But what is there to discuss? You just stated a simple and undeniable fact.



Doh! Forgot this was a discussion forum.... Never mind.

Ahem... Anybody else?

It's not mans job to define it, but live it. It makes no difference where anyone claims they can trace their religious origin to if their actions contradict the same.




No actually, as I said, as a believer and student of scripture, and first and foremost a man, I can understand the religious principles that all men are born with. I didn't quote anything out of context but made my point about the quote very clear. It went out of context when assumptions were made. That I agree is my fault for not being more clear.



scripture is clear that there is right and wrong doctrine, and one Church. Most 'branches' do not leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ, but some do. Those that do as an organization are not Christian, but it doesn't mean there's no Christians within the organization. Erasmus (original author of the Textus Receptus) would be a good example. Unlike Luther, he thought the RCC could be revived from within, remained Roman Catholic, but still strongly opposed most of its heresy. How anyone could consider the whore drunken with the blood of the saints Christian would be mind boggling if not for twisted doctrine of 98% of the Church.

Yes. I think Einstein was making a joke when he said that.

ah,maybe

I thought you meant I made a joke

Cop-out, I'm sorry to say. To be clear, I asked you to define the Catholic church. Maybe you thought I meant Christianity, it's hard to tell. But, nevertheless, I get the impression you're judging some believers by their actions. I thought that was supposed to be a no-no for you, or to put it in your lingo: I think that was from...let's see...ah yes: Romans. Romans 2, to be precise.


Ummm, sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't born with any 'religious' principles, so I fail to see what you 'understand'. But no, that's a bit unfair of me, as I do think I understand what you're on about. This has to do with the Washington quote you came up with. (On a sidenote, claiming that you didn't quote anything out of context seems a bit deceitful ("Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips"--Romans 3, that. I'm starting to like this.) as you clearly seem to understand what quoting out of context means: You giving your interpretation of an out-of-context quote does not equal providing the context.)
But back to the Washington quote, and the principle you so astutely perceived therein: Wow, indeed. So what you seem to be saying is that you believe that our 'moral compass' is somehow innate. Well, fair enough. Now, I had a look at Romans (but you knew that already) and the only thing I could find in Romans 1 that remotely resembles your principle is: and maybe the next line Well no, not really, that one. I just quoted it to provide some context. While I'm at it, here's the preceding line and a few lines down Well hey, charming.

But anyway, it seems to me that you have been doing a whole lot of interpretation if you take that first line I quoted to mean there's a principle that says that all men innately know right and wrong. Hell, it's so vague it could mean practically anything. Furthermore, to then claim that this principle, which may or may not have some merit of itself, regardless of religion, is actually a religious principle, implying that one cannot believe in the principle without believing in the religion, that, my friend, I truly find a bit much.



If my brief encounter with 'scripture' has taught me anything, it is that 'scripture' is anything but clear. I think what you're really saying is that most 'branches' do not leave the principles of your doctrine of Christ. Anybody who doesn't follow your doctrine 'isn't' a Christian, but the only justification you can give for your doctrine is that you believe it, seeing as it's entirely based on your subjective interpretation in the first place.

Listen to yourself, man. You're practically foaming at the mouth.

I'd suggest that you, as a believer and student of scripture, and first and foremost a man, have a good, hard think about where you're going with this, and if you really need it. Sorry if that sounds crude, but I'm sure you won't hold it against me.

I already defined the Catholic churchI didn't think I needed to elaborate on something so definitive.

Judging professing christians is not at all a no-no, in fact, it is absolutely necessary and essential to the gospel. There's probably 100 verses I could quote butyou need to be precise in your theology if you want to take up swords with me. You are not.




A little context I have not at all implied one must be religious to understand the principle, but in fact clearly stated the opposite and the obvious, according to the above passage. There's not a believer there, is there? It makes no difference what the belief system of a person is. Knowledge of right and wrong is innate.



Scripture is not clear to the carnally minded man. Only to the spiritually minded man. Need the book, chapter, and verse?
I can lay out the Bible from genesis to revelation, describe the plan and will of God in just a few pages, and to anyone that is willing, pure hearted, and a lover of truth, reveal a book about a kingdom that makes perfect sense and is easy to comprehend. The bible is very simple and easy to understand once the doctrines of men and devils are vanquished.


Yes, I know...It does sound arrogant, I admit. However, I know nothing but what he has shown me. I won't bore you now but my background and where I am coming form has been post on this board. Narrow is the way to eternal life and few find it. I'll give you a hint though. Love truth. Not scientific, see with your eyes truth, but love, want, and desire God's truth at the price of your own life. Then, and only then, will you know it.

Christian religion mostly came about in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Jesus didn't teach religion he only taught belief. If you kill the fantasy world pre-fall of the garden and young earth creation/sin nature/spiritual death/original sin/confession of sin for believers already forgiven for all sins past, present, and future/ and straighten out the kingdom mysteries explaining the will of God that he has clearly revealed and said he has revealed all things to us, you have, not a religion but a relationship with the creator of all things. Jesus, the Son of God. IF you have him you have life and overcome the world the flesh and the devil. Anything else is mans religion, friend. We are born into this world and all we know is what we see, so we assess it is reality. It is not. The spirit realm is reality and we are living half to none of it. A lie that goes back to Adam in the garden with Satan (you will not die physically- which is funny because we all do). Adam spun mankind into a false reality, not because we are born with Adam's sin or born with 'Sin', but because we are born with flesh, w/o God, and it is certain we will sin.

So I know exactly where I am going with everything I do and say because I've been on all three sides.
Sinner
Religious
Free

So it does not have to make sense?

Looks pretty self-contradictory to me, should or shouldnt one judge according to this?

I don't understand the question.


Well then how aboutor how about this?If you pulled them out of context like most do scripture would contradict itself and we wouldn't know whether or not to judge. When the judge passages are read in context we understand that we are to judge brothers in Christ in the obvious moral matters and not in goofy things such as food...ordinances touch not -the unclean thing, taste not the -law says it is off limits.

What a coincidence.

You do know the Jews came first, right? With that whole "fall of the garden" and "young earth creationism" nonsense?

coincidence? What does the cannon have to do with false doctrine? I've read some of the books rejected from the cannon and find it appropriate they were removed.



There are, and have always been, various beliefs and interpretations of scripture. It was not born in Christianity.

Traditional Jewish teachings completely reject original sin/sin nature/spiritual death, but it is unfortunately taught today.

I've even recently heard a rabbi teach the 6 days of creation were not 6 literal days, to account for evolution. (also incorrect)

Jews are all over the board as are Christians.

, nice one.
Maybe a little too rough-and-tumble for my taste, as far as definitions are concerned, but fair enough; I stand corrected.


Firstly, pardon my religious and theological ineptitude (I wouldn't even call myself a dabbler... ) but, with the best will in the world, I cannot discern any statement of said principle in Romans 1. I'm looking at the raw text, just what's there, black on white, and the only thing I see it saying, after the introduction, is that people who 'turn their back on God', or slide into 'false beliefs', will get their 'comeuppance' and then it just goes into more detail about what that comeuppance will be.

Secondly, I didn't mean to say that you had implied one must be religious to understand the principle. I understand the principle and I'm not religious, so there you go. (That's not to say I believe it; I think it's an interesting question, one that touches upon many different ideas but, ultimately, I think the jury is still out on that one.)
What I am saying is that a principle that anyone can understand, regardless of creed, sex, race, etc. is more aptly called a 'universal' principle. You chose to call it a 'religious' principle. To me, a religious principle is something like, say, the holy trinity, immaculate conception, the concept of 'samsara' in Buddhism and Hinduism or the idea of 'clean' vs. 'unclean' foods in Jewish and Islamic religions. If you don't belong to the religion, then you don't believe or follow the principle, and the principle doesn't apply to you. That is what the term 'religious principle' implies. So, when you take a universal principle (and, as you rightly stated, you yourself identified it as such, just not nominally) and then claim it to be a religious principle, you are, in fact, contradicting yourself. A religious principle denies itself to all outside that religion; if it doesn't then it isn't a 'religious' principle, if you see what I mean.



This doesn't really solve anything, it just shifts the terrain. Because now, we would need to find out what 'a spiritually minded man' means. You kindly offer to provide the book, chapter and verse of where such a definition resides, but I fear this wouldn't really help us. We would only fall into the trap of circular reasoning: You claim my interpretation of scripture is incorrect because I'm not spiritually minded. Your definition of 'spiritually minded' is based on your interpretation of scripture. I claim your definition of 'spiritually minded' is open to interpretation... Round and round we go, all the way down the rabbit hole. It never gets past subjective interpretation and the reason for that, in my view, is that the language of scripture is open to interpretation. Or, as you put it:To put it another way, I think different people can find different meanings in scripture and each will be convinced that their meaning is the proper meaning. Once you get 'locked' into a specific interpretation, every passage you read will be filtered through that interpretation and it will seem as if every passage you read only confirms your interpretation. This is a kind of cognitive filtering process, somewhat similar to perceptual filtering.
Just to illustrate the point, if you're interested, here's a video of a short talk Michael Shermer gave at TED last year. The point of interest is when he demonstrates the phenomenon of hearing 'satanic messages' (no offense) in recordings that are played backwards. He uses Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' (again, no offense ), which, when played backwards, just sounds kind of amorphous. But, as he correctly points out, once he tells you what to hear, you just 'can't miss it.'

why are you looking past the point. That is, that knowledge of right and wrong is innate.See, contrary to what christians will tell you, we don't start out with darkened hearts because of some silly sin nature, original sin, or spiritual death from Adam.



You didn't mean to?but ok....you realize that was a mistake.



First of all I do not like the word religion to begin with. For the sake of speaking 'plainly' I have used it. You can scream about implications all you want but it doesn't change the root of of the principle being God, and therefore it is first religious, because we don't have universal people we have religious people. I know you are trying to take the concept up another level and I can appreciate that but I don't see how it's relevant here.



exactly! It doesn't solve anything to the carnal man.


No, the problem is that we are on the internet and you don't personally know me. My definition of 'spiritually minded' is based on my experience and proven by fruit in my life. So when I have this discussion with someone that knows me in various degrees it's a lot more likely they will at least hear me out and consider what I say. That's how it should be. No one should just take someones word for it because because they say so. You consider someones interpretation because they live what they preach and do what most fail to do.




That's very true, but again, when your interpretation causes you to accomplish what other peoples interpretation causes them to fail to do, yet both interpretations were bent toward the same goal, which one is right? If 100 fail and 1 works, which on is right? It's not rocket science.

I'm not looking past the point. You are inferring the point.
Seems pretty much synonymous to godliness, I'd say.
Hence 'people who turn their back on God'.
Universal morality doesn't even come into it, unless you wish to equate 'morality' to 'belief in God', which, of course, is proven to be a fallacy by the millions of morally lived lives by non-believers.

"that which may be known of God": vague and open to interpretation
"the invisible things of him": vague and open to interpretation
"even his eternal power and Godhead": vague and open to interpretation
"when they knew God": vague and... ad infinitum
"and their foolish heart was darkened": figure of speech, I'd say.

Wild speculation and assumption on your part.

Well, no, actually. Twice now, you have managed to misread that sentence. I had already realised it was causing you problems after your previous post. That's why I tried to clarify it in my subsequent post, but... the phrase 'like water off a duck's back' comes to mind. So, let's try again, shall we?
In that sentence, the word 'implying' refers to the expression 'religious principle', not to you. It is the term 'religious principle' that is doing the implying. Now, you can be perfectly unaware of this so that you are not, in fact, willfully implying anything, but merely displaying ignorance of the implications of the term you have chosen to use.
(In a funny kind of way, this effectively illustrates my point about subjective interpretation and the problems to which it leads. The main difference being, in this case, that, since I wrote the sentence, I, of course, know perfectly well what it means.)

I am not screaming; I find it quite unbecoming. I am merely pointing out.

Again, this is just assumption on your part. You claiming that the root is God most certainly doesn't make it so. If I remember correctly, this claim was actually what the discussion was about. You seem to be switching to the 'It is so because I say so' argument.

I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but, over here, there are quite a few "universal people" who are likely to disagree with that statement.
And I'm not trying to take the concept up another level; it is already there. On the contrary, it is you who is trying to drag it down a level, and I definitively cannot appreciate that.

You're just stubbornly reiterating your point. I claim it doesn't solve anything for the 'spiritual man' either.
Unless, of course, you mean to say that the spiritual man is devoid of reason.

I fail to see how this is relevant. If someone were to claim that sex is of the devil and that we should avoid it at all cost, for fear of incurring God's wrath, and he goes on to live what he preaches, then, yes, he will probably never contract an STD. Does this mean that he was correct in what he believed? No, he was merely ill-informed about the reality of STD's.
If someone never crosses the road with his eyes closed because he believes that God doesn't like it, and he never gets run over, does this mean that his belief is correct? Not likely.
Beliefs can have all sorts of, sometimes unintended, consequences, but that doesn't prove a thing about the supposed validity of the belief itself.
I am, however, prepared to hear you out on your beliefs, and consider what you say. based on its own merits. So far, I haven't heard much more than arbitrary opinion based on vague assumptions, subjective interpretation and muddled thinking.

What exactly are your criteria for judging this supposed success or failure? And how does this supposed failure manifest itself?
How do you know if interpretations different from yours are bent toward the same goal? Does your goal not flow forth from your interpretation?

On this, we seem to be in agreement.

You admitted your theological ineptitude and you are hung up on the term religious. The point that you originally argued that you agree with is that a man that doesn't believe in God, can still be moral. That's the point of Romans 1. Anything else is spiritual matters you agree to having no knowledge of so your thinking is muddled, and rightly so.