Thank you, Quentin. I found your quote, obsessive gal that I am:
"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life." Thomas Paine
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Shining One
For Narkisos,
You have attempted a thread hijack and of course, since you favor Jgnat she will embrace it. I will then answer it. Here is a portion of AlanF argument from the thread you linked:
>I finally referred to the poetical dialogues of Job, where (as I read it) Job accuses God of being a tyrant and his friends try to defend God and bring Job into submission. Chapter 13 (Job talking) is especially strong in this regard. AlanF quoted it as follows: Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments?
AlanF claims to have the authority to judge whether an argument is dishonest or not. He does not have that authority, he has a philosophical point based on presuppositions that he has accepted. I do not accept his presuppositions. I do not ascribe to his ‘accepted scholarship’, appeal to authority.
>You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor?
This is an unproven accusation. It is typical of Alan’s tactics. He always attempts to shame others into silence.
>Will you argue God’s case for him? Be careful that he doesn’t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people?
Meaningless rhetoric and it does smell 'fishy', lol.
>No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn’t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)
When you are engaging in rhetoric it is always good to add more and more manure to the pile. Jgnat likes to do that with her 'smoke screen'.
>The issue of apologetics (or, more specifically, theodicy = justifying God) divides Christians from the very beginnings down to the present
Is there such a thing as ‘theodicy’, LOL? Apologetics focused upon heresies and those who attempted to subvert the faith until the so-called ‘age of enlightenment’ when secularists who claimed to be Christian dishonestly denied the Christian doctrines while retaining their clerical collars. Those are the ones who needed “his majesty to strike terror into their hearts”.
>(think of Karl Barth, who insisted on preaching the Gospel without trying to defend it,
Irrelevant to the issue. Barth was another liberal theologian who decided to 'throw in the towel' and deny Christianity a defense.
>Is the Christian faith as a whole something to be defended on rational grounds? Or is it a "special grace", an esoterical teaching, which only some are effectively called to believe? What do you think and why?
Naturalists start their reasoning with the contention that, 'no supernatural events have ever happened'. On that basis they attempt to deny the eyewitness testimony that is the main evidence in favor of the life and death of Christ! "no supernatural has ever happened therefore there is no supernatural'! LOL
Christianity can indeed be defended (and is) on rational grounds. It is not a ‘either/or’ proposition. (The issue of faith is separate to a point. Faith, like logic and reasoning ability is transcendent.) This is like the secularists contention that ‘religion’ cannot speak to the science of the matter. Christians have every reason to defend what the faith (and are told to do so in scripture). Both apologists against secularism and secularists claim that there is 'good science' and 'bad science'. Alan F and others would have us believe that simply because some are ‘called’ to faith, there is no reasoning involved. That is an absurd contention!
Rex -
Shining One
This is from the C.M.A. Canada Statement of faith. It looks to me like you deny the beliefs of your own clergy! How much do you want to bet that you deny the faith of the Nazarenes as well, eh Gnat?
4. The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of people. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.11
5. Humankind, originally created in the image and likeness of God,12 fell through disobedience, incurring thereby both physical and spiritual death. All people are born with a sinful nature, are separated from the life of God, and can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.13 The destiny of the impenitent and unbelieving is existence forever in conscious torment, but that of the believer is everlasting joy and bliss.14
6. Salvation has been provided only through Jesus Christ. Those who repent and believe in Him are united with Christ through the Holy Spirit and are thereby regenerated (born again), justified, sanctified and granted the gift of eternal life as adopted children of God.15
7. It is the will of God that in union with Christ each believer should be sanctified thoroughly16 thereby being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to God, receiving power for holy living and sacrificial and effective service toward the completion of Christ's commission.
Talk about dishonesty! You pretend to 'teach' us how Christians should behave, then you deny the very basis for the beliefs that you claim to have! Take a look at point 4. LOL
Rex -
Shining One
"Very well said, jgnat"
She denies the scripture that is the BASIS for Jgnat's claimed belief in Jesus and you say, "very well said, jgnat"? She claims that the 'references to Christ' are okay but if you go by those teachings you are 'worshipping a book'! LOL
Rex -
trevor
Shining oneSo many words and assumptions and yet so little progress. You ask:
Will you argue God’s case for him
If God has created the whole world, then it speaks for itself. It is either wonderful or terrible depending on how one views it.
In fact it is both, because it is the expression of all the potentialities that are possible on a planet such as this. If God exists in the way that you believe, then his answer will already be evident in his creation. He will not be relying on your skill with words for his defence.
There is no case to argue. No questions to answer. No defence to be made - It simply is.
Why not just enjoy it?
trevor
-
jgnat
OSO ran out of things to attack and so he went for the label. I hate labels. 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.
OMG, I just saw this,
Christianity can indeed be defended (and is) on rational grounds.
Then you better get rational and right quick, OSO. There are rules around rational debate. You break them all.
By the way, to be fair, what church do you belong to? -
Narkissos
You have attempted a thread hijack
Not at all, Rex. Reading a previous post of yours (which I was entitled to do, since you made this conversation with Jgnat a public thread) I came across one sentence and raised a very simple question:
I have also sifted the evidence that only one who has a personal relationship with the risen Lord can know.
What is the point of apologetics then?
I added a link to a previous thread of mine which might provide you some further background on the subject -- that was obviously overrating your reading abilities, for which I apologise.
Here is a portion of AlanF argument from the thread you linked:
>I finally referred to the poetical dialogues of Job, where (as I read it) Job accuses God of being a tyrant and his friends try to defend God and bring Job into submission. Chapter 13 (Job talking) is especially strong in this regard. AlanF quoted it as follows: Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments?
AlanF claims to have the authority to judge whether an argument is dishonest or not. He does not have that authority, he has a philosophical point based on presuppositions that he has accepted. I do not accept his presuppositions. I do not ascribe to his ‘accepted scholarship’, appeal to authority.
>You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor?
This is an unproven accusation. It is typical of Alan’s tactics. He always attempts to shame others into silence.
>Will you argue God’s case for him? Be careful that he doesn’t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people?
Meaningless rhetoric and it does smell 'fishy', lol.
>No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn’t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)What you credited to AlanF is actually Job's words, which you discard as "meaningless" and "fishy" rhetoric (much like his "friends" did).
Too bad you didn't get Kierkegaard's point about apologetics as the "Judas kiss of stupidity". If Christianity is only perceptible through "a personal relationship with the risen Lord" as you put it, then it cannot be defended on rational and objective grounds. Attempting to do so is a betrayal of its very essence.
Barth was another liberal theologian who decided to 'throw in the towel' and deny Christianity a defense.
Once again your ignorance shows. Karl Barth's teaching was directly opposed to the 19th-century theological liberalism.
Christianity can indeed be defended (and is) on rational grounds. It is not a ‘either/or’ proposition. (The issue of faith is separate to a point. Faith, like logic and reasoning ability is transcendent.)
I'm not sure what you mean here. It may be right or wrong. Let's see if you can elaborate.
-
Quentin
"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life." Thomas Paine
That's the one...my memory, it grows dim with each passing year...
-
Pole
:What you credited to AlanF is actually Job's words, which you discard as "meaningless" and "fishy" rhetoric (much like his "friends" did).
Lol. Rex, you have apparently been reading so much about logical fallacies and "fishy rhetoric" that you can't help misapplying their definitions. This time you seem to have inadvertently bashed what the Bible says in your zeal to defend it. What a joke.
Cheers,
Pole -
Shining One
>What you credited to AlanF is actually Job's words, which you discard as "meaningless" and "fishy" rhetoric (much like his "friends" did).
I KNOW he was using Job's words. I was answering his argument in using them.
>Too bad you didn't get Kierkegaard's point about apologetics as the "Judas kiss of stupidity". If Christianity is only perceptible through "a personal relationship with the risen Lord" as you put it, then it cannot be defended on rational and objective grounds. Attempting to do so is a betrayal of its very essence.
You ignore my points on this very topic just to insist you are correct. This will go nowhere until you acknowledge my response.
Rex