Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-24-2002, 05:30 PM

Hello NOGO,

Quote:

Is a person responsible for his father's crimes?

Children do at times bear the guilt and conseqences of their father's sins.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-24-2002, 05:31 PM

Hello Splashing,

Quote:

You have made it clear numerous times that you don't believe that christianity has a monopoly on religious truth, but the scriptures clearly don't support that position, quite the contrary. Not to mention your belief that non-christians can make it to heaven.

Do you consider your own beliefs a "false doctrine"? How can't it be if any doctrine that contradicts the scriptures is a false one?[/QB]

David: I don't believe that these teachings contradict the Scriptures.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Veil of Fire · 07-24-2002, 06:08 PM

Dave: Could you possibly be a little more cryptic and less informative? You actually almost *elaborated* on something in your last post, somebody might actually be starting to understand what you're talking about.

David Mathews · 07-24-2002, 09:41 PM

Hello Veil of Fire,

Quote:

Dave: Could you possibly be a little more cryptic and less informative? You actually almost *elaborated* on something in your last post, somebody might actually be starting to understand what you're talking about.

David: People who want elaboration must ask questions. That is how conversations proceed.

What would you like for me to elaborate?

Best Regards,

David Mathews

excreationist · 07-24-2002, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>...A false doctrine is a doctrine which contradicts the Scriptures...</strong>

What about when you wrote <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000436&p=9" target="_blank">this</a>:

Quote:

The Bible does have contradictory elements. Christians and Jews have known of these elements for thousands of years. Among those Christians and Jews were some of the greatest intellects that humankind has produced.

Contradictions -- as I have already stated -- are a necessary component of any revelation regarding the spiritual realm. Contradictions serve to illustrate the limitations upon the human intellect when it begins to contemplate matters absolutely outside the realm of human perception and conception.

Does this means that the Bible contains many false doctrines? Or that some of the Bible isn't part of the scriptures? If it is the latter, how do you decide which passages are scriptural and which aren't?

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 03:53 AM

Hello excreationist,

Quote:

Does this means that the Bible contains many false doctrines? Or that some of the Bible isn't part of the scriptures? If it is the latter, how do you decide which passages are scriptural and which aren't?

David: No, the Bible does not (and can not) contain false doctrines. False doctrine always occurs within the context of a religious community which shares common beliefs, customs, goals and identity. When an individual or group varies from those beliefs of the group he/she/they are regarded as having a false doctrine. All false doctrines are considered such because they contradict the universally accepted interpretation of the passage by the group.

All the teachings of outsiders (for example, the other denominations) are likewise judged. Those doctrines which are consistent with the teaching of the group are regarded as truth while those doctrines which contradict the teachings of the group are considered false.

"False doctrine" is only a meaningful term within the group. Outside the group (such as in the denominational world as a whole) false doctrine becomes indiscernable except for certain fundamentla matters of agreement within the larger context. Two examples in the religious world: Jehovah's Witnesses are rejected because of their doctrine regarding Jesus, Mormons are rejected because of their new Scriptures and other bizarre theology.

Between different denominations "false doctrine" has different meaning because the denominations emphasize different doctrines. For example, a Baptist may be regarded as a heretic among Baptist if he/she believed and taught some doctrines of the church of Christ. Likewise, a member of the church of Christ would be regarded as a false teacher if he/she belieed and taught some doctrines of the Baptist church.

False doctrine is always a variation from the accepted interpretation of a Scripture within the context of a faith-community.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

excreationist · 07-25-2002, 05:03 AM

David:

Quote:

...False doctrine always occurs within the context of a religious community which shares common beliefs, customs, goals and identity. When an individual or group varies from those beliefs of the group he/she/they are regarded as having a false doctrine. All false doctrines are considered such because they contradict the universally accepted interpretation of the passage by the group...

I think you're oversimplifying things... there would be many disagreements within individual denominations... e.g. about the ordination of women or slavery...
One point of view would be the traditional one and the other would be the liberal one. If the liberal doctrines (e.g. anti-slavery, anti-homosexuality, etc) take over then the old views would be considered extremist or false doctrines...
Anyway, I guess the "true" doctrines are the views that have been held by an overwhelming number of church leaders. When large numbers disagree there is no overall "true" doctrine - since true doctrine is based on the general consesus of people (or church leaders).

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Walter_Mitty · 07-25-2002, 05:50 AM

Hello David,

Quote:

�It may be urged that millions have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a being of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence, that he cannot by any means make known to them his will?�

~R. G. Ingersoll~

Sincerely,

Bibliophile
(ex-Christian)

NOGO · 07-25-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

David Matthews
Children do at times bear the guilt and conseqences of their father's sins.

I agree in the sense that if a man drives a car when drunk and has an accident his children may get hurt.

But what Jesus in Matthew 23 is talking about is entirely different. How?

Children in the car accident cannot be told "you testify against yourselves when you say that your father drove while he was drunk" and "Fill up in the guilt of your father" and "How can you escape punishment?"

How does anyone testify against himself simply by stating that his father/ancestor did something?

Jesus is not talking about the consequences of an act. He is talking about transferring guilt (ie. responsibility - testifying against yourself).

You have simply evaded the issue. Typical!

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO · 07-26-2002, 05:27 AM

Nothing to add, David ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 06:08 PM	#13
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Dave: Could you possibly be a little more cryptic and less informative? You actually almost elaborated on something in your last post, somebody might actually be starting to understand what you're talking about.

07-26-2002, 05:27 AM	#20
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Nothing to add, David ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.