Thanks for engaging with the question. The only thing I would push back from my perspective is that I don’t think it’s so much about applying the principles of the Bible in your life as it is about allowing the Holy Spirit to shape your life.

I sometimes use the language that sin is an “eye problem” that leads to an “I problem.” The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us. And yes, I believe that we’re only healed of this disease by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think “conversation” is the key word here. It’s a means of engaging in dialogue with our predecessors, who wrestled with many of the same questions we do today.

These days, I interpret the idea of “sola scriptura” to be more closely related to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers than the infallibility of the Bible. I recognize that this may not be what Martin Luther had in mind, but I’m comfortable asserting that we don’t need to rely on the clergy to interpret scripture for us. I don’t think it’s wise to reject the wisdom of the church or to read the Bible outside of community.

Some traditions would argue that the concepts of original sin and total depravity necessitate that, as sinful people, everything we do, we do in sin, regardless of intention or knowledge.

For the most part, I reject that line of thinking. I think sin usually does involve some level of awareness. Again, I view sin primarily as the dehumanizing or objectifying of others. It’s viewing people not as other souls with inherent worth, but as a means of achieving your own desires. I think often, we are aware to some degree that we do this. But then, it could be argued that we may sometimes do this without realization.

This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.

Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.

This is definitely the most reasonable approach.

Aye, aye, captain.

I actually haven’t heard about that podcast. Thanks for sharing!

If I understand you correctly, I think I could get on board with your interpretation in the sense that this may be the method by which God has designed humans to gradually develop an understanding of sin, but I would differ in that I believe there is an objective morality towards which we’re aligning. If sin is truly memetic, then the Good either doesn’t exist or is inaccessible/unknowable, which is inconsistent with my understanding of God’s self-revealing nature.

The way that someone chooses to interpret scripture is certainly going to impact their perspective on women in leadership. I agree with you that, despite the claims of many fundamentalists, it seems difficult to uphold the Bible as a univocal, concordant text. I see a lot of issues stem from the assumption that the Bible is effectively an instruction manual with a clear and consistent message on how we are to live our lives. A great resource on this topic is “The Bible Made Impossible,” by Christian Smith.

I think an interesting example of how we should depend on biblical authority within the Bible itself is from Acts 15. By appealing to the scriptures, the early church determines that Gentiles shouldn’t be required to practice circumcision - which was one of the core elements of their faith at the time, because it was commanded in the scriptures.

In my experience and perspective, the value of the Bible comes from its role as the word which reveals the Word. I will stand firm on the conviction that Jesus is the definitive revelation of divinity - not the Bible. The Bible is useful inasmuch as it is a book about Jesus. And yes, the portrait of Jesus it provides for us is someone who declares liberation, not subjugation.

Though OP never actually stated that the machine can perfectly predict the future. If that’s the case, then yes, you should just take box B. But we’re not given any information about how it makes its prediction. If @Sordid@sh.itjust.works is correct in assuming it’s a 50-50, then their strategy of taking both is best. It really depends on how the machine makes its prediction.

Thanks for the conversation! I do believe that everyone ultimately desires the ultimate Good, because we were created for the Good, though we don’t always recognize it. I like to call sin “an ‘eye’ problem that leads to an ‘I’ problem.” The Bible has an interesting theme of sin as spiritual blindness. Sin is the failure to recognize the goodness of God, and the tendency to look for the Good in other places. This spiritual shortsightedness causes us to become selfish, seeking the Good at the cost of other’s wellbeing. But this pursuit will never lead to the Good, because the Good is self-sacrificial love.

I believe that through the work of the Holy Spirit, we can be healed of our spiritual blindness, and come to see the Goodness of God, and reject the idols which we have pursued instead. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.

Personally, I hold the view that Christians experience this work of the Holy Spirit during our earthly lives, and therefore receive immediate salvation in the next life. Those who haven’t undergone that sanctifying work will have to be purified in the next life, but will ultimately be reconciled with God. For some, this may mean a long period of rejection, in which they continue to reject God (much like C.S. Lewis’ dwarves in The Last Battle). But I believe that God’s love is relentless and enduring, and that even the most bitter hearts can be redeemed.

Where can I go to escape Your Spirit? Where can I flee from Your presence? If I go up to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, You are there.

Good question.

In my opinion, the answer is a bit complicated. I believe that God is quite literally, the ultimate good. And so, the satisfaction which each of us craves is found simply in God, who is love and goodness itself. For this reason, I don’t believe that any of us really does want oblivion or separation.

If God truly is the ultimate good, then any of us who wants to be separated from God suffers from a skewed perspective of the nature of God. We mistake God as being merciless, cruel, or apathetic, and therefore reject God. But as we do so, we don’t actually reject God, but the faulty image of God which we hold.

So I believe that ultimately, each of us will be satisfied in God, who created us to participate in loving community, and who loves us beyond measure.

What do you think?

If you’d asked me 2 minutes ago what Canada’s population was, I would have told you just under 33 million with almost 100% confidence. When did we grow that much?

I’ll sometimes experience this, but it’s inconsistent. Other times I’ll be able to scroll as normal.

I agree that we shouldn’t assume corruption if TheDude starts receiving any funds, but I think it would be beneficial to have clear expectations about how donations are being used. If it’s clear that excess funds go straight into TheDude’s pockets, great. Let anyone who wants to donate go for it. But I wouldn’t want anyone to donate thinking that they’re supporting server costs when they’re actually just tipping someone. Whichever way it goes, it just needs to be clear.

I think the biggest reason in favour of doing so would be that this would provide oversight and accountability for donations. I for one don’t feel entirely comfortable donating when I don’t know how the funds will be used.

Another potential reason would be to have multiple levels of democratized power. For instance, guests of the Agora might have no decision-making power, users some decision-making power, and members (having paid a one-time membership fee) some more decision-making power. Of course, that kind of structure assumes a decently large scale of organization.

If it comes to incorporating as a not-for-profit, I’ve got some experience with not-for-profits, and would be open to helping incorporate.