Really? By what dogma?

Oh, but it isn't. In fact, it's the subject of this entire thread. Either back up your assertion, or let us know it is your uninformed opinion.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

Oh - but it is self evident.

It would not be a religion worth talking about unless it offered itself as the truth. That is the entire point of a religion - it is the truth. The truth shall set you free. Jesus is truly the son of god. Abraham really talked to god. And mohammed really recieved the quran via god.

Religion has no potency otherwise. Do you think the pope would dress as funny as he does if he thought the catholic church was merely just an opinion about the universe? Do you think a muslim suicide bomber would blow himself up if he thought the quran was just any old book? Do you think jews would have stolen palestinian land if they didnt truly believe it was the land of milk and honey promised to them by their god?

The fact is muslims believe the quran is the literal word of god as given to the prophet mohammed. Christians believe the bible is either the literal or inspired word of god. Jews believe the Torah is the literal word of god. Budhists truly believe meditation offers salvation through the cycle of samsara eventually ending in nirvana? And so on with every civilized religion.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

thats ok the whole "cannon within cannon" as luther put it is hard.

The reason I believe what I do about the theological truth and don't call the whole story theological truth is because the Bible is not the sole arbiter and definer of truth. The Bible reveals a very specific truth about salvation, but God also speaks through science. Modern science (an avenue which God also speaks through) says that the world is in fact not six thousand years old was not created in seven days. Through the Bible God tells us that he created the world and how that relates to the salvation story, and science tells us the specifics of creation itself (having nothing to do with salvation). It's hard to tell what is true and what is not, but it is the endevour of every Christian to try and work through it. I take a very Augustinian view on this issue and say that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible, and what we think is contradiction is only are inability to grasp everything at once. If we find a contradiction we must work to find a solution using all the sources of truth (the Bible and science in this case).

That is how I use all sources (the Bible and others) to come to what is true. Within the Bible I use the method of the lens of the Gospel. If something does not align with Christs teachings I don't consider it as authoritative. An example is why I don't think homosexuality is sinful. Christ says nothing about what so ever. Paul says it is wrong, but Paul also says I can keep slaves and women should be silent in the church; neither of which I agree with (my mother is Lutheran pastor). So when I look at those passages I don't see them aligning with the Gospel so I claim they are not theological truths.

Last part of it is a personal issue. While there are defiantly wrong ways to read and interpret the Bible I don't think there is one way. It is Gods word, but the Holy Spirit moves us all differently in response to it.

hope that helps.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Do they? I don't.
I suspect that only a subset of them would claim "absolute truth about the universe".

Science tells us nothing about the specifics of creation. In fact, science says nothing about your god - or the creator if you want - which is the one and only premise for concluding anything about a creation. Hence it has nothing to offer regarding any kind of theological truth, be it creation itself, the methods of creation or otherwise. Therefore, as you also point out, the Bible is what you have to refer to if you are to argue the theological truth of creation. However, since you are extracting a truth from the Bible - namely that the deity created the world - must it not follow that the methods of the creation, as described by that very source of truth, must be true?

Said in other words, if you can't rely on the Bible but have to rely on some other source than the Bible in order to find out how the world originated - not created, mind you, but merely came into existence - can you at all rely on the Bible as a source of truth?

I'm not sure what you refer to when you say that it's hard to tell what is true and what isn't. Do you mean that it's hard to tell what is true in the Bible and what is not?

I see. Am I right in assuming then that the term "theological truth" may be replaced synonomously with "belief"? As in "it's a theological truth that .." being synonomous with "I believe that .. "?

Not as to help me understand how it's possible to discard things in the Bible as false and yet use the same source to claim any kind of truth. But I do thank you for replying. It's always interesting to read your posts.

Greetings and Felicitations,

Not necessarily correct. Meditation, in and of itself, will not let you escape the wheel of suffering. Meditation is a method to allow you to learn to let go of your attachments and achieve enlightenment. What allows you to achieve enlightenment is taking refuge in the three jewels --the Buddha, The Dharma and the Sangha?

There are a couple of real differences between Buddhism and Christianity. The Buddha insisted that all Buddhist accept only those things that they have personally analyzed and found to be true. He never insisted that they follow him just because they should.

In Peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

Polls show that the majority do.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

There are differences for sure. But both offer salvation from the imperfect state of humanity. That is what makes them both civilized.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

ah but I believe that everything in this world reveals God in some way. Science reveals the process' and rules God set up for this world. The Genesis story, I argue, was written by man thousands of years ago who had no knowledge of our science so he tried to explain the process the best he could in a story. It doesn't follow that the process was must be theological truth as well because the story is metaphorical. God meant the story to be applicable for thousands of years, but he also intended for us to understand the science we do so we could share in the wonder of his creation

I don't know if I would put it that way. More like the Bible has a very specific truth it is trying to reveal. The bible was not meant to be used as a history text book. If you take the whole thing literally you miss so much. The Bible is meant to reveal the story of salvation. Now the story of creation is part of this, but only the parts that have to do with that salvation. Quantum theory, Gravity, the theory of general relativity don't really have anything to do with that salvation which is why they are not there. I look to other sources for the truth when the Bible is not in it's context.


short answer: yes. Long answer: people spend there whole lives trying to figure out what is "true" in the Bible and even today Christians aren't in agreement. Is genesis literal? is Revelation a time table for the future? which does the Bible advocate, theology of works or faith? who wrote the books of the Bible? I could go on forever, and almost every Christian probably has a slightly different answer (even me and Dil would probably disagree on some things).


kind of... that term arises from my religion professor who drilled it in to me and i use it here because people are so concerned with "what is the truth of the Bible." The term represents a little more than just belief. An example is I believe that a guy named Jesus was killed, but there is a deeper theological truth behind that than just the Gospel account of him dying. Does that example work?

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Which proves that believers believe in their religion - but it does not prove the the dogma of the religion is that there is no other way that is valid.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

Can you explain the latter?

I find it to be quite contrary. Beliefs do not necessarily require that there is no other way that is valid. But religious dogma always requires that no other way is possible. That's why it's dogma, a.k.a. the formalized authoritative certainty of an issue.

Greetings and Felicitations,

This is why you and I will never come to a consensus. I will not be a slave to anything. I will not be a slave to god. I will not become a slave to my fellow humans. I will not be a slave to chocolate. I will not become a slave to drugs. Or alcohol. Or sex. I will not submit my will to something I can see and I am even less likely to submit my will to something I can't see.
There are two different kinds of people in the world. There are slaves and there are masters. Slaves look to surrender themselves to something be it god or drugs or sex. A master seeks to rule himself and make his own decisions. A slave will always look for something to follow and a master will always look to forge his/her own path. There may be times when I choose to work with others but it will always be of my choice. Not because I can't restrain myself or because the rule was handed down from god or man. I choose to decide which rules to make my own and cannot choose to otherwise.

This is why I have trouble with most religions. I even wrote a paper on it for my humanities class: The Ethics of Servitude Amongst Western Religion. We are nothing without god and live only by his whim. Humans are nothing in the great plan of gods and live only to serve. I will always be on the otherside.

In Peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

I would love to see a poll that includes the question: "Do you know the absolute truth about the universe?" or something similarly all-encompassing.

What would that imply about someone who believed in "Salvation through Christ" and all that stuff from the gospels but didn't believe you had to be a Christian to go to heaven?
That they weren't religious? That they weren't part of the "Christian religion"?

I don't see what even religious dogma can't simply be a claim of truth, but not necessarily a claim of all truth or a claim to be the sole source of truth. Some religions (or at least, some sects of religions) obviously do make such claims. But I don't see how its required.