Paul the Apostle

#181
#181
Gramps said:
Can you please explain why you think "The Holy Spirit is conscience" ?
Click to expand...

Your conscience is the word of God speaking directly to you, counseling you on your decisions, and telling you, through guilt, when you have done something wrong. This is the same exact role of the Holy Spirit.

Both Catholic and Protestant theologians and apologists have expressed this for the past 2,000 and 500 years, respectively. It makes perfect sense. That part that does not make sense is that troublesome little aspect that implies that Man did not have the Holy Spirit (conscience) prior to the coming of Jesus (only for the past 2,000 years); of course, this problem is easily explained away if Jesus is a metaphor for reason and we have always had reason but the religious continually try to suppress reason and make an example of those who attempt to use reason instead of just buying in to religious custom and tradition.
 
#184
#184
therealUT said:
Your conscience is the word of God speaking directly to you, counseling you on your decisions, and telling you, through guilt, when you have done something wrong. This is the same exact role of the Holy Spirit.

Both Catholic and Protestant theologians and apologists have expressed this for the past 2,000 and 500 years, respectively. It makes perfect sense. That part that does not make sense is that troublesome little aspect that implies that Man did not have the Holy Spirit (conscience) prior to the coming of Jesus (only for the past 2,000 years); of course, this problem is easily explained away if Jesus is a metaphor for reason and we have always had reason but the religious continually try to suppress reason and make an example of those who attempt to use reason instead of just buying in to religious custom and tradition.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation.

I have always considered conscience as being of the mind and the Holy Spirit as being of the heart.

I believe man has a conscience if they know God or not.
I also believe man does not receive the Holy Spirit until they are "saved", then God (The Holy Spirit) lives in their heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#185
#185
Gramps said:
Thank you for the explanation.

I have always considered conscience as being of the mind and the Holy Spirit as being of the heart.

I believe man has a conscience if they know God or not.
I also believe man does not receive the Holy Spirit until they are "saved", then God (The Holy Spirit) lives in their heart.
Click to expand...

Many philosophers refer to conscience as a moral sense, basically a sixth sense that clues you in to what is right and what is wrong; and, they certainly separate it from ideas and categorize it as an impression or a sentiment (so, more of "the heart").

Aquinas was a big conscience guy and was almost labeled a heretic by Rome for his stance that the dictates of one's conscience (which he explicitly links to the Holy Spirit in a number of amazing logical thesis/antithesis arguments) supersede the dictates of the Church, a bishop, the Pope, any local magistrates, etc.
 
#186
#186
If thought more broadly of the mind in general, Saint Augustine had similar thoughts.
 
#187
#187
PKT_VOL said:
If thought more broadly of the mind in general, Saint Augustine had similar thoughts.
Click to expand...

Do you like the quote in my sig?

Nam esse vitium et non nocere non potest - Confessions

Where there is no harm, there is no fault.

He also believed the evil did not exist (for which he offers a proof) and weaves an incredible tale for how we are to understand the seven-day creation story.
 
#188
#188
OrangeEmpire said:
Flood

Gen 6: 19 to 20

Gen 7: 2 & 3


Gen 6:17-21 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. (18) But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. (19) And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. (20) Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. (21) Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them."

Gen 7:2-3 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, (3) and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

Really? I mean, really?

Take a pair of animals to replenish the earth.

Oh, also, by the way, on top of the pair to replentish... take more of the clean kinds so you can sacrifice to me...

That's a contradiction to you? Muhahaha!



Two different calendars

Gen 8: 3&4, 6

Gen 7:11, 24 to 27


Couple of different views on this, neither of which would create a contradiction.

Chronology of the Flood: The First 150 Days - Genesis 8:3 Bible Commentary | Priceless Eternity Blog

Either way, it's not exactly clear, so I think contradiction is stretching it.


Two birds

Gen 8:7 & 9


And??? He sent out a raven. Then he sent out a dove twice.

Overall

Gen 6:5 to 8

Gen 6: 9 to 22

Gen 7: 1 to 5


Not sure what you're getting out here.

In all of your examples, stuff happened. None are contradictory. They are all just different pieces that are put together to form the whole of the story.
Click to expand...

...........................
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
OrangeEmpire said:
Could you explain the latter part of your first statement?
Click to expand...

Sure. You claim contradictions that are not contradictions.

You claim the positive statement that the census never happened, then get your feathers up when I ask for evidence that it never happened.

You claim that you seek reason by making illogical claims such as arguments from incredulity, claiming that a lack of evidence is proof against a positive, claiming personal interpretation raised above the author's stated intent equals truth...

You claim that John didn't write the epistles of John-- that someone else did much later. However, Ignatius (John's pupil) wrote letters dating before 107 AD quoting John's epistles.

You claim that interpreting a passage of literature within the context of the passage is not sound hermeneutical practice.


I'm familiar with the pervasiveness of the postmodern mindset, in that individual truth and interpretation is really all that matters in this worldview. It's just illogical that you seek to argue for absolute truth from such a relative slope.

Edit: Sorry, he... Not you.
 
Last edited:
#190
#190
Orange_Crush said:
Sure. You claim contradictions that are not contradictions.

You claim the positive statement that the census never happened, then get your feathers up when I ask for evidence that it never happened.

You claim that you seek reason by making illogical claims such as arguments from incredulity, claiming that a lack of evidence is proof against a positive, claiming personal interpretation raised above the author's stated intent equals truth...

You claim that John didn't write the epistles of John-- that someone else did much later. However, Ignatius (John's pupil) wrote letters dating before 107 AD quoting John's epistles.

You claim that interpreting a passage of literature within the context of the passage is not sound hermeneutical practice.


I'm familiar with the pervasiveness of the postmodern mindset, in that individual truth and interpretation is really all that matters in this worldview. It's just illogical that you seek to argue for absolute truth from such a relative slope.
Click to expand...

You are responding to the wrong person
 
#192
#192
Orange_Crush said:
Sure. You claim contradictions that are not contradictions.

You claim the positive statement that the census never happened, then get your feathers up when I ask for evidence that it never happened.

You claim that you seek reason by making illogical claims such as arguments from incredulity, claiming that a lack of evidence is proof against a positive, claiming personal interpretation raised above the author's stated intent equals truth...

You claim that John didn't write the epistles of John-- that someone else did much later. However, Ignatius (John's pupil) wrote letters dating before 107 AD quoting John's epistles.

You claim that interpreting a passage of literature within the context of the passage is not sound hermeneutical practice.


I'm familiar with the pervasiveness of the postmodern mindset, in that individual truth and interpretation is really all that matters in this worldview. It's just illogical that you seek to argue for absolute truth from such a relative slope.
Click to expand...

Your criticisms are quite hypocritical. You want me to believe in fantastical stories in the bible while you choose not to give any credit to actual historical and/or scientific record.

Of course, star charts mean nothing because God would have stepped in and just put that star there. Fine; in that case, your God is an ******* because he steps in to set up a pretty star and sits idly by while millions of individuals are massacred, raped, tortured, imprisoned, etc. (and, a whole lot of that **** all happened "in his name" by Christians).

I will choose history; I will choose to accept the Hebrew as I have had it checked by other individuals in academia who speak Hebrew. Continue to throw yourself into the bible; be careful though, because if you take the same non-skeptical approach to the bible as you do everything else, you might just turn into a Hindu if you ever happen across the Upanishads or the Mahabharata.
 
#194
#194
therealUT said:
Do you like the quote in my sig?

Nam esse vitium et non nocere non potest - Confessions

Where there is no harm, there is no fault.

He also believed the evil did not exist (for which he offers a proof) and weaves an incredible tale for how we are to understand the seven-day creation story.
Click to expand...

I do like that quote. I wish it was applied more often in our criminal system, although I don't believe it is foolproof logic.

He did have an interesting life story. I wish more people would recognize that ripped a lot of his thoughts from Plato/Socrates.

As for the problem of evil, I am not a fan. I do think he made an interesting distinction that evil is not a characteristic in and of itself; only a deviation from perfection (good).
 
#195
#195
therealUT said:
Many philosophers refer to conscience as a moral sense, basically a sixth sense that clues you in to what is right and what is wrong; and, they certainly separate it from ideas and categorize it as an impression or a sentiment (so, more of "the heart").

Aquinas was a big conscience guy and was almost labeled a heretic by Rome for his stance that the dictates of one's conscience (which he explicitly links to the Holy Spirit in a number of amazing logical thesis/antithesis arguments) supersede the dictates of the Church, a bishop, the Pope, any local magistrates, etc.
Click to expand...

Not having read intently from Ignatius, I would be interested to hear how far he took this, and how he couched it.

In one way, He could be considered likened to a conscience, since His role is to convict the world of sin and lead the Christian through the process of sanctification. On the other, scripture says that each person has their own conscience, and that the unregenerated (non-believer) is at war with God and cannot understand the things of God.

So, did Ignatius liken the HS to a "general feeling", or a specific personage with specific roles? That would be the meat of why he was almost labeled a heretic, and with good reason by the way.
 
#197
#197
PKT_VOL said:
I do like that quote. I wish it was applied more often in our criminal system, although I don't believe it is foolproof logic.

He did have an interesting life story. I wish more people would recognize that ripped a lot of his thoughts from Plato/Socrates.
Click to expand...

Plato:Augustine::Aristotle:Aquinas

PKT_VOL said:
As for the problem of evil, I am not a fan. I do think he made an interesting distinction that evil is not a characteristic in and of itself; only a deviation from perfection (good).
Click to expand...

The problem of evil is about as tricky to get around as the liar paradox. I like Augustine's move, but then it does not solve the functional problem (just the semantics); Kant's move, however, is pretty brilliant (he just says good is not omnibenevolent).
 
#199
#199
Orange_Crush said:
Not having read intently from Ignatius, I would be interested to hear how far he took this, and how he couched it.

In one way, He could be considered likened to a conscience, since His role is to convict the world of sin and lead the Christian through the process of sanctification. On the other, scripture says that each person has their own conscience, and that the unregenerated (non-believer) is at war with God and cannot understand the things of God.
Click to expand...

And this is where Reason comes in (best exemplified by the Chariot Allegory in the Plato's Phaedrus; or in the storm that kicks up when the apostles realize Jesus is not there (when they are without Reason) but is quelled once Jesus walks up to them (when they embrace Reason)).

Orange_Crush said:
So, did Ignatius liken the HS to a "general feeling", or a specific personage with specific roles? That would be the meat of why he was almost labeled a heretic, and with good reason by the way.
Click to expand...

Aquinas, not Ignatius. He argues that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity and that it is the Messenger of God, constantly with us and guiding us to act righteously; and, he presents a pretty solid argument that the Holy Spirit is manifested in each and every person's Conscience.
 
#200
#200
therealUT said:
Your criticisms are quite hypocritical. You want me to believe in fantastical stories in the bible while you choose not to give any credit to actual historical and/or scientific record.
Click to expand...

I am hypocritical? You claim them as fantastical a priori, and I pointed that out. It's bad logic. That would make your claims to be "skeptical" hypocritical, no? Since you based your opinion before researching?

I, on the other hand, have done a detailed survey of the claims made by Luke, and how they match up to the historical record. I have gone as far as to look at the criticisms against Luke as a historian on a century-by-century basis, noting the startling rate at which Luke's supposed mistakes have been ratified by historical discoveries.

I have never denied science. As a matter of fact, I love science! I just make the logical statement that it is possible for the natural laws of science to be overcome by the Creator who established them, if He does indeed exist. And, isn't that what the Bible discussion is, really? When taken at face value?

So, in that light... Who has given the most credit to historians? By making no a priori assumptions about the natural laws, who has treated them most fairly?

Hypocritical... Such an ironic word for you to use.

therealUT said:
Of course, star charts mean nothing because God would have stepped in and just put that star there. Fine; in that case, your God is an ******* because he steps in to set up a pretty star and sits idly by while millions of individuals are massacred, raped, tortured, imprisoned, etc. (and, a whole lot of that **** all happened "in his name" by Christians).
Click to expand...

Then your stance is better stated as:

I greatly dislike the God of the Bible. That dislike is exacerbated by the actions of some of the people who claim to follow Him.

Which is a far more honest response than your illogical dance with the Bible. It isn't any more logical than any of your other responses, since disliking someone does not in fact disprove that they exist. As a matter of fact, it agrees with what the Bible predicts about most people's response to Him.

therealUT said:
I will choose history; I will choose to accept the Hebrew as I have had it checked by other individuals in academia who speak Hebrew.
Click to expand...

No. You have not chosen history. You have hidden in one of the many areas where history doesn't speak, and ignored the many areas where it has spoken on this subject.

And please, do link out to your experts in Hebrew, and their dissection of the Hebrew tenses in question. I have. I'll provide more if you'll promise to actually go there this time, as opposed to discounting them out of hand Let's see what you have and compare notes.

Or was that just a smoke screen?


therealUT said:
Continue to throw yourself into the bible; be careful though, because if you take the same non-skeptical approach to the bible as you do everything else, you might just turn into a Hindu if you ever happen across the Upanishads or the Mahabharata.
Click to expand...

Non-skeptical? I've studied the Bible from beginning to end, circling back throughout seeking truth from history, the cultures in which it was written, what it has to say about itself, vast and immediate contextual cues... I've studied the historicity of the authors and players.

I've sought out and viewed archaeological inscriptions that prove the validity of the Exodus. I've parsed the Talmud and Mishna as written at the time of Christ. I've searched out archaeological details that prove the validity of Paul's missionary journey, as relayed by Luke in Acts.

You've basically said to yourself, "I think miracles are impossible, and I don't like what the Bible says about God, so I will choose to ignore what the Bible says, ignore what its writers said I should get from reading it, and insert my own invented allegory as actual truth."

I'm not saying you have to believe the Bible is true. I'm saying you are doing incredibly poorly if your search is for truth and reason. You seem to mistake inference and a priori statements for reason, and you mistake comfort for truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top