Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  Asked back on September 14 and again on the sixteenth:

  A. OSO, this argument is done until we agree on definitions. Three that come to mind are "fact", "infallible", and "inerrant". Use all three in a sentence with "bible". You may use three separate sentences.

  B. By the way, to be fair, what church do you belong to?

  ..and most recently, the only one you answered,

  C. Am I denying the commands of Christ, now? Which ones?

  OSO: You have declared scripture to be so unreliable that you can judge what scripture to obey and what to ignore. Therefore, you are denying a basic command of Christ and of scripture THAT HE WROTE AS GOD!

  ME: Well, that's not very specific. I can't respond to a generality. Jesus Christ did not write any of his talks down. Are you saying that as part of God-the-Trinity, Jesus inspired the writers in years since to write perfect letters of instruction? If so, why was a committee formed two hundred years later to judge the quality of the work, and decide which would be part of inspired canon, and which were not? Paul's personality shines through his letters. Was the writing, perhaps, a partnership rather than a robotic takeover?

  Here's an example of a rule modified by the law of love. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath? Matthew 12:1-14.

  I have given others,

  1. Head-covering, which you have dismissed as being inapplicable today due to context and history.
  2. Slavery, which you have acknowledged the bible writers were neutral about, and I say our culture has gone beyond scripture (context and history) and condemned it.
  3. The commands to obey your husband and forgive everything (seventy times seven) which can be twisted by an abuser to control his partner.

  I don't see how judging these examples in the greater context of the law of love is denying a basic command of Christ.

  D. Now, are you worshipping the bible as a god? What are the earmarks of worship?

  - Build the god

  - Don't question the god

  - The god is worshipped higher than the Creator

  - Obeying the god overrides any other consideration (life, love, liberty)

  - Defend the god against poachers or destruction

  I would say it is very likely you hold the bible higher than God himself.

  Also, you have attacked me this entire thread by claiming I cannot be a lover of God if I do not also love the bible, and you keep insisting that if I do not accept ALL the words in the bible, my faith is flawed. That tells me that you have elevated the bible ABOVE God. If you lost your faith in the bible, would your faith in God be similarly demolished?

  The bible, like the tabernackle of old, was fashioned by men on God's direction. It was dangerous to house God in the tabernackle, as it was vulnerable to poachers or destruction. Tabernackle gone, God's presence gone. Similarly, ancient bible writings are available to men to study, dissect and criticize, which is relatively easier to demolish than God himself in the heavens.

  E. Now one more question, which, being easier, you might actually answer. Do you believe the earth has gone through several ice ages?
• 

  Shining One

  >ME: Well, that's not very specific. I can't respond to a generality. Jesus Christ did not write any of his talks down.
  
  Does that mean you also deny the infallibility of the gospels? Many of the books of the O.T. may have used several writers. The N.T. often employs a writer who has a scribe do the actual writing. That does not at all make a valid arguemtn against the inspiration of scripture.
  
  >Are you saying that as part of God-the-Trinity, Jesus inspired the writers in years since to write perfect letters of instruction?
  
  Are you denyong the inspiration of the very scriptures that you claim are, 'mostly accurate on Jesus' words'?
  
  >If so, why was a committee formed two hundred years later to judge the quality of the work, and decide which would be part of inspired canon, and which were not?
  
  Have you not seen the efforts of Christianity to fend off heresies? Do you also deny the ability of God to protect His word? BTW, straw man my dear.
  
  >Paul's personality shines through his letters. Was the writing, perhaps, a partnership rather than a robotic takeover?
  
  Straw man?
  
  >Here's an example of a rule modified by the law of love. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath? Matthew 12:1-14.
  
  Irrelevant to the context of the contention here, you are not answering the questions, you are putting out a 'smoke screen'.
  
  >I have given others,
  
  No, we are not bouncing around from topic to topic, stick to the questions.
  
  >I don't see how judging these examples in the greater context of the law of love is denying a basic command of Christ.
  
  What is the basis for the 'law of love' when you ARBITRARILY deny the infallibility of scripture?
  
  >D. Now, are you worshipping the bible as a god? What are the earmarks of worship?
  - Build the god
  - Don't question the god
  
  Red Herring: "All scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching........." YOU deny this because you deny the infallibility of scripture. You set yourself up as a judge over God and that makes you so prideful that you are now idolatrous.
  
  The rest of your post smells very fishy and does nothing but speculates on my motives.
  
  >Also, you have attacked me this entire thread by claiming I cannot be a lover of God if I do not also love the bible, and you keep insisting that if I do not accept ALL the words in the bible, my faith is flawed. That tells me that you have elevated the bible ABOVE God. If you lost your faith in the bible, would your faith in God be similarly demolished?
  
  Speculation, and again you confuse inerrancy with infallibility. Your last question is a false delimma.
  
  >The bible, like the tabernackle of old, was fashioned by men on God's direction. It was dangerous to house God in the tabernackle, as it was vulnerable to poachers or destruction. Tabernackle gone, God's presence gone. Similarly, ancient bible writings are available to men to study, dissect and criticize, which is relatively easier to demolish than God himself in the heavens.
  
  What's this, a 'cause and effect argument'? LOL
  Coming back to the point, you deny the scripture and its inspiration then seek to say you actually support what it says. BTW, God is the one who deemed the necessity of the tabernacle and if you actually studied any heremeutics you would see that this is a 'type' of Christ!
  
  > Now one more question, which, being easier, you might actually answer. Do you believe the earth has gone through several ice ages?
  
  Is this an 'appeal to the popular or are you trying to pin on me a genetic fallacy? According to scripture, when the flood story is taken literally, the evidence of an 'ice age' is directly related to the Flood. There are fine Christian men who have honestly taken different sides on this issue. I can see both sides of creationism, young or old. BTW, the Ark is also a 'type' of Christ!
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Old Soul,
  
  >Let us take an example from Jesus and see if jgnat deserves your criticism, Shining One.
  >In Palestine during Jesus' life:(1) Absolute religious authority and relative legal authority were vested in the Sanhedrin. As God's representatives on earth, they interpretted both the application of Law (which included prior oral tradition) and what constituted religious dogma.
  
  They legalistically added to the law, that was their biggest error.
  
  >(2) Their stated "doctrine" included all sorts of rules and regulations as well as beliefs that were not in keeping with the original Law given to Moses. Their Law was a living, breathing instrument subject to change.
  
  Going beyond scripture....
  
  >(3) If someone had a question of Law, therefore, they had to consult a lawyer. The Law was too complex for the laymen to understand. Now enters Jesus:(1) Was he a Jew? Yes.(2) Did he agree with each scintilla of his religion's stated doctrine? Vehemently, no.
  
  Jesus very much believe the 'law and prophets' by His own statements again and again. Straw man, Old Soul.
  
  >(3) Did he disagree only where he felt the doctrine went astray from prior Law? Yes.
  
  He disagreed with the interpretation of the law when it denied the very heart or intent of the law to begin with!
  
  >If you are intellectually honest, you will apply the same measure to jgnat and discover that she is not playing false to her church by conscientiously taking issue with or diverging from their doctrine where it conflicts with her understanding of Scripture (prior Law).
  
  This then creates a situation where she is setting herself up in judgement of the God she claims to follow. This is very different from simply conscientious disagreement. Your whole argument is flawed here and you have trapped yourself in 'dishonesty', not me.
  
  > I trust that you will not apply the same measure, because you have proven your intellectual dishonesty to me.
  
  Ad Hominem; straw man before that; appeal to pity; non-sequiter.
  Rex
  
  OldSoul
• 

  Shining One

  All Along,
  
  >Jgnat: One of the most kind and thoughtful posters I have seen on this board, who gives helpful advice, does not 'preach' or attempt to shove her belief system down other people's throats while doing so, she was the first person to welcome me to this board, and consistantly welcomes all newbies and encourages them to feel ok to post more.
  
  Yes, and she also denies the inspiration of scripture and is a very nice person I am sure.
  
  >ShiningOne: Argumentative and derisive of others' beliefs,
  
  Nope, I am simply defending my beliefs and sometimes I have to do this by countering other people's contentions. Ad hominem?
  
  >known to hide under alternative names (Rex)
  
  That is my real name. Red Herring? LOL
  
  >frequently belittles other posters and names them in thread titles to challenge them to arguments (example: AlanF),
  
  LOL, whoooo boy. You accuse me of the most common style of argument AlanF uses? You ignore the vicious attacks that are hosted on any believer who dares to stand up to the hecklers. Your appeal to pity somehow strikes me as biased, as you 'ad hominem' your way 'all along the Watchtower!
  
  >I have never seen this user welcome a newbie or encourage others in any way. I'm an atheist, but even I can see who is living up to the christian ideal.
  
  What you probably are offended by is my tendency to stand up for my beliefs, sorry if that does offend you. Welcome, Newbie.
  Rex
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Ad Hominem; straw man before that; appeal to pity; non-sequiter.
• 

  jgnat

  Boy, it takes a bit of unravelling to keep this all straight. I've numbered all my questions first, then reordered OSO's responses to each one.

  A. OSO, this argument is done until we agree on definitions. Three that come to mind are "fact", "infallible", and "inerrant". Use all three in a sentence with "bible". You may use three separate sentences.

  B. By the way, to be fair, what church do you belong to?

  C. Am I denying the commands of Christ, now? Which ones?

  C.1 Are you saying that as part of God-the-Trinity, Jesus inspired the writers in years since to write perfect letters of instruction?

  C.2 If so, why was a committee formed two hundred years later to judge the quality of the work, and decide which would be part of inspired canon, and which were not?

  C.3 Paul's personality shines through his letters. Was the writing, perhaps, a partnership rather than a robotic takeover?

  C. 4 Here's an example of a rule modified by the law of love. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath? Matthew 12:1-14.

  D. Now, are you worshipping the bible as a god? What are the earmarks of worship?

  E. Now one more question, which, being easier, you might actually answer. Do you believe the earth has gone through several ice ages?

  OSO: What is the basis for the 'law of love' when you ARBITRARILY deny the infallibility of scripture?

  Me: Answer question A and we can start. I can prove with your own answers that my thinking is not arbitrary but is logical and reasonable. But we have not yet established that you use reason in your arguments.

  OSO Response to C. Does that mean you also deny the infallibility of the gospels?

  Me: Answering a question with a question.

  OSO Response to C. Are you denyong the inspiration of the very scriptures that you claim are, 'mostly accurate on Jesus' words'?

  Me: Answering a question with a question.

  OSO Response to C.2 Have you not seen the efforts of Christianity to fend off heresies?

  Me: Answering a question with a question. Now, were those efforts effective or not? The JW's say that the Nicene Council and others took the pagan road. I say the efforts were the best that man can do, as the bible is a compilation of many works. Guidelines were developed and were followed the best they knew. Revelations barely made it in. Believe me, there are days I wish it hadn't...

  Now, you are putting your complete faith in the book, which foundation can be easily tracked and attacked by detractors. Jesus, however, no man knows where he lay his head. Who can assail that kind of Rock?

  OSO Response to C.2 Do you also deny the ability of God to protect His word?

  Well, that would be a problem if God embodied all His qualities in a single earthly book, wouldn't it? Like I say, I think Christ is the Word embodied, and we act out his Word by our actions.

  OSO Response to C.2 BTW, straw man my dear.

  Me: What? The Nicene Council? I don't think the Nicene Council's decision is a weak argument.

  OSO Response to C.3 Straw man?
  Me: Who? Paul? If I wanted to pick a straw man, how about a lesser-known writer of the gospels? I don't think Paul's personality is a weak argument.

  OSO Response to C.4 Irrelevant to the context of the contention here.

  Me: Irrelevant why? I thought you were contending my decision to filter all bible commands through the higher principle of the law of love. I gave an example. Explain more fully why this is "irrelevant'.

  OSO Response to C.4 you are not answering the questions

  Me: I could say the same. Is this an interrogation until I 'cave' or are you genuinely interested in my point of view?

  OSO Response to C.4 you are putting out a 'smoke screen'

  Me: I am trying to broaden my explanation with examples. It would be nice if you did the same.

  OSO response to D: You set yourself up as a judge over God and that makes you so prideful that you are now idolatrous.
  Me: I prove my point. If I challenge a faith founded on the bible you think I am denying God. You have put the Bible in the place of God.

  OSO response to D: Speculation, and again you confuse inerrancy with infallibility. Your last question is a false delimma.

  Me: The confusion would resolve itself if you would answer A. I have to speculate if you won't answer questions on the foundation of your belief.

  OSO response to E: According to scripture, when the flood story is taken literally, the evidence of an 'ice age' is directly related to the Flood.

  Me: Well, not exactly direct, but I get your meaning. You will take a literal interpretation the scriptures as translated in modern day over direct observation. Thank you.

  B is left unanswered. Can I speculate now?
• 

  Cygnus

  Eb'dee Eb'dee Eb'dee Eb'dee..........
• 

  jgnat

  Not quite sure what you are referring to, Cygnus. Loony-tunes? Oh yeah. I suspect you include me in that number. But...that's all folks? I don't think OSO is capable of conceding. If he did, his god would die. "Scholar" perseveres for the same reason, I suspect.

  I think this thread is much more like the song that never ends.
• 

  Shining One

  Answer the questions, Jgnat. Don't snipe at me and carry on pointless coversations. There is no point in trying to 'save face' when you have already lost your whole posterior....LOL
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Quentin,
  Give it your best shot, boy. Don't waffle and make idle threats. If you are going to challenge someone to a gunfight you better be able to pack more than a peashooter! LOL
  Rex