Questions for Jgnat (page 16)

You claim that you can use the 'law of love' to arbitrarily deny scripture by putting it through a filter of your own making.

1) You claim to be a Christian.

2) You deny scripture as being inspired.

3) You say that Jesus words have been more or less preserved but that the Bible is itself unreliable and errant. It is not infallible.

4) Jesus taught and clarified scripture using the literal and metaphoric aspects of the Old Testament.

5) The apostles continually cited the O.T. and Jesus interpretation of the same 'law and the prophets'.

6) The apostles taught using the literal and metaphorical aspects of the O.T.

By points 1, 2 & 3 you are in a state of contradiction by virtue of points 4,5 & 6. In addition to that you dismiss any efforts at clarifying scripture in the methodology of hermeneutics. This is the science of studying scripture! You speak directly AGAINST rational thought, therefore you are using an irrational method to expound on the very God that you claim to worship! Jesus Himself oftentimes even said, 'thus saith scripture', 'thus saith the word of God', as did the apostles.

Now, let's take these claims apart, using reason and logic.

OSO: You claim...you can use the 'law of love' to deny scripture...filter of your own making

Me: The "law of love" is not my own construction, but the words of Jesus, whom I follow.

OSO: arbitrarily

Me: My decision to judge all commands against the "law of love" I believe follows Christ's instructions. It was not an arbitrary decision. Arbitrary means I made the decision alone without consulting anyone or anything else. I did not.

OSO: You say that Jesus words have been more or less preserved but that the Bible is itself unreliable and errant. It is not infallible.

Me: fair

OSO: Jesus taught ... using the literal and metaphoric aspects of the Old Testament.

Me: fair and appropriate, considering his audience

OSO: ...and clarified scripture....

Me: I contest this. I don't think his purpose for coming had much to do with clarifying scripture.

OSO: The apostles... cited the O.T.

Me: granted

OSO: The apostles... cited... Jesus interpretation of the same 'law and the prophets'.

Me: I'd rather say they built on and took their own slant on things. There's quite a difference between Paul, for instance, and James and John. We do the same thing today.

OSO...continually...

Me: you will have to back this up.

OSO: Jesus Himself oftentimes even said, 'thus saith scripture', 'thus saith the word of God', as did the apostles. The apostles taught using the literal and metaphorical aspects of the O.T

Me: granted. But so do I, but it drives you crazy. You don't think that I am qualified to quote from that book. There is no logical connection between 1, 2, 3, and 4, 5, 6.

OSO: ...hermeneutics.... is the science of studying scripture!

Me: This is simply not true. One cannot apply the scientific method to the study of philosophy, morality, or faith, because the results cannot be independently observed or tested. The BEST one can hope for is two "experts" in the field go 'round and 'round trying to prove that their methodology is superior to the other's. Which is exactly what you have tried to do with me.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99013/1.ashx

The rest of your conclusions are just silly. Especially since I have dedicated three new threads to rationalism, faith, and the difference.

Also,

Starting sentences with "you claim" breaks the rules of reasoned debate that I outlined here. If your goal is resolution it cannot be founded on distrust. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/98522/1.ashx

Questions for Jgnat

jgnat

jgnat

Share this