Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 1, 2022 13:51:05 GMT
I would argue that this is not the case. I could appeal to Kierkegaard, but I think it's more important to determine the criteria of the investigation. If someone attempts to "squeeze God (or revelation) into a box determined by empirical measurement," then of course when you open that box, you'll find nothing in there. You know, when you stop to think about it, a book is kind of a box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 1, 2022 15:00:48 GMT
People just don’t go to church like the used to. Beautiful sanctuary. Maybe another denomination will purchase it
Thanks. It's not the one I was raised in, but similar. For me, it's the fellowship and congregation that makes it magic. Kind of like a friendly web site (if such actually exists in this day and age). Come to think of it, as people start to burn out on social media nonsense, perhaps churches will see a surge.
We'll see. There is a move (and a push) to VR worship experiences right now. A lot of minuses. A few pluses. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 1, 2022 15:05:43 GMT
Well, I stopped attending church regularly when I was in High School. Something about my mother feeling slighted by a church biddy. I have attended services only sporadically since then, such as for weddings, concerts, and such. But I still have fond memories of the old church of my childhood. See, and this is something I don't understand—meeting together for nostalgia, familiarity, and comfort. I'm "in the industry," but if my job was reduced to facilitating significant life events like weddings and funerals in addition to maintaining weekly services that scratch the itch of traditional familiarity, I'd be out. Simply not worth it. A few years ago, a friend (quite a bit older) asked my wife and I to go down to Florida and be the "resident preacher" in their little Florida community. I did that two years in a row, and it was like stepping back in time—old familiar songs, old traditions ("you have to stand at the door and shake everybody's hands on the way out")...and after the second year, it hit me: I could have been "doing this" for the past 20 years—just running weekly services that people like and appreciate, that never change, that hit the same spot, as people just get older and older. Good God! And this is what many of us do! No thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2022 17:42:00 GMT
Churches make me ill, chur ill, Churchill... got it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2022 17:44:18 GMT
You know, when you stop to think about it, a book is kind of a box.
What does your squeeze think of your squeeze box? |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 1, 2022 18:42:52 GMT
Investigation destroys revelation. I would argue that this is not the case. I could appeal to Kierkegaard, but I think it's more important to determine the criteria of the investigation. If someone attempts to "squeeze God (or revelation) into a box determined by empirical measurement," then of course when you open that box, you'll find nothing in there. The problem is that revelation is vastly inferior to investigation as a source of knowledge. When people have religious questions, you have to turn to revelation to answer them. In Christianity, the revelation closed with the Apocalypse of John in the mid-200s. What happens if the answer isn't there? What if the revealed answer is awful or repellent? What if the revealed answer is confusing, conflicted, or nonsensical? Well, too bad. Of course, if you turn the powers of investigation back on Christianity, and especially its scriptures, the problems pile up quickly. Revelation can't answer the problems of the revelation itself. We agree that empirical investigation can't answer the question of the existence of God. But it can answer much that revelation can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 1, 2022 20:02:16 GMT
I would argue that this is not the case. I could appeal to Kierkegaard, but I think it's more important to determine the criteria of the investigation. If someone attempts to "squeeze God (or revelation) into a box determined by empirical measurement," then of course when you open that box, you'll find nothing in there. The problem is that revelation is vastly inferior to investigation as a source of knowledge. When people have religious questions, you have to turn to revelation to answer them. In Christianity, the revelation closed with the Apocalypse of John in the mid-200s. What happens if the answer isn't there? What if the revealed answer is awful or repellent? What if the revealed answer is confusing, conflicted, or nonsensical? Well, too bad. Of course, if you turn the powers of investigation back on Christianity, and especially its scriptures, the problems pile up quickly. Revelation can't answer the problems of the revelation itself. We agree that empirical investigation can't answer the question of the existence of God. But it can answer much that revelation can't. You're equating "revelation" with "scripture." I'm not. Let's say, for the sake of this conversation, that "revelation" is not necessary spiritual, but a general concept. Even in science, we investigate after insight. Insight precedes investigation—whether the insight emerges through intuition, a flash of inspiration, or some kind of "revelation." That's how it works. Before the experiment is done, an insight suggests what the experiment might be. We don't get to those suggestions by systematic investigation, but by insight. Then the experiment tests the insight. I would argue that in Christianity, the same is true. Although revelation cannot necessarily be tested empirically, it must be tested and not merely accepted as such. Christians have Scripture. Sure. But they act according to how Scripture is interpreted...and those interpretations must themselves be subject to scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 1, 2022 21:50:09 GMT
You're equating "revelation" with "scripture." I'm not. For Christianity, I might also include "sacred tradition" along with the Bible, just to gather in the non-sola-scriptura folks. But generally, yes, I'm using "revelation" in the theological sense of "special revelation": a message received from the divine. That is the way nearly everyone uses it, and that's the way I'm using it as well. As I've told others on this board, you're welcome to your own personal definitions of words, but don't be surprised if they confuse more than they enlighten. Insight is built into investigation, yes. But revelation is vastly different. 1. Investigation can prove an insight wrong; a revelation cannot be proven wrong. 2. Investigation can be carried out as needed; revelation comes when the gods feel like it. 3. Investigation can replace wrong knowledge with new. New revelations cannot contradict the old, else the divine is a liar. 4. Investigation has no preferred receiver. Anyone can carry out investigation and obtain results that are as good as any other's. Revelation requires special receivers with divine favor. Investigation is far more useful and applicable. It simply won't do to equate "insight into possibility" with "God reveals the text of Jeremiah". And of course, once you turn investigation against revelation itself, the problems mount quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 1, 2022 22:33:21 GMT
You're equating "revelation" with "scripture." I'm not. For Christianity, I might also include "sacred tradition" along with the Bible, just to gather in the non-sola-scriptura folks. But generally, yes, I'm using "revelation" in the theological sense of "special revelation": a message received from the divine. That is the way nearly everyone uses it, and that's the way I'm using it as well. As I've told others on this board, you're welcome to your own personal definitions of words, but don't be surprised if they confuse more than they enlighten. Even the "sola scriptura folks" also held to "sola fide." Nobody truly believes "sola scritpura" to the extreme. The Reformers did not reject the creeds or the early Church Fathers (or most traditions, for that matter—their basic liturgy for the most part was an adjusted form of the Roman Catholic liturgy). Well, yes it can. Can't it? The Bible actually says to "test the spirits..." So a revelation can be tested and "proven wrong." Perhaps revelation occurs more than you think. Wrong. Investigations only take place after an insight "emerges" ("is revealed"?). You can't "investigate your way towards new insight." Investigation can prove wrong. It does not, on its own, offer a correction. Depends. Much of what we call "revelation" (that is, prior revelation—whether Scripture or something else) is "interpretation." Again, I would suggest that it does (or could) happen more than you think. I would argue they are two sides of the same coin. Basic revelation (insight) is necessary to even have something to investigate. "Spiritual revelation" still requires investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 7, 2022 0:00:42 GMT
1. Investigation can prove an insight wrong; a revelation cannot be proven wrong. Well, yes it can. Can't it? The Bible actually says to "test the spirits..." So a revelation can be tested and "proven wrong." No, that's the difference between whether a revelation actually came from a god or some other spirit. This is not the same as proving a divine revelation wrong. Perhaps! But who can say? Insight is part of investigation. And those who work on the bleeding edge will tell you that insight is rarely divorced from investigation. And your argument is a semantic game. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 7, 2022 0:41:06 GMT
And your argument is a semantic game. Well, in this context I'm using "revelation" very generally, not "theology." We don't "create insights." They "come to us." I'm arguing that Christian "revelations" are not immune from investigation, just like any other revelation. It's one reason why bizarre schismatic beliefs tend not to persist. |
|
