truth. This position says, “I know automatically, without having to even investigate your claim of warranted belief, that you’re wrong because you’re different than the majority view.” This position is immediately circular and displays a deep disconnect from a pursuit of truth. Some may not understand the significance of this, so I’ll use an example.

If one allows as valid only those beliefs and arguments that one embraces, then all competing positions are automatically wrong. This is a serious logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

As I am sure you are probably already aware, this circular logic very quickly becomes circular justification, which then becomes impervious to questioning or doubt. And THIS is the real reason so many of these "traditional" Christians hold to it. They are, to put it bluntly, more interested in the illusion of their own impervious righteousness than they are interested in the truth of Christ. And this is the sad, ugly, fact of what Christianity has become for a lot of modern "conservative" (the more appropriate term) Christians.

Like the atheist, many Evangelical Christians automatically deem all interpretations of the Bible that fall outside tradition false—not by virtue of their having been proven false, but simply because they seem to be in opposition to accepted doctrine.

There is no need for these skeptics and 'outsiders' to be proven false once the circular justification of the 'true believers' has been established and accepted, because that circular justification renders their own understanding absolute. The mere fact that someone else questions it already proves that they are wrong in doing so. So no further investigation of their claims is necessary.

That circular self-justification, in effect, endows those who hold to it with absolute assurance of their own righteousness. Such that there's little need to bother exploring any other perspective. As there is no more righteous perspective to be found.

It's like a 'velvet trap' that's just too cushy and comfortable to bother escaping.

This is why I asked AMR, “If you're only willing to accept as true doctrines those which fall into the traditional camp, how are you in any sense qualified to judge, with any degree of accuracy or objectivity, those interpretations of Scripture which challenge your own?”

The question points up difficulties that need resolution.
* How can a mind closed to the pursuit of truth be united with Truth Himself (Jn 14:6) or satisfy the qualification of Jn 10:27?
* How can the mind unwilling to even consider any understanding of the Bible except his own be qualified to “truthsmack” one who holds a different understanding?
* How can we swear obedience, love and honor to the living Truth if we have no interest in the pursuit of any truth but our own?

You aren't going to get any answers to these questions. Because the people you are asking are unable to recognize your questions as anything other than a wrong-headed attack on their unquestionable correctness. The mere fact that you are asking them is proof that you are in the wrong.

What you are up against is not "circular reasoning", it's circular self-justification which blinds those who engage in it to ANY reasoning but their own. They simply will not cognate your questions.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Sounds like Boci wishes to present himself as a bonafide, dyed in the wool "Pseudo-intellectual" type of poster.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Boci, didn't you say you dropped out of school after the third grade or something?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hey, Zeke, it's good to see you back from your well deserved banning.

 

[Lon]

As I am sure you are probably already aware, this circular logic very quickly becomes circular justification, which then become impervious to questioning or doubt. And THIS is the real reason so many of the "traditional" Christians hold to it. They are, to put it bluntly, more interested in the illusion of their own impervious righteousness than they are interested in the truth of Christ. And this is the sad, ugly, fact of what Christianity has become for a lot of modern "conservative" Christians.

I'm not a maverick because mavericks, though delusionally innovative, are never quite as clever as they imagine nor actually have the IQ for it. In order to go against the grain, you MUST be exceptional to pave the way.

]There is no need for them to be proven false once their own circular justification has been established and accepted, because that circular justification renders their own understanding absolute. The mere fact that someone else questions it already proves that they are wrong. So no further investigation of their claims is necessary.

Again, needing exceptional and proving lack... All the excusing behavior of the misfit after that.

That circular self-justification, in effect, endows those who hold to it with absolute righteousness.

Or just intelligence.

It's a 'velvet trap' that's just too cushy and comfortable to bother escaping.

Misfits are generally delusional. It is a protection mechanism against one seeing how others actually think about the oddity.

You aren't going to get any answers to these questions. Because the people you are asking are unable to recognize your questions as anything other than a wrong-headed attack on their unquestionable correctness. The mere fact that you are asking them is proof that you are in the wrong.

This goes back to whether the one attempting it is exceptional or not. Blaise attacks are like being invaded by the French.

What you are up against is not "circular reasoning", it's circular self-justification which blinds those who engage in it to ANY reasoning but their own. They simply will not cognate your questions.

:chuckle: The majority of us. Pips and chirps are hardly even noticed on our theological radar. Again, 'exceptional' is required, by necessity when it is less than a percent of you guys. You are all vying and jockeying for that microphone so again ONLY the exceptional will be heard. You'll get boo's and "Get off the stage you hack!" from hecklers, sometimes a polite "please leave the stage, your time is up."

 

[PureX]

I'm not a maverick because mavericks, though delusionally innovative, are never quite as clever as they imagine nor actually have the IQ for it. In order to go against the grain, you MUST be exceptional to pave the way.

You are not a 'maverick' because you are frightened to death of being wrong. The only thing mavericks have that you lack, is courage. And to avoid your having to face that fact, you will gladly sacrifice them to your own slander and lies.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

PureX, are you a Christian? What church or denomination are you affiliated with?

 

[PureX]

PureX, are you a Christian? What church or denomination are you affiliated with?

How is this your concern?

You answer honestly, and I will answer honestly.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

How is this your concern?

You answer honestly, and I will answer honestly.

If you were a "True Believer" you'd be more than happy to answer such a simple question. Now, I wonder about you?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

PureX seems to be a little hesitant with the truth about himself and a wee bit angry?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hey, Lon, do you know the scoop about PureX?

 

[PureX]

If you were a "True Believer" you'd be more than happy to answer such a simple question. Now, I wonder about you?

Not having gotten an answer from me, you are now just making one up, which condemns me in your own eyes.

Which as I suspected, was why you inquired in the first place.

Because, of course, my integrity can easily be sacrificed to maintain the illusion of your own.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not having gotten an answer from me, you are now just making one up, which condemns me in your own eyes.

Which as I suspected, was why you inquired in the first place.

Because, of course, my integrity can easily be sacrificed to maintain the illusion of your own.

No answer from you and the rest of what you said, I was unable to decipher it?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Some posters are fearful of admitting what church, cult, or denomination they belong to because they're afaid of being ridicuculed or dismissed as having anything of value to offer.

 

[PureX]

Some posters are fearful of admitting what church, cult, or denomination they belong to because they're afaid of being ridicuculed or dismissed as having anything of value to offer.

I'm not the least bit "afraid" of discussing what I believe. I am simply disgusted by the absurd arrogance of people who only ask what I believe because they want to dismiss it, and condemn it, to bolster their own illusion of unassailable righteousness.

 

[PureX]

Cat got your keyboard?

I guess you weren't that interested after all, were you.