Going back to our little meeting, you, Jeffs and myself...from your POV, Rhea, you can conclude that either Jeffs is correct and I'm wrong, and convert to Mormonism. Or conclude that Jeffs is wrong and I'm correct and convert to Christianity. But, please...don't conclude that Jeffs and I believe the in same God...we don't.
I'd like to correct this, because I think the difference between what I wrote and what you read is very interesting. Interesting because it gets at why believers (of any type) and non-believers have trouble understanding one another.
And relevant to the topic because it gets at the question of whether it's right to be certain the bible is for or against the gun rights, insofar as bible-believers will disagree on this issue.
So the correction: I didn't say that you and Warren Jeffs believe in the same God. What I said was that you and Warren Jeffs
use the same method for deciding you are each right about God's will.
I ask you to pause for a moment and understand that I see quite clearly you do not believe in the same god. And it is this obvious fact that makes me question the
method of discernment that you both employ. In fact, it's this very thing that non-believers see when they look at teh Catholic Church versus the UCC. The Wisconsin Lutherans versus the Cavalry Church. The Jehovah's Witnesses versus the Southern Baptists. And yes, the Mormons versus the Methodists.
When a scientist wants to know something, they form an idea, and then they try to
defeat that idea. They try to come up with tests that would successfully prove it wrong. When (if) they can't prove it wrong, the idea gains some strength. Then they publish it, and allow others to think up ways to try to *dis*prove it. If others are unable to disprove it, they all start looking for corollaries, such as, "well *if* this were true, what would be expect to see? And - do we see that?" It's another form of trying to disprove it. If the idea continues to predict a certain result and scientists are unable to cause a different result no matter how hard they try, then the idea becomes a sound theory and it becomes useful for making decisions about that topic.
This is the *METHOD* used to discover things that are true (or provisionally true and acted upon until new evidence changes it's apparent truth.) This is the process or METHOD that science uses to discern truth.
Now religion, as in Yahweh's view on resistance or gun ownership, you have said is discerned internally. You said you read the scripture and then the Holy Spirit will convince you whether you are right. And that the Holy spirit will convince Warren Jeffs whether he is right, and will convince the Amish and the lutherans whether they are right. AND, you say, the Holy Spirit may convince different groups differently, AND that different groups or individuals will have different abilities to discern (biases and imperfections, you said).
So you have said that something as important as whether or not to use deadly force on human beings does not have an absolute answer in the bible, but will be correctly discerned differently by different people, BUT, you know, that your discernment is more correct than he Amish one. And that Jeffs' discernment that arranged marriages with 15yos, such as was done regularly in the bible is wrong, DESPITE his having used an identical process of discernment as the one you used.
This is confusing to non-believers, who will be forced to conclude, "then your method of discernment is unreliable, and you can no more make a claim about your correctness than you can about his incorrectness, because he used the
same method to come to his incorrect conclusion as you used to come to the conclusion you claim is correct." And not ONLY that, but you already told me that as long as it's close to what you think, you can't really be sure you're right because of your bias, while you can be very sure that he is wrong because of his bias.
Many Christians will claim that Mormonism is not Christian because it includes a revelation that they do not believe. And yet the book of revelations used the
same method ( a dream) to create a doctrine. The argument for why to accept one and not the other has not procedural difference other than, "we say so" or "we feel that's right" or "it came first".
So this is a fundamental difference between us not in WHAT we think, but in HOW we think. The atheist doesn't actually care much about the details of the bible or doctrine because it must stand in line AFTER the question of HOW do you know it's true. And that question there has never been reproducibly shown. That a person can use this procedure to evaluate EACH religion and Christianity is the only one that will pass. If a person "believes with all their heart and listens to the convincings of their spiritual guidance" and decides upon Wicca, haven't they done all the right things? Believe in whatever religion with all your heart, listen to spiritual guidance and the answer will ALWAYS be Christianity?
The arguments in and about religion often founder on this misunderstanding, where a Christian will accuse the Atheist of mocking (or rebelling against) the bible, when in fact the Atheist is trying to figure out
what repeatable method are you using to decide which course is true? What procedure can you follow that will come up with reliably true answers?
And in this discussion of the correctness of lethal self-defense, THAT is my question. HOW are you able to say that there is a biblical message on this when the method you claim - spiritual guidance - provides diametrically opposed answers in various people who are using it correctly?
Reba nails it...
Not every one who says "Lord, Lord" is a Christan. Especially if the "Lord" they are referring to, while they may call him Jesus, bears no resemblance to Jesus Christ.
Rhea, I can understand the confusion that non-Christians have about this...I truly can.
I hope you can better understand the true confusion now. Your answers before showed there was still some misunderstanding. That until Christians can convince
each other of the correct answer, they have not shown they have the authority to call atheists wrong on the matter, nor that the atheist method is flawed in any way more than the Christian method.
Your bible in your quote right here shows that even people who think they are following Christ,
like you, may be totally missing the boat. I don't see how any christian can read that verse and proclaim they
can't be one of the error-filled believers, but are sure someone else is.
is used here, since it's kind of an attack against a person. It's cute, but it is unexpected to see it used.