FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Logos and Rhema





nickfyoung
Is there a difference in the two words in reference to reading the Bible. Is it possible to read and study the Bible and still not understand it because you are only reading the 'logos word'. Is the Bible only understood when one reads the 'rhema word'.

"In this modern usage, Logos is the "Word of God" Jesus Christ, the subject from Genesis to Revelation. Rhema is the revealed word of God, as an utterance from God to the heart of the reader via the Holy Spirit, as in John 14:26" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhema#Rhema_and_Logos_in_Christianity

So when we have some one like Bikerman in the religion forum spouting great volumes of Bible and ridiculing it, is it because he is only reading the 'logos word' and not the 'rhema word' and so not really understanding it. Can it only be understood , 'as an utterance from God to the heart of the reader via the Holy Spirit'. Is that how it was designed. to deliberately antagonize the non-believer and to be revealed to the believer only.
ocalhoun
So only a believer and someone in communion with the holy spirit can actually understand the bible?
nickfyoung
That's what it seems to be saying. It is obvious in the case of some one like Bikerman who has studied the Bible and knows so much of it but hasn't got a clue what it is all about. When I mentioned rhema in another forum he just added me to his troll list and refuses to debate any further.
Esotericism is certainly nothing unusual and pertains to many teachings and various groups. At a casual reading the Bible certainly contains many contradictions and strange happenings and behavior that is somewhat less than Godly.
However, as was pointed out in another forum, the Bible and Christianity has been around for a couple of thousand years against much opposition. Maybe there is something in it.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
When I mentioned rhema in another forum he just added me to his troll list and refuses to debate any further.
The Philosophy and Religion forum is for debate based on logic and evidence. The Faith forum was created for discussion of topics which do not meet such criteria.

You can post whatever you believe here and it will be ignored by many of the posters who enjoy philosophical debate based on logic.
If you make claims based on faith alone in the P&R forum then expect it to be shot down.
It can also be annoying when faith based arguments disrupt an interesting debate in 'Philosophy', hence this forum, for believers of any unprovable claims.
TheGremlyn
I'm going to say this right now. I've basically never read the bible, I only went to church as a kid and I never paid attention to what was being said. This is simply my view...

I see the bible as a kind of history book, a book full of stories. How accurate are these stories? I have no idea. How accurate is any history book? Someone had to write it and from one side, unless you have a group of people who witnessed events from every perspective and managed to collaborate on the subject.

Anyways, I can see reading the bible and reading the words, but the words alone would not be enough. Reading the words doesn't necessarily mean you understand what happened or what those words are 'trying' to tell you. I think it would take time learn and understand the morals of the words, the stories. I view the bible as a collection of stories, and not necessarily of truths. They are meant to teach us, help of learn from the mistakes of others.

I would like to see the bible being used to help an individual better themselves. I don't like seeing these stories twisted to fuel some cause or movement, to punish others... I'm not saying everyone who goes to church or whatever abuses the bible or other religious texts, but it happens.

Since I'm basically trying to say an individual derives their own meaning from the words, and everything sees the words and interprets them differently, you can't really shoot people down and say they are not interpreting it correctly. Mind you when that interpretation ends up being something like "I read this passage and after mulling it over I've decided to kill someone or shun someone or put another person down" that's damaging. The interpretation should hopefully result in something more positive and should remain with the individual, it shouldn't be pushed out onto other people. You read the bible and you apply its teachings to yourself, you don't force your interpretation on someone else.

If you're in a group session (sermon or something like a youth group session) then it would make sense to take a passage and derive some meaning from the words. In youth groups you might engage the younger audience to debate the topic or try and come up with the 'moral of the story'. Move past the words, learn from them and the mistakes that may have been made so that they are not repeated.

I'm not sure if any of this made sense. It's a jumble of thoughts and feelings in my head that I have difficulty expressing in a coherent manner. Don't judge a book by its cover, don't just read the words. Go beyond the words... into the Matrix? Razz
nickfyoung
TheGremlyn wrote:
I'm going to say this right now. I've basically never read the bible, I only went to church as a kid and I never paid attention to what was being said. This is simply my view...

I see the bible as a kind of history book, a book full of stories. How accurate are these stories? I have no idea. How accurate is any history book? Someone had to write it and from one side, unless you have a group of people who witnessed events from every perspective and managed to collaborate on the subject.

Anyways, I can see reading the bible and reading the words, but the words alone would not be enough. Reading the words doesn't necessarily mean you understand what happened or what those words are 'trying' to tell you. I think it would take time learn and understand the morals of the words, the stories. I view the bible as a collection of stories, and not necessarily of truths. They are meant to teach us, help of learn from the mistakes of others.

I would like to see the bible being used to help an individual better themselves. I don't like seeing these stories twisted to fuel some cause or movement, to punish others... I'm not saying everyone who goes to church or whatever abuses the bible or other religious texts, but it happens.

Since I'm basically trying to say an individual derives their own meaning from the words, and everything sees the words and interprets them differently, you can't really shoot people down and say they are not interpreting it correctly. Mind you when that interpretation ends up being something like "I read this passage and after mulling it over I've decided to kill someone or shun someone or put another person down" that's damaging. The interpretation should hopefully result in something more positive and should remain with the individual, it shouldn't be pushed out onto other people. You read the bible and you apply its teachings to yourself, you don't force your interpretation on someone else.

If you're in a group session (sermon or something like a youth group session) then it would make sense to take a passage and derive some meaning from the words. In youth groups you might engage the younger audience to debate the topic or try and come up with the 'moral of the story'. Move past the words, learn from them and the mistakes that may have been made so that they are not repeated.

I'm not sure if any of this made sense. It's a jumble of thoughts and feelings in my head that I have difficulty expressing in a coherent manner. Don't judge a book by its cover, don't just read the words. Go beyond the words... into the Matrix? Razz


Sounds good.
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
When I mentioned rhema in another forum he just added me to his troll list and refuses to debate any further.
The Philosophy and Religion forum is for debate based on logic and evidence. The Faith forum was created for discussion of topics which do not meet such criteria.

You can post whatever you believe here and it will be ignored by many of the posters who enjoy philosophical debate based on logic.
If you make claims based on faith alone in the P&R forum then expect it to be shot down.
It can also be annoying when faith based arguments disrupt an interesting debate in 'Philosophy', hence this forum, for believers of any unprovable claims.


"Philosophy and Religion - A forum to discuss philosophical topics, including religious views. Heavy arguments are allowed. However, please note that strictly no personal nor cross-topic posts are allowed."

I am reading religious views with heavy argument allowed. Isn't religious views by necessity a faith based argument. What does "strictly no personal nor cross-topic posts are allowed", mean.
loremar
nickfyoung wrote:
That's what it seems to be saying. It is obvious in the case of some one like Bikerman who has studied the Bible and knows so much of it but hasn't got a clue what it is all about. When I mentioned rhema in another forum he just added me to his troll list and refuses to debate any further.
Esotericism is certainly nothing unusual and pertains to many teachings and various groups. At a casual reading the Bible certainly contains many contradictions and strange happenings and behavior that is somewhat less than Godly.
However, as was pointed out in another forum, the Bible and Christianity has been around for a couple of thousand years against much opposition. Maybe there is something in it.

When you're up against the biggest empires of those times, doesn't really matter what's inside the bible.

The mere fact that Christians can't agree on views concerning the bible means there's no such thing as a rhema. If there is, I don't see any reason why some people shouldn't experience it especially if they're seeking much. An atheist would definitely like a rhema as truth is something's valuable for him.

Is the Faith forum a place for believers to talk about the non-believers? You should only talk about your faith and not discuss why non-believers are barely understanding your faith. I think the rules said so if I'm not mistaken.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
I am reading religious views with heavy argument allowed. Isn't religious views by necessity a faith based argument. What does "strictly no personal nor cross-topic posts are allowed", mean.
Well the main difference I see is that in P&R one would say X religious text argues Y position and I shall make an assertion, or ask a question about it, based on logical reasoning.

An appropriate Faith topic would be more along the lines of I believe that God says X and as a result Y position is unacceptable because god is always right, although I have no evidence or logical reasoning to support my case.
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I am reading religious views with heavy argument allowed. Isn't religious views by necessity a faith based argument. What does "strictly no personal nor cross-topic posts are allowed", mean.
Well the main difference I see is that in P&R one would say X religious text argues Y position and I shall make an assertion, or ask a question about it, based on logical reasoning.

An appropriate Faith topic would be more along the lines of I believe that God says X and as a result Y position is unacceptable because god is always right, although I have no evidence or logical reasoning to support my case.



Quote:
unacceptable because god is always right


That would be like issues such as gay marriage and abortion etc.

Quote:
I shall make an assertion, or ask a question about it, based on logical reasoning


When you cite a particular text such as the Abraham faith test, you are making an assertion based on logical reasoning.

The only problem here is that the logical reasoning may be flawed if the particular text is not viewed in the context of the whole Bible. Then we are into the religious argument again which tends to be a bit circular.[/quote]
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
Quote:
unacceptable because god is always right


That would be like issues such as gay marriage and abortion etc.

Quote:
I shall make an assertion, or ask a question about it, based on logical reasoning


When you cite a particular text such as the Abraham faith test, you are making an assertion based on logical reasoning.

The only problem here is that the logical reasoning may be flawed if the particular text is not viewed in the context of the whole Bible. Then we are into the religious argument again which tends to be a bit circular.
No flaw in the logic, just difficulties in the environment of discussion.
For that reason I shall disappear from this topic and wish you good luck with it.
If an argument is based solely on faith then it isn't really my cup of tea. It is also why I am more drawn to P&R when considering moral issues.
You may find more people who agree that some magical force provides understanding of the Bible to 'genuine' believers in the 'Faith' forum, but I would prefer the evidence based argument in 'P&R' than here so I'll leave you to your discussion.
Good day sir Wink
deanhills
loremar wrote:
Is the Faith forum a place for believers to talk about the non-believers? You should only talk about your faith and not discuss why non-believers are barely understanding your faith. I think the rules said so if I'm not mistaken.
Welcome back Loremar. Was wondering what happened to you. Very Happy

As far as I understand the Faith Forum is for both believers and non-believers and the OP determines which will prevail.

With regard to your point about truth, I don't think it is exclusive to any specific group of people. There are fundamentalists on both sides who seem to take their label very seriously to the extent that it qualifies them as truth seekers by default. I don't think that is necessarily true. I'd be more inclined to discuss the truth with someone who doesn't go for labels as labels do create prejudice and bias of a kind, any which way you look at it.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
There are fundamentalists on both sides
Fundamentalist is a controversial term which many would not attribute to a person without faith in gods, due to a logical thought process which requires evidence..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Atheist
Quote:
"The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."
https://login.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2F

Just a minor point Dean, but throwing labels around yourself, it is helpful for others to consider such accusations rationally before they are considered factual by other members.
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There are fundamentalists on both sides
Fundamentalist is a controversial term which many would not attribute to a person without faith in gods, due to a logical thought process which requires evidence..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Atheist
Quote:
"The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."
https://login.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2F

Just a minor point Dean, but throwing labels around yourself, it is helpful for others to consider such accusations rationally before they are considered factual by other members.



"Dawkins has stated that, unlike religious fundamentalists, he would willingly change his mind if new evidence challenged his current position." from your first link

Just as a note to that, I am going to attend a series of lectures, on dvd, starting 5th May, on an interpretation of the Bible by a guy who trained under a Jewish Rabbi. It is supposed to render 'new light' on many passages and meanings of the Bible from a Jewish point of view.

I am not saying I will continue to attend after the first one but I am open to further teaching contrary to Dawkins point.
TheGremlyn
deanhills wrote:
There are fundamentalists on both sides who seem to take their label very seriously to the extent that it qualifies them as truth seekers by default.


I think I sort of understand what you're saying. I might need more of an explanation though to understand your thought process clearly... Okay maybe I don't understand (it's all very vague and jumbled in my head). Educate me sir! Pretty please? I am maybe more curious than is healthy and I am forever in fear someone will throw a book at me Shocked
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
I am not saying I will continue to attend after the first one but I am open to further teaching contrary to Dawkins point.
That's cool fella but I wasn't replying to you in my last contribution here. I'm out of unprovable 'Faith' for now though, happy to meet you in P&R if you wanna start your own topic about such things.
loremar
deanhills wrote:

As far as I understand the Faith Forum is for both believers and non-believers and the OP determines which will prevail.

The OP's about why atheists are retarded.. shesshh. -_-

Quote:
With regard to your point about truth, I don't think it is exclusive to any specific group of people.

If believers are really seeking for truth, they're not doing that great if you ask my honest opinion....
Related topics
Flash Logos, Banners and Intros, Free &also available fo
banners/logos for frihost
Intel to adopt new logos
I reckon there should be a set of logos for Frihost
Different Logos
HERE! I make logos for forums, sites... almost anything
Graphics/Logos/Signatures/Avatars - Designed for you
Custom Banner/Avatars & LOGOS!
2 frihs SIMPLE signatures / logos*NEXT 3 FREE*
Logos Needed !
LOGOS AVALIBLE HERE!!!
Sigs, Logos, Banners - Static/Animated
Need Joomla and phpbb logos (best offers)
I make logos
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.