FK: But the majority of my arguments are based directly on scripture, which I don't think you accept as objective
No I don't, because the only thing that is objective about the Bible is that it is a book. Its spiritual veracity is not objective.
I presume you want me to use SOLELY non-Christian sources to prove the truth of my Christian arguments.
No, I want you to stop saying: "it's true because it's in the Bible." That is not an objective argument.
If in your view you put Andrea Yates and Joshua in the same boat, then I don't think there is anything I can do to overcome that
You mean, in that they murdered because (allegedly) a loving God told them so? Yeah, I do put that on the same level of insanity.
It would seem you would declare Joshua as just some psycho who made up a mandate and went on a rampage
No, Joshua is simply a good Jew who defended Jewish interests in that part of the world and believed that God was telling him to massacre people for the good of Israel. Sounds positively jihadist to me. But it is as far from Christ as it can be.
Kosta: Maybe one day you will realize that the world starts with us and that what is true to us is not necessarily the objective truth.
FK: And that is the HEART of Renaissance thinking
Goodness, without the Renaissance we wouldn't be having this discussion! Let's not forget that the Protestant Reformation was born in the middle of it and that without the renaissance the whole Lutheran movement would have been impossible.
It is because of the Rainaissance that we can all read and write, that we have human rights, that we have representative democracy and printed books.
The world starts with man.
The world as we know it (this planet earth) was given to us according to our faith. Your eyes and ears and your senses detect the world and interpret it. Of course it "starts" from us; where else can we begin to see and hear from? And what we see and hear and feel affects what we think and believe.
And it was because of this thinking that they were never able to find unity between God and man
Mankind never claimed to have all the answers. It admitted in the early 20th century that it can never know the atom as it really is, so there is the profound mystery of the Creation.
Our mind simply cannot comprehend beyond a certain point. Finding unity with God would mean we have resolved the mystery of Creation. All we can say is that something (we call God) caused all this to exist (directly or indirectly), but we have no way of knowing that Cause as it really is, except (we believe) through, and in, Christ's humanity.
There is no way to do it if man is the starting point
No Renaissance man will ever say that mankind created the world.
Man wasn't around at the start so he cannot possibly know about it from himself.
What we know is that all this exists. How some things evolves or resulted is revealed by various methods discovered by mankind, by connecting the dots. It doesn't really explain the ultimate Cause, but only the secondary ones. No one ever claimed to know how it all began.
We can either offer a biblical hypothesis or a scientific one, but they all pretty much come to the same conclusion: ex nihilo, from nothing!
Logic tells us that before there was something, there was nothing (but our logic is not necessarily universal!). Science stops at that point, but we (beievers) don't. We say God "existed" before existence but we have no explanation for it. Our belief is not objective reality.
Kosta: That's not what Jesus taught, however.
FK: Yes, it certainly WAS. Jesus did not teach in the NT that we should go out and massacre at will, but He DID teach that we should always obey Him
In love and not in massacres.
The OT massacres (carried out righteously by humans) were always IN OBEDIENCE to God according to the scriptures
Sounds like something straight out of the Koran.
Therefore, they were implicitly following Christ's commands. In fact, many believe as I do that many/all of those OT commands were coming from Christ in the first place.
Only if you are making Christ into the OT God and not the OT God into Christ. The living, walking Christ never commanded anything like that. In fact, His "pacifist" approach offended so many because they expected an OT warrior-king and not this Man preaching love for your enemies. There is no Christ in "righteous" massacres. There is no love of God in them.
God hasn't asked of me anything like leading a nation of millions out of slavery. He hasn't asked me to kill my son or massacre an entire city. The communications I receive from the Holy Spirit just haven't been anything like that............ YET. :)
Hope your sword is sharp and your slings loaded. For the rest if us from the Apostolic side, we will fervently pray for the everyone's souls and hope that God will remember us in His Kingdom.
No I don't, because the only thing that is objective about the Bible is that it is a book. Its spiritual veracity is not objective.
Does the Orthodox Church represent objective truth?
FK: If in your view you put Andrea Yates and Joshua in the same boat, then I don't think there is anything I can do to overcome that.
You mean, in that they murdered because (allegedly) a loving God told them so? Yeah, I do put that on the same level of insanity.
So, God's hand-picked, right-hand man to Moses was comparable to Andrea Yates. OK. I guess Moses was also a crazy man since he ordered Joshua to kill people:
Ex 17:8-14 : 8 The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. 9 Moses said to Joshua , "Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands."
10 So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12 When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up — one on one side, one on the other — so that his hands remained steady till sunset. 13 So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.
14 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
This is the same crazy, murdering Moses about whom Jesus said:
John 5:46 : If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
So here, you have Jesus supporting, in the Gospels, a man you put in the same league with Andrea Yates. OK.
Kosta: Maybe one day you will realize that the world starts with us and that what is true to us is not necessarily the objective truth.
FK: And that is the HEART of Renaissance thinking.
Goodness, without the Renaissance we wouldn't be having this discussion! Let's not forget that the Protestant Reformation was born in the middle of it and that without the renaissance the whole Lutheran movement would have been impossible.
Yes, I agree in principle. :) And the truth is that the Reformation movement directly opposed Renaissance philosophers. The Renaissance men were humanists who believed that man was autonomous and that the starting point for understanding the universe was man himself. Naturally, the Catholic Church was heavily on the side of the Renaissance thinkers. The Apostolic Church rejected the idea of the complete Fall, and added the element of man's inner goodness. Francis Schaeffer said it well in his book "Escape From Reason":
"In the Roman Catholic position there was a decided work of salvation - Christ died for our salvation, but man had to merit the merit of Christ. Thus there was a humanistic element involved. The Reformers said that there is nothing man can do; no autonomous or humanistic religious or moral effort of man can help. One is saved only on the basis of the finished work of Christ as He died in space and time in history, and the only way to be saved is to raise the empty hands of faith and, by God's grace, to accept God's free gift - faith alone. It was Scripture alone and faith alone."
Renaissance thinkers could not accept this because anything other than man was in control. The Catholic Church naturally went along for the ride. While that period saw amazing production in the artistic areas of painting, music, literature, sculpture, etc., and even science, their own narcissism led their theology over the edge. For God's owns reasons, at that time He decided to right the ship and formalize Reformation theology.
[Continued on next post]
The world as we know it (this planet earth) was given to us according to our faith. Your eyes and ears and your senses detect the world and interpret it. Of course it "starts" from us; where else can we begin to see and hear from? And what we see and hear and feel affects what we think and believe.
Ah, if you believed in and trusted the Holy Scriptures, then you would have a complete answer to your question. The Renaissance men could not begin to answer it either, so you are not alone at all. The problem with your (and their) view is that you have no answer at all to the problem of unifying the universals with the particulars. It can't be done if you start with man. Leonardo, as brilliant as he was, died a broken man trying. But he couldn't let go either. Man always had to come first.
Under your (and their) view you have no hope of ever answering the eternal questions that give meaning to a man's life, to his very existence. That's because man wasn't around when all that happened. One can NEVER reach eternal truth by starting with finite man.
FK: And it was because of this thinking that they were never able to find unity between God and man.
Mankind never claimed to have all the answers.
I never said anything about ALL the answers. I'm only talking about the most important ones. :)
Our mind simply cannot comprehend beyond a certain point. Finding unity with God would mean we have resolved the mystery of Creation.
No, I believe you make the mistake of assuming that unity only means nothing or EQUALITY. It doesn't. Unity means according to God's purpose. Our knowledge of God cannot be exhaustive, but it can nevertheless be very meaningful. This was beyond the comprehension of Renaissance philosophers because they were so focused on man. When the focus is turned to God, then our place in the universe becomes apparent, and it is good.
No Renaissance man will ever say that mankind created the world.
That's right, they will say what you say, that some unknowable "thing" did it. And, that we can never understand anything about that thing, which we will call "God". Therefore, for answers we must start from what we do know, man. Thus, the cycle of futility begins.
What we know is that all this exists. How some things evolves or resulted is revealed by various methods discovered by mankind, by connecting the dots. It doesn't really explain the ultimate Cause, but only the secondary ones. No one ever claimed to know how it all began.
Reformed and other Bible-believing Christians DO. :) We always have.
Logic tells us that before there was something, there was nothing (but our logic is not necessarily universal!). Science stops at that point, but we (believers) don't. We say God "existed" before existence but we have no explanation for it. Our belief is not objective reality.
If we start with man, you're right, there is no explanation. However, if we start with God then we know that for a thing to exist it must have been ultimately created by something. So, since God is uncreated and is the Creator of all things, that your use of the word "existence" must refer to everything outside of God. He existed before anything (else) existed as humans perceive existence. The person who starts with man says this is made up fantasy because it can't be proved by man's standards. No man was there before existence, therefore there is no witness, therefore it cannot be true, therefore there is no answer.
FK: The OT massacres (carried out righteously by humans) were always IN OBEDIENCE to God according to the scriptures.
Sounds like something straight out of the Koran.
Once again, I could not possibly care less what the Koran does or doesn't say. It doesn't affect what the word of God says. In that word I trust completely.
For the rest if us from the Apostolic side, we will fervently pray for the everyone's souls and hope that God will remember us in His Kingdom.
You can wish for and we will trust in.