Quentin,
You still don't get it. You are just repeating what you assume is correct. No particular Christian denomination sets the rules governing scripture interpretation. The rules come from the scholarship that has been established over 2000 years. Just like we see so many of the sciences advancing, we see the same with the Biblical interpretation rules. You see this in action more than you think. People here use those rules when they take the time to analyze the falsehoods of the WBTS.
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
-
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
Hi Quentin,
I appreciate your interest in the thread. I ask anyone here: How can one claim to be a Christian yet reject key portions of scripture which have been interpreted properly? There are some real problems with this approach. Once you cross into subjective truth, you stand on a 'slippery slope'.
To be intellectually honest I must stand firmly on Biblical truth and the infallibility of God's word. Just as many Christian pastors and scholars stand today. I do not have to contend inerrancy. Inerrancy is a moot point since we do not have the original manuscripts. Having said this, I also do contend that God has protected His word all along. With the conclusion of the apostolic age, scripture is finished and we need no further revelation.
We must interpret it just as we would any other literature, in a methodical and logical fashion. If people don't like what it has to say, there is still no need to apologize for God. Accept it or reject it, don't sit on the fence. It is the same with Jesus Christ, accept Him or reject Him, even 'no decision' is in actuality a rejection!
Everyone bemoans 'black and white' thinking but that is the reality of God. "Why do you call me 'good'? No one is good except God!"
Rex -
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
>So my explanation of a Christian that dosen't take every written word as absolute direction, but uses decernment to aquire the message behind the whole context of the new testament, and therefore attains a relationship with that, is acceptable.
I can come real close to that but I will not violate scripture, believing it is God's word I will not sit in judgement of it. I will use all means available to discern the context of each passage, individually and how it compares to other relevant scripture.
>PS: I hope my writing is making sense, I working 18hr days at the moment and i'll completely wiped-out. I'll look at and reveiw the link you gave me later in the week when my schedual loosens. Also, by some of the comments you've made, can I ask, are you a Calvinist?
It is making very good sense and I appreciate the reasonable tone with which you discuss matters. I understand about the work thing.....I am a Calvinist though I would defer as C.H. Spurgeon did, "it can be no other way".
Rex -
50
A Link for the Liberal Loudmouths
by Shining One inhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050902/cm_csm/ekatrina .
read it and see that the pres actually was on the ball and had the machinery turned on and ready to operate.
if a dummy like clinton (gore or kerry as well) had been in charge, who knows what would have happened!
-
-
Shining One
Under74,
"the whole world does."
No, the 'whole world' needs to mind its own business!
Rex -
50
A Link for the Liberal Loudmouths
by Shining One inhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050902/cm_csm/ekatrina .
read it and see that the pres actually was on the ball and had the machinery turned on and ready to operate.
if a dummy like clinton (gore or kerry as well) had been in charge, who knows what would have happened!
-
-
Shining One
Preston,
"Liberalism is a mental disorder." Aka, Mike Savage
The first investigation we need is why the democratic mayor of N.O, refused the offer of thousands of school buses saying he wanted 'Greyhound' buses to bus out the poor residents?
Then we might ask, "What dont you understand about the phrase, 'mandatory evacuation'?
The next one is why did the senate and congress spend money on 'pork barrel' projects instead of levee projets?
Then this one: How can a series of city goverments (democratic on down the line!) build a city below the sea level of the nearest ocean, one where hurricanes are a threat every year?
And how about this one: how can democrats resgister more voters in a district than actually exist? LOL
Rex -
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
Jgnat prattles on:
>*sigh* this yoke is not easy, nor is it light. But, for the sake of the listening audience, I labor on..... Don't make a fool of yourself by answering a fool. But if you answer any fools, show how foolish they are, so they won't feel smart. Proverbs 26:4-5 CEV
BTW, the PM was an appeal to your reasoning. ME: I don’t think so. I think it was a veiled threat. Please give me permission to post it, and we’ll get the board’s thoughts on the matter.
What you want to do is to add more 'smoke' to your smoke screen. You want permission to fight dirty, since you cannot win by sticking to answering my questions This is one of many 'deflections'. You are not answering my questions.
>OSO Again, if you do not hold that scripture is factual
ME: Scripture to back that up?
OSO ‘Factual’ is a general assessment.
ME: You use the term “general assessment“? I worry about you. You do not even have a basic understanding of terms.
FACTUAL: When philosophers speak of a factual proposition or claim, they usually mean that it is true or false, especially that it is an EMPIRICAL or at least non-ANALYTIC truth or falsehood. Hence ‘Glasgow is the capital of Scotland’ is factual.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
This is another deflection on your part. My questions have been quite clear, one of them is "How can you claim to be Christian yet deny scripture as being factual. Use your definition above if you like, but it is irrelevant. Now you said:
>Based on this definition, what is “factual” about the bible? These are all factual statements:
1. There is a bible.
2. The bible is a compilation of many written works, composed over thousands of years.
3. There are various translations of the bible available.
4. There are also disputes as to which works should be included in the bible, and which excluded, though there are a core set of works that all have in common.
OK so far...
>The following is not a “factual” statement, because there is no empirical way to back it up:
5. Every event described in the bible happened as written.
Are you talking about historical details? What specific type of writing are we talking about? You need to go to each type, glean what the text says as per the original writer, is the language herein easy or difficult to interpret, etc. You just cannot generalize. Context, context, context!
>I think, OSO, you are confusing factual with faithful. Two completely different concepts.
ME: I am NOT pro-abortion. I am anti-bombers.
OSO: You compared the bombing of one abortion clinic to the continual terrorist bombings coming from Islam.
ME: No, I challenge your original statement, “I see no Christian terrorists strapping bombs to themselves” You obviously have blinders on. There are terrorist freaks, read the bible as you do, WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES CHRISTIAN, and bomb.
OK, give me more than one specific instance while I can show you thousands of dead homicide islamists and many more victims. Do you insinuate that Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are the same? That would be a ludicrous statement.
>This to me means that there is no magic covering over bible-believers. If followed blindly, or interpreted poorly, the bible can also be used as a tool for much evil. I maintain that the two laws must override all others; love God, love your neighbour as yourself. Those who favor a doctrine because “the bible says so” must test that doctrine against the fruit of the spirit. Does the doctrine lift people up, encourage them, teach them to love, reverence life? If not, the doctrine must be challenged.
Out of context again, those are the most important laws for us to obey. If you accept that statement from Christ and the original O.T. verses, then in order to be consistent you must accept those scriptures that describe God's holiness, wrath, judgment, grace, mercy and so on. Our savior talked as much about judgment as He did about love (though usually as a warning and not a threat), btw. Just like a JW or Mormon, you worship a Jesus of your own making, a 'tickle the ears' falsehood that you have concocted.
>ME: Oh Shining One, you HAVE elevated the bible to God-head, as you have consistently accused me of being godless for refusing to bow down to your god.
OSO: How can you selectively ignore the commands therein? How can you 'pick and choose', ignore context and ...
ME: You have already admitted that you selectively interpret scripture based on context and history.
Again, this is another deflection. There are standards we use: acceptable rules governing hermeneutics‘, which is the interpretation of scripture. You must study each text and see how scripture itself interprets the text, look at the type of writing it is, who it was written to, who it was written by, ask questions like; is it literally acceptable or do we have a parable or metaphor that speaks of a specific teaching, and so on and so forth. Any first year seminary student learns this and you claim to be able to argue scripture?
>OSO: Where do we learn about God and if the Bible...
ME: (as I’ve already said...) I am reasonably certain that Jesus' instruction got to us fairly intact.
OSO: ...side with Bible-bashers?
ME: Show me examples where I have sided with bible-bashers.
Oh let us see. AlanF and his tirades against belief in God seems to be a fairly recent example, also the original thread these questions came out of....your answer is highly ambivalent.
>Here is another other bible command that we no longer follow today. Slaves be Obedient to your Masters Eph 6:5 Would Paul have predicted that slavery would be abolished?
Paul did not condemn it. What Paul 'would have done' is not dealt with in the text or other scripture. Stay within the limits of the scripture in question.
>b) What determines which commands are mandatory, and which are discretionary?
The command is also followed up with one for the masters. You have to look closely at each one, instead of painting all with the same brush.
>c) By what criteria have you decided that obeying these bible commends are evidence of cult-like obedience, yet other bible requirements are mandatory?
The context, context, context. How many times must you hear it?
>d) Is it "independent thinking" to choose to ignore certain bible commands?
The context, context, context.....
>e) How do you justify your inconsistency?
The context, context, context....
Rex -
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
Oh come on, Jgnat!
You really displayed an amazing array of assertions. Before the days of radar, naval ships in battle would sometimes use smoke screens to hide themselves from their opponents. This is what you are doing, you prattle on, ad nauseum, dodge and weave instead of answering the original, critical questions that I asked.
Again, here are my questions:
1) How can you claim to be Christian, when you consistently ignore scripture and context in your critique of others who support the word of God as being factual? You said this:
>I am a follower of Christ. Not a follower of Bible. There's a difference.>The problem with worshipping the Bible as a god
1a) Again, are you saying that respect for and obedience to scriptural commands is somehow incorrect for Christians? You cannot separate the Bible from the God/man. He claimed to be Yahweh, the I AM, He quoted the Bible (including Genesis!) always in context and always to present His teachings, in complete agreement with the Father. If you condemn evangelicals you condemn the Lord you say you worship!
>is that the defender is forever condemned to explain away its inconsistencies.
2) If the Bible is inconsistent, then how can you claim that it has any spiritual significance in your life? What do you use as the standard to justify ignoring some scriptures and embracing others? If you don't believe that it teaches the truth of Almighty God, then how can you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? You cannot get away from it, scripture is the only reference for Jesus that claims to record what He did and said. There is no secular source that speaks to the subject of Jesus Christ without appealing to scripture!
2a) The 'inconsistencies' that you claim exist are typically reconciled. Christians do not have to explain, nor account for, all alleged 'inconsistencies' to gain the upper hand in apologetics. Also, infallibility and inerrancy are two separate issues. You need to discern which is 'in play', instead of making wide general assumptions (I have explained this to you).
>This creates twisted doctrine.
You cited JW doctrine in your answer and it should be abundantly clear that I am not a JW any more! Then I replied with this:
3)'Twisted doctrine' is the result of interpreting scripture out of context. Perhaps you can explain to us the basis you use to judge another Christian's obedience to scripture and why they should not do so? You said:
>Following the bible slavishly, ignoring the evidence in front of us, can cause much harm.
4) Again, if you do not hold scripture to be factual, on what basis do you claim to be Christian? What is the 'evidence in front of us' that scripture-respecting Christians ignore? Factual means 'infallible' and not 'inerrant' on details. As I explained, when you view translations none are 'inerrant' so that is a moot point.
> * I've seen evangelicals bully a deathbed conversion in order to "save" the poor soul waiting to die.
Again, for clarification:
1) Perhaps you can tell me why Romans 3.23; 6.23; 5.8; 10.9-11, John 3.3; 3.5;, 3.16, Eph. 2.8-9 do not apply to every individual alive?
2) Why is an evangelical is wrong to compassionately share scripture with another soul? What part of Matthew 28.18-20 and Acts 1.8 are you too 'good' to observe and obey? Your answers so far are simply an attempt to avoid the tough questions. Are you sure you are not a refugee from the WT?
c) Do you believe Jesus when warns us of hell?
Instead of prattling on about how clever a debater you think you are please try to direct your efforts toward my questions. You have your scripture reference, like you asked for!
Rex -
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
Hi Steven,
The simple fact of the matter is this: with modern methods of research and comparisons of manuscript evidence we can know almost exactly what was taught by the apostles, which speaks to the actual teaching of Christ. Please go beyond the 'Jesus Seminar' fringe group of scholars if you want to see exactly what I mean....
http://www.carm.org/
Start here, my friend. For one to base their beliefs almost entirely upon what they 'feel' is the truth of the matter, makes one susceptible to fringe group teachings. Fringe group teachings are unreliable and heretical. Remember, Christianity developed apologetics as the heresies came along. The writings of all of the apostles developed as responses to heresies. The New Testament is a compilation of texts that clarify Old Testament teachings with the life of Christ! The incarnation of the God/man (hence 'Son of man') was the realization of the Old Testament messianic prophecies in Jesus Christ. The great majority of texts and possibly all writings in the N.T. were actually written within one to four decades of the crucifixtion.
Have you noticed how none of them, not even Revelation, the gospel of John and the letters of John even mention the destruction of Jerusalem?
Rex -
43
Watchtower harping on "last generation" and 1914 on website
by Dogpatch in24:29; mark 13:24,25; luke 21:25, 26) .
24:30; mark 13:26; luke 21:27) .
24:31; mark 13:27; luke 21:28) .
-
-
Shining One
"You know, even when I was a Witness and believed their thoughts on generation, often I thought this scripture was misapplied."
Absolutely, the application signaled the end of the temple sacrifices and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
Rex -
7
Separation of Church and State
by Shining One in"a people boasting of their protestantism as the english do, should be ashamed to support popery in the anglican establishment, or to bow before the dogma of union between church and state, which is the essence of antichrist and the germ of persecution: an injustice to man, and an impertinence to god.
the inmost soul of protestantism is the responsibility of the conscience to god alone, the spiritual nature of true religion, and the freedom of faith from the rule of earthly lords.
state-churchism is antichristian, and always ripens into oppression and tyranny wherever opportunity is given it.
-
-
Shining One
"A people boasting of their Protestantism as the English do, should be ashamed to support Popery in the Anglican establishment, or to bow before the dogma of union between church and state, which is the essence of Antichrist and the germ of persecution: an injustice to man, and an impertinence to God. The inmost soul of Protestantism is the responsibility of the conscience to God alone, the spiritual nature of true religion, and the freedom of faith from the rule of earthly lords. State-churchism is antichristian, and always ripens into oppression and tyranny wherever opportunity is given it. "NO POPERY" is our cry, and therefore laying the ax at the root of the system, we demand the abolition of every union between church and state, and the disallowance of every form of interference on the part of Caesar with things which belong alone to God."
C. H. Spurgeon, 1868