Spiritual Tramp - Latest Comments

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

Larry — Sun, 06 May 2012 13:41:16 -0000

Thank for posting this! I'll probably retag this post in one of my blogs. I read the original post (from Jared's blog), and felt too much "hate", legalism, and control in it. You list more "guidelines" than rules, guidance, and heart-felt love toward inviting someone in your family. You didn't come off threatening as the original did.
Thanks for renewing my hope in Christian parents!

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

spiritualtramp — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:18:36 -0000

Thanks John! Yeah there's not much you can do except your best (and pray... A LOT).

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

John Wilkerson — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:16:38 -0000

Funny stuff, Scott. We do everything we can to prepare our children for life and they still face it unprepared. I think she's getting a leg up with you as her father.

My daughter turns 13 this Summer and fortunately she still finds boys a little icky.

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

spiritualtramp — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:38:51 -0000

Thanks. It's doing that in spades. :D

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

J. Daniel Sawyer — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:30:52 -0000

Aaah, I was lacking context of the post this was replying to.

Sorry to hear it ain't drama free. In that case I fall back to another well-wish:
May your daughter's adolescence provide you with excellent writing material! ;-)
-Dan

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

spiritualtramp — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:26:47 -0000

Oh I've dispensed with any thoughts of "controlling" my daughter. I don't see anything in my post that's destructive or even particularly controlling. Most of it's tongue in cheek and a direct answer to the truly controlling points that Jared made in his post. I think you may be reading more into my post than is there. Or maybe I'm too close to it.

And so far it's been anything but drama free.

Re: So You Want To Date My Daughter

J. Daniel Sawyer — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:19:42 -0000

Good luck ;-) One of the great secrets of teenagerhood is that kids with high sex drives and inclinations to independence are impossible to reign in, and those who aren't usually don't require near the amount of effort implied in the above. In the long run, all hope you have of controlling and protecting your daughter ends sometime between her 17th and 22nd birthday. The character of your interaction with her in her teenage years will do a lot to set the tone for the quality of your relationship (or lack thereof) in her adult years.

Not saying this to be a jerk, I just hear a lot in there that I've seen destroy those adult relationships. In the end, she owns herself, and only she will be able to take responsibility and consequences for her decisions, good, bad, or mixed. When a person hits physical adulthood, fostering trust goes a lot farther than imposing control.

FWIW, and I do hope that your daughter's adolescence is remarkably drama-free for all involved :-)
-Dan

Re: Trustworthy

spiritualtramp — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:47:15 -0000

"Books such as the Tao te Ching, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon are trustworthy works of philosophy while being in steadfast philosophical and historical opposition to the Bible"

I suppose that's true to a point. I've read chunks of all three and have tried to establish an understanding of their worldviews and I don't see them answering the big questions about life/the universe/everything that the Bible does. So I don't find them trust worthy. There's some truth in them. Two of the three cribbed heavily from Judeo-Christian beliefs/writings after all. So it wouldn't make sense if they didn't.

"if [the Bible] says something, that statement is reliable historical fact or demonstrable observation"

I'm not so sure that I agree since I think the Bible contains a good many stories that I don't believe are a "reliable historical fact" or a "demonstrable observation". For example I think the Song of Songs is a work of beautiful fiction. I feel the same way about Job. I don't think it makes the worth of those stories any less. And don't get me started on the creation story.

I've read Stroble's works and they're readable certainly, but hardly convincing. Have you read anything by Ehrman? He's also very readable and is more of a scholar (though some of his scholarship is slipshod).

My point is, I don't feel like I can say any of the scripture we have is "inerrant" because not only do we not have the originals (though we do have excellent copies) we also have translations that battle one another over non-trivial things. I have to use multiple translations in any serious study to see where something pans out and that's just in English.

I think the translations we have are sufficient, as Brad said, to lead us to salvation and to teach us the Christian life and how to live it. So, it is trustworthy.

Re: Trustworthy

spiritualtramp — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:37:12 -0000

What makes you uncomfortable? Is the Bible not trustworthy? ;-)

Re: Trustworthy

spiritualtramp — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:36:42 -0000

No insult taken my dear. While I don't want Brad's faith, something like it would be nice.

Re: Trustworthy

Winston Crutchfield — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:49:26 -0000

I sympathize with your struggle visavis the inerrancy camp regarding the scripture, Scott. It can be difficult to conceptualize the existence and text of scripture with those things that it claims about itself. I think trustworthy is a good start, but it's important to understand that many other doctrines are trustworthy as well. Books such as the Tao te Ching, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon are trustworthy works of philosophy while being in steadfast philosophical and historical opposition to the Bible.

One of the most important and rewarding areas of Biblical study is that of its historicity and the implications thereof. You say that we don't have the original manuscripts, and that you don't know just what inerrancy means. Study on the historicity of the scripture reveals that we have perfectly faithful recreations of the original works, still in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. No other work of religious doctrine can make that claim and provide extant proof the way Scripture can.

Inerrancy as a doctrine refers to the complete accuracy and internal consistency of Scripture. Essentially, if it says something, that statement is reliable historical fact or demonstrable observation. The spiritual and philosophical authority of the text derives from the accuracy of its historicity and the consistency of its record into the modern day.

Two excellent resources on the inerrancy of scripture and the historical provenance of the text are: Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and The Case for Christ. I think you would find the research rewarding.

Re: Trustworthy

Jason Faylen — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:34:37 -0000

Leigh,
Scott's views often make me uncomfortable, and this is another one of those. However, I'm not sure that it is a sign of less or lesser faith. In fact, I think it may be easier to have faith in black and white things (the way you and I are used to them being) than in grey things. We can have a comfortable and dogmatic certainty in things that are black and white, though it's entirely possible it is a false certainty. but when it come to grey areas, I think it is much more difficult to have faith in something that can't be perfectly described and detailed. that feels like a bigger faith. and i think that's why i struggle sometimes when I just can't see something as black and white.

Re: Trustworthy

Leigh Roche — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:47:10 -0000

I wish my husband had your faith. No insult intended Scott.

Re: Trustworthy

spiritualtramp — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:25:34 -0000

Hey Brad!

I think that "hopeful belief" falls somewhere south of where I am (assuming that your stance is north). I do trust that the Bible gives me (and the world) what it needs for the path of salvation. I haven't studied the differences in the texts. Perhaps if I did I would be filled with the certainty you have. Probably not though, since I know people that have and they fall into a different camp than you do.

I'll definitely stand with you in your belief that the Bible is more than "just a book" (even though by its strictest definition that's what it is).

So I have neither a Byzantine nor an Alexandrian view. I think viewpoints that reduce this to an either or argument do a disservice to the wider possibilities and actively cause others to throw up their hands in disgust.

Re: Trustworthy

Brad Mcfadden — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:51:23 -0000

First and most important. I love and respect you, Scott. I am not attacking you nor do I mean to insult you in any way. On this subject tho I tend to be harsh. I do not mean it in any way toward you personally. Nor do I mean to demean anyone. We are all very valuable to God regardless of our rightness, wrongness or even beliefs. That said:

Seems to me that we as a body keep taking steps backward and calling it enlightenment. The post modern culture infiltrates us and tells us that ALL we have is our flawed perspective and that everything else is just hopeful belief. I completely disagree. We do have flawed perspectives yes. BUT we also have the image of God in us. God is a supernatural being that created everything. He that great HE the He that said he was the I AM. Who has existence within his own being! He planted his supernatural image in little flawed fleshly things? WOW. One of the blessings of that image is that: We CAN know things. It is a blessing from God himself. One of the things I can know is God's word. A study of the texts confirms that the they are more than reliable. They are TOO reliable. One of the main arguments textual critics give for the inferior Alexandrian texts is that the Majority mss are just TOO good. A normal book could not possibly have so many copies in so many languages from so many different places with so few variances (over 99 percent of all variants are spelling variants and no variants actually change the textual result). Any good scientific mind will tell you that just cant be so, they must not be real. They must have been altered to sync up. Real texts would have mistakes and more grammar flaws and be very different from each other... exactly what we find in the alexandrian mss. So we are left with two ways of thinking really. A Byzantine view that the Word of God is inerrant, miraculous and is perserved by the same Holy God that breathed it and promised to perserve it or an Alexandrian view that the word of God was perhaps miraculously delivered but we cant know, (it might have been written on unicorn tusks originally for all we know) but that not even God (or the version of him we choose to accept) can escape the scientific law of "change over time". I choose to accept that we can know. That we can weigh the evidence and know. We can ASK, SEEK, and KNOCK and that the promises associated with those tasks will be kept. Does the KJV have some publishing mistakes? of course. But has the word of God been perserved in the majority text then to the english world through the KJV? I think the evidence screams yes. Is the gospel message perserved in the alexandrian versions? yes. People are saved by reading them. Finally, the word of God says we can trust it. It claims to be breathed not just inspired and that it will always be perserved. It also teaches that we can know and that knowing things is what God wants for us. It teaches that ambiguity and confusion is not of God.
The more we move away from certainty the more we weaken the foundation for those that come after.

My personal history was that I believed in the inerrant word of God until college then it fell apart until i did not trust the word of God at all by the time I was 30. Then in my 30s the Lord built my trust back on his word and then showed me how the devil tricked me into vain philosophies and now I believe in infallibility. (sounds like I am saying something about others there but I am not I am just talking about me).

Re: Jesus – Bisexual Polygamist?

spiritualtramp — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:31:12 -0000

Where does your "inside knowledge" come from?

Re: Walking Like a Dick

spiritualtramp — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:30:05 -0000

"we can only imagine how much the teachings changed before they were first written down"

We can imagine it, but we have no proof that it's the case.

Re: Walking Like a Dick

TwinSoulRevelations — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:44:06 -0000

You've got a point here - a valid point - but I fear the Christian faith is based on misunderstandings of what Jesus truly said. It is understandable - he didn't write his teachings down - nor did anyone else at the time, and we can only imagine how much the teachings changed before they were first written down - let alone how much they've changed since. I don't think the argument here is that which view is correct, Christianity or atheism, but rather, which one is less wrong. :D

Give me a choice, and I'll go for the guy who says he's an Atheist over one that calls himself Christian any time, not knowing anything else of either, that is - I do think that Atheists are closer to what they should be... Because they allow themselves to be what they are meant to be without restrictions from the Bible or other "holy" book. They accept their souls desire even though they don't believe in a soul. And that is a good thing. Why would God give a damn about what we believe, whether we believe in him or not, or whether we do this or that or the other... He doesn't need us to believe in him in order to exist, after all... He is not a fairy.

Re: Jesus – Bisexual Polygamist?

TwinSoulRevelations — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:28:39 -0000

To the life of me I can't swallow the idea that we're "all" brides of Jesus. The whole analogy makes me angry because he was Mary's guy... Magdalene of course. And to the life of me I will not believe that he visited "bad women" just to have his feet oiled by a whore's hair... (Even though that sounds suitably kinky to me, I don't think that was what was ACTUALLY going on.) I do dare to say I have some inside knowledge to this - but let's just say that you're closer to the truth than those who claim he was a virgin with issues about sex and homosexuality and who knows what!

Re: Living Together

Xingfuyisheng1 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:00:17 -0000

GHD Australia
GHD Straightener
GHD Hair Straightener
GHD
Cheap GHD
Cheap GHD Straightener

ghd kiss
ghd pure
ghd purple
ghd red
ghd blue
ghd green
mini styler
ghd new purple
ghd salon
ghd styling
ghd precious
ghd pretty pink
ghd rare
ghd radiance

Re: Private: Unlovable?

Xingfuyisheng1 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:57:37 -0000

GHD Australia
GHD Straightener
GHD Hair Straightener
GHD
Cheap GHD
Cheap GHD Straightener

ghd kiss
ghd pure
ghd purple
ghd red
ghd blue
ghd green
mini styler
ghd new purple
ghd salon
ghd styling
ghd precious
ghd pretty pink
ghd rare
ghd radiance

Re: Walking Like a Dick

J. Daniel Sawyer — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:54:32 -0000

I recommend reading Hitler's "Table Talk" and "Mein Kampf" as well as his speeches, if you want a better background on him.

As far as esoterics, you're thinking of Goebells. His diaries are available and also worth a read.

The truth is actually a lot more complicated than either you or your opponents are making out, and it's not kosher (if you'll forgive the tasteless pun) to pretend otherwise.

Also worth reading, one of Hitler's favorite books: "On The Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther (Hitler quotes from it heavily, usually without attribution, in Mein Kampf).

Re: Walking Like a Dick

RF Grenvile — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:27:53 -0000

For me this is old ground, so I don't have a lot of reaction to it anymore. I oped in IRC chat channels devoted to offering a helping hand Christ style and of course a majority of the people who showed up were there to try and attack Christ and believers. So the as an old vet of the flame wars I try to save my arguments for those who show a genuine interest in understanding Christ and his message.

That said, I've been hearing this new revisionist rhetoric that claims Hitler was a Christian and it not only sickens me it just has no basis in objective reality. I'd be surprised by any credible quote where Hitler EVER claimed to be a Christian. But there's more. Hitler claims that his government was the Drittes Reich or Third Kingdom. This is an allusion to the writings of a bad historian who created a religion of his own According to that system previous empires had been the Kingdom of the Father (first kingdom) and Kingdom of the Son (second kingdom). By claiming Drittes Reich, Hitler was claiming to be the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, and himself as emperor and avatar of the God the Holy Spirit. Such claims for the divinity by a human being other than Christ are on the face disqualification as Christian.

Secondly, Hitler was an esoterist who practiced a for of neo-pagan religion celebrating the Saaxon gods of the Winilli and Angles. Wagner's Ring Cycle became virtual prophecy of the Nazi Party and Hitler knighted his elite Schusstaffeln as religious knights of his new religion. He collected every piece of esoterica he could locate attempting to discover a means of training functional magicians for the cause of the Nazis. Such practices automatically exclude him from the congregation and body of Christ.

Thirdly he persecuted the Jews and murdered millions of people because of suspected or real social familial or religious ties to the Jewish community. The Christian texts support the Jewish faith. Jesus said, I have not come to destroy the law, but fulfill it. Paul said, "the gifts and calling of the lord are without repentance" in the context of referring tot he mosaic covenant. Repeatedly the case is made that the only means of Christian Salvation is adoption as "spiritual" converts to Judaism and "grafting" into the heredity of Abraham. I put it to you you cannot be anti Semitic and be a member of the body Christ.

The only religion I know of where you become a member simply by stating that you are, is Islam. Every other I've ever heard of has initiation practices and minimum standards to prevent you being expelled from the faith, not just the organization. It's important to be historically accurate before you become hysterically active.

Fred

Re: Jesus – Bisexual Polygamist?

Rob Daywalker — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:03:24 -0000

It seems to me that 1) if Jesus would have come for a single human being; and if 2) there is no clear condemnation of healthy same-sex relationships or plural marriage in Scripture, than the Christian mystics (Julian, Bernard of Clairvaux, and so on) experience Christ as their spouse are using Scripture responsibly in calling themselves the Bride of Christ. It seems to me that the image of a single marriage encompassing multiple people seems to me a faithful image. I made the same comment the other day to friends: "Jesus is the most polyamorous man I've ever known."

Give that was a tangent, I absolutely agree with you that honouring fellow Christians as the Bride of Christ, or as friends, or as a strange sort of brothers and sisters (Mark 3:31-35) who are co-heirs with Christ through adoption.
Thanks for your post!

Re: Jesus – Bisexual Polygamist?

salguod — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:24:02 -0000

Oh yeah, it is an attention getter. :-P

I think what got me focused on telling folks what to do was this:

"Personally, as I told this person, I don’t care who you live with, sleep with, or marry so long as you’re all healthy and happy. It’s not my place to tell you how to run your life, particularly if you’re not a Christian. Even if you are, I’m not sure that I could come up with anything other than a cultural argument against it, and, personally, I couldn’t come up with one of those that would hold water."

I read too much into the 'Even if you are' bit, it seems. I'm with you 100% that we have no business telling non-Christians how to run their lives. I'd say that we ought not to be dictating to Christians either, but there is an assumption there that we're both following Jesus and when I see something in my brother that doesn't appear to match that, I think there's an obligation to have a dialog about it. A respectful, humble dialog where all parties are open to changing their perspective.

In regards to non-believers, I think we shouldn't be shy about our convictions, but as you've said, we really have no standing at all to judge their behavior. I don't think I'd go as far as "I don’t care ... so long as you’re all healthy and happy." because I would say that living outside the context of God's law isn't going to be healthy or happy, ultimately.

Still, I'd say we should share our convictions, in an appropriate context, with appropriate respect and humility. After all, that's one way that people are moved to faith, seeing us act on our beliefs.