- This topic is empty.
- Posts
You were the one who said that you think that some of the biblical writers are prejudice. Thus inferring that all scripture is not God-breathed. It helped me to understand why you believe in a what you do My point was to simply say that scripture has much to say on the nature of God and your technique allows you to write off any verses you want meaning that you are at liberty to ignore certain scripture thus giving you a perceived advantage toward your own conclusions which of course any truth seeking individual would not take seriously. if your doctrines do not fit with the full witness of scripture, then it cannot be a scriptural doctrine.
I am allowed to point your weakness in interpreting scripture if you are engaging in a theological discussion with me. No one is judging you harshly or demeaning you. I am simply pointing out what you yourself have publicly revealed and used in forming at least one belief. So I simply point out a weakness in your theological argument methodology.
I encourage you to allow all scripture a place in any theological debate we have allowing a fair debate. By letting scripture speak for itself without being prejudice, we should be able to prove or disprove any biblical doctrine.
After all, if biblical doctrine is derived from the Bible, then saying that some of the Bible is prejudice is going to open up freedom of selecting scripture and denying others. Thus opening that can of worms up will not lead to a true biblical debate on any subject.
Hello, t8,
First of all, let’s get clear on what I am saying. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. Many look at Scripture through the lens provided by fundamentalaistic ideology. Accordingly, Scripture is inerrant. Everything in the Bible happened exactly, and to the letter, the way the Bible says it happened. No question about it. Anyone doubting this is a reprobate so-and-so bound for Hell. Now, that is about the worst way to come to modern biblical studies. The goal here is to take a more open-minded approach. The inerrancy of Scripture is a human-made theory about how God and Scripture may be related. Like any human-made theory it should be subject to testing, which generally fundamentalists are unwilling to do, by the way. So, in biblical studies, we say maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let’s check things out and then reach a conclusion. Now I submit that when the evidence is in, the inerrancy theory doesn’t hold water. One issue is the biblical cosmology. Since the 16th century, it has been recognized that the biblical cosmology with its flat earth and geocentric view is wrong. In modern times, we have learned the Genesis account of creation in no way squares with rigorous scientific investigation and so is bogus. That should come as no surprise, as the Bible was written by a prescientific culture. In addition, there are well documented at least 100major contradictions in Scripture. For example, 2 Sam. 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. If your Bible has the statement that Elhanan killed the brother of” Goliath,” that is inaccurate. That was something added by later translators to cover over the contradiction here. In the Hebrew texts, the passage simply states that Elhanan killed Goliath. Some scholars vie this as a major scribal error. I think it reflects the fact that David encouraged his scribes to do some real spin-doctoring, though something closer to the truth still managed to leak through. But all that is really beside the point here, which is that there is a major contradiction here and that it certainly isn’t the only one in the Bible, some being far more telling. And then there is the issue of what constitutes the canon and what not. Should teh Apocrypha be in the Bible or no? Whether it is or isn’t in your Bible simply depends on the human decisions of the learners of whatever church you are a member of. That’s why I said earlier that divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of fallible humans. Here, many make the mistake of falling into either-or thinking. Either the Bible is all inerrant, or it is all worthless. I hold wither-or thinking is irrational, to begin with, and what underlies much neurotic ideation. Reality is generally a shade of grey. And as I mentioned in a previous post, unless you are keeping all the OT laws, it would appear that you have done some cherry picking, selecting out some laws, if any, from the others. We have to.
When it comes to judging me harshly, you should remember that I stress personal attacks are totally inappropriate in any serious theological discussion. And yes, you and some others here have done a fair amount of that with me. And so, yes, you bettcha I am going to fuss about that. I have a right to.
Hi hoghead,
Yes belief that scripture is not divinely inspired is required if you are to promote your own ideas.
Theology must be free from any firm foundation if it is to be truly valid?
hoghead1,
Defamation of the character of the author of an argument or their source(s) is a fallacy.
Not every thing is defamation.
For example calling the witch of Endor a witch does defame her character. Calling a Pharisee a viper does not defame his character though he may believe it does and respond with calling the speaker demon possessed. (If you know Scripture there is a touch of “refined humor” in that statement.)
There is other exceptions which are fairly well defined in Law.
Kerwin, that kind of argument is not relevant here. What I am talking about is the flaming going on here. The examples you are talking about are light years from the situation here.
Hoghead1,
They are not if you look at it from the other person’s point of view. I have seen very little real flaming on this board and most of one can take as flaming is a way to disagree with the words of that one’s argument. Sometimes the spirit of the words state “I do not believe what you say”. Nick for example often voices is disbelieve in ways that some find offensive because he is being truthful in expressing his unbelief or disagreement. A flamer has a whole other attitude since it is almost a game to them. When they do it they engage in psychological warfare, a form of intimidation. There is a difference of the content as well though I cannot put my finger on it except to point out that flamers attempt to discover person’s psychological weakness in order to exploit them why a non flamer is attempting to convince the person of their error.
There is also a difference in the content of the immature verses the more mature even when they are voicing their non belief in a persons words and therefore patience and sufferance are necessary as are ability to discern what is a flame and what is meant to express an idea. Communication is a wonderful thing.
Hi, Kerwin,
Sorry, don’t buy your argument. Too much excuse-making for trying to hit below the belt, so to speak., as well as other poor communication skills. Also, as you rightly indicated, flaming is a way of getting off the hook. Finding yourself frustrated to come up with a solid counter-argument, the thing you are tempted to do is to try and cheat and win by attacking the other guy’s character. That you, you can tell yourself you are right because , after all, the other guy is a lost soul, reprobate, a child of teh Devil, you name it.
Hoghead1,
I could choose to mess with you but instead I will point out that your answer tells me things about you that you probably do not want to reveal as you want to look perfect.
By the way you also falsely accuse your neighbor by sticking to that stance. It is really a sin you need to overcome. To do so you need to confess that and any other sin and pray that God will cleanse you from them all. Then perhaps he will show you the way. It won’t work until you learn to humble yourself.
By the way if you ever manage to do then please show me the way but I can see you have not done it yet. Thank you.
Hello, Kerwin,
Phew! Sure am glad you decided to give me a break and not mess with me. Big guy like you, well, you’d just make mincemeat outta me.
Hi hoghead,
You think there is no essential truth so all human arguments are valid?
Scripture is the lens through which to read scripture.
Thy word is truth
2 Cor 13.1
Hello, t8,
First of all, let’s get clear on what I am saying. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. Many look at Scripture through the lens provided by fundamentalaistic ideology.
We can empty ourselves because we can be our own worst enemy at times. Yes the mind has a predefined picture that is how it works, but so long as you can let the word renew your mind, then you are malleable. If not then we are stubborn fools. Jesus emptied himself too.
“But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”
A man who is full of his own spirit, ideas, and thought, gives no room for God. For it is God’s own spirit that reveals God to us. The spirit of a man cannot fathom anything about God by its own.
But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
When it comes to judging me harshly, you should remember that I stress personal attacks are totally inappropriate in any serious theological discussion.
Do not confuse this with judging you harshly.
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
What I actually do is test the teaching itself without passing final judgement on any person as to their state with God. I say this and that which I repeat from scripture and it is up to the individual to see if that scripture applies to them or not.
We who hold scripture as being inspired by God in some way will use scripture to form the basis of truth about God and the things of him. Of course we test scripture itself too because it has been delivered to us in another language which was translated through men who often had their own bias and from texts that do have some scribal errors. We delve into the word for these and other reasons to uncover the true meaning. If however you hold that all scripture that is translated and delivered faithfully is itself up for debate, then we will never in a million years form a consensus.
All our brains are wired differently, thus we will all discard different scriptures with bias and form doctrines that are more desirable to us. In short we will do this:
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Hi again, t8,
I still think you and some other here need to be far mare careful in what you say to me and to one another. A lot of times you do go way over the line and inappropriately fire off inflammatory rhetoric.
hoghead1,
I suppose inflammatory rhetoric is in the eye of the beholder though there is certainly some that is not. The worse we get here is caused by anger.
Hi, Kerwin,
No, inflammatory rhetoric is not just in the yes of teh beholds. It has to do with making disrespectful remarks that cast aspersion on the character of your opponents. You need to stick with the arguments, and not try and win by cheating and denouncing your opponent as some sort of lost soul, etc.
Hoghead,
I have to disagree with you on that one because not all people think a like or have the same point of view. I know you were taught that because that teaching is present in the field of psychology.
Instead your view come more from the atmosphere that seems to be prevalent in certain places such as university campuses. There has been some articles on it that I have read and not all of them agree with it. Some deny it occurs. In pop-psychology it is refereed to as a victim mentality and at leas college and university campuses pander to it. There is exceptions but that seem to be motivated by particular biases.
HI, Kewrwin,
Oh, OK, I see. Everyone in the universities is biased. I guess you would know. You just told me you have a seventh-grade education. I take that to mean no college education. So yes, I guess from the sidelines you have such a clear view of university life. Everyone is biased, but not you, of course. This is precisely the problem I have with your posts. You just dump on someone, call them biased and give no evidence as to why you claim that. Where is your evidence? What sources of information do you have that give you so much greater knowledge than what the field of psychotherapy has?
Hoghead. I test doctrines and teachings. If you come teaching something new, I will test it with scripture. If the scripture makes a person feel threatened then it should only do that if the person falls short of what the scripture is saying. I never wrote anything in the Bible so it is not me saying it, rather repeating it.
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Yes some people will take that personally, usually because it is pertinent to them. Not saying that is the case with you, but saying that I will continue to do what I do without guilt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
