David:Do you indeed consider 'General and Special Relativity' ala Einstein PHILOSOPHY? Kindly explain.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: December 31, 2004 12:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth > Lance wrote: > > David Miller says: 'Basically, I hold Scripture(implied: > > AS I ALONE INTERPRET THOSE SCRIPTURES.. > > No implication like this at all. The Scriptures are of no private > interpretation. The idea implied here is that Scritpures, every jot and > tittle, are an authority which can be trusted. Our interpretations of what > is written might change as new knowledge comes our way, either from other > Scriptures, or from other sources. > > Lance wrote: > > ... Yes, I will engage any and all in 'truthtalk' > > regarding Scripture but, in the end it will indeed > > be MY INTERPRETATION that I hold to > > and live by and reasoning (implied: A LOGIC AND > > A RATIONALITY UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE > > SO AS TO COME TO THE 'TRUE' SENSE OF > > ANY AND ALL STATEMENTS CONCERNING > > REALITY) to be something that trumps creeds. > > Yeah, that is pretty much true. > > Although we are not judged by God for what creeds we believe or do not > believe, creeds can very much influence our behavior, which is judged by > God. Therefore, creeds play an indirect role in how we might be judged. > Ultimately, each of us alone must come before God and be held accountable. > God judges us as individuals. When I stand before the Lord on judgment day, > I cannot say, "I did such and such because my pastor told me ..." or, "the > creed I was told to believe said ..." Because I stand before the Lord as an > individual, I do the best I can to consider the knowledge that comes my way > and to judge righteous judgment concerning it. If I decide to accept or > reject a particular creed, I alone am responsible for that action. > > Lance wrote: > > David, I'm assuming that you believe the 'creeds' in question > > to have undergone the exact same process you wish to employee. > > Yes I do, but I also realize that the knowledge I have now is greater than > the knowledge of those in the fourth century who may have attempted to > formulate a creed. Also, the issues they focused upon in the creed may not > be the issue I am focusing upon now. For example, one of the major issues > of the Nicene creed was the homousia versus homoiusia dispute. I always > chuckle at such a heated debate over a single iota in the creed, yet that > single iota was very important. I do side with those who won out in > choosing homousia to describe the relationship of the son to the father. > > At the same time, I'm not sure so much attention was given to phrases like > "co-equal" when Jesus himself said that his father was greater than him. I > agree with the idea of "co-equal," but only in certain aspects of its use. > I'm not sure everyone who uses the term uses it in that way. It is just > like the husband and wife relationship. Many say husbands and wives are > equal. Well, in certain context, that is true. My wife has my name and she > owns everything I own. However, there are ways in which we are not equal. > In regards to physical strength, I am superior to my wife. I also am > intellectually superior. I also am the ultimate authority in our household. > So it depends upon what is in view when we talk about equality. > > It is important to consider that departure from creedal statements > concerning the relationship of the son to the father has caused Protestants > to put to death men like Michael Servetus and Giovanne Gentile. It > continues to be a reason that millions of Mormons are excluded from the > label of Christian by many other Christians. Could it be that our > understanding of the relationship of the son and the father is not so set in > stone as some would lead us to believe? Could it be that the creeds are not > the final word on this subject? I think that is a distinct possibility, > considering the memory of those whose convictions led them to face death > instead of rejecting their convictions and embracing the popular creed of > orthodoxy that was the foundation of condemning them to death. > > Lance wrote: > > So then, am I to understand that:David Miller (and > > each one of us) will, by the means outlined above, > > formulate our a creed and, determine whether > > 'ours' or 'theirs' is that to which we will, FOR THE > > TIME BEING, subscribe (believe)? > > Perhaps, or we can keep our understanding open ended, as some of the quotes > you provided suggested to us, in which case the adherence to creeds can > sometimes be skipped altogether. > > Lance wrote: > > Is it appropriate, at this juncture, to ask of the one > > self-identified scientist on TT (David Miller) to aid > > us in coming to an understanding of the distinction > > between 'relativity' and 'relativism'? > > I think this is your department, Lance. You are much better versed in > philosophy than I am. Give it a shot if you think it helpful to do so. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
