Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(:An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible.")
(blood sacrifice in the OT and NT)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome.  But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
 
::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome.  But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:::Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing ''all'' people of ''all'' their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 14:53, December 17, 2009

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. DaveGBx 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--Andy Schlafly 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)

To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. Eoinc 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --Matthew2208 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--Andy Schlafly 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--Matthew2208 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.
I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).
The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
  • Genesis 1, 2
  • Timothy 2:4
  • Revelation 21:27
  • Romans 6:23
  • Hebrews 9:22
What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message X to be true, then Y and Z can be deduced from that, and if Z is true, then that leads us to A, B, and eventually to C....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. Eoinc 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--TSpencer 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)
(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly animal sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter to the Hebrews). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.
An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--Andy Schlafly 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing all people of all their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? Eoinc 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)