Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Why Christians shouldn't be inerrantists....

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 4:08:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Someone once asked me why I think this, and I was about to type it out but luckily I found someone who said it all much better than I can. Many of my reasons are similar. Thoughts?

"The Patheos website is currently hosting a multi-blog conversation about progressive Christianity and Scripture which has generated numerous engaging and thoughtful contributions--such as this one by James McGrath. Because the relationship between progressive Christian faith and the Bible is one of my enduring interests, the sudden flood of interesting essays on the topic has inspired me to take a few minutes to reflect on the issue myself.

As a philosopher of religion, the way I approach this topic is in terms of a philosophical question: What theory of revelation fits best with the Christian view of God? Put another way, if there is a God that fits the broadly Christian description, how would we expect such a God to reveal the divine nature and will to the world?

Many conservative Christians take it for granted that God has revealed the divine nature and will in and through a specific book. More precisely (although they aren't usually this precise), they believe that God inspired certain human authors at various times in history to write texts that inerrantly express divine truths--and then inspired other human beings to correctly recognize these texts and include all and only them in the comprehensive collection of Scriptures we call the Bible.

Let's call this the theory of biblical inerrancy.

Does this theory fit well with broader Christian beliefs? Is this a good Christian theory about divine revelation, culminating in a good Christian theory about what the Bible is and what sort of authority we should attach to it? I think there are a number of reasons to be skeptical.

Put more narrowly, I think there are a number of reasons why Christians should be skeptical, given their Christian starting points. Let's consider at least some of these reasons.

1. Christianity holds that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God

Traditional Christian teaching holds that Jesus is the Word made Flesh, the incarnation of God in history. And this means that for Christians, the primary and monumental revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, not in any book (however inspired). It is this fact which motivated George MacDonald to say of the Bible,

It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," not the Bible, save as leading to him.

Biblical inerrantists might argue that nothing precludes God from both revealing the divine nature primarily in Jesus and authoring an inerrant book as a secondary revelation. This is true as far as it goes. But there are reasons for concern.

First, there's a difference between the kind of revelation that Jesus represents, and the kind that a book represents. A person and a book are different things, and we learn from them in different ways. Consider the difference between having a mentor in the project of becoming a better person, and reading self-help books.

Doesn't Christianity teach that God's preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words? The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a "supplemental" revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship. Given human psychology, there is something alluring about having a book with all the answers. But if God primarily wants us to find the answers through personal engagement with the living God, as discovered in Jesus, isn't there a real danger that fixation on the Bible will distract the faithful from God's primary mode of self-disclosure?

None of this is to say that human stories--witness accounts of divine revelation in history--aren't important. They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you've found the one you seek or an imposter. But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn't directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn't appear in the earliest versions). But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

In short, Jesus disagreed with some of the teachings in the Scriptures of His day. In the Sermon on the Mount, he offered gentle correctives to earlier teachings--teachings which started in a direction but didn't go far enough. The lex talionis command to punish evildoers eye for eye and tooth for tooth may, at the time, have served as a restraint on retributive impulses: don't punish beyond the severity of the crime. But for Jesus, that level of restrain was insufficient. It was a start on a path, perhaps, but only that. Jesus followed the trajectory of that path to its conclusion, and enjoined His listeners to turn the other cheek.

In short, it's clear Jesus didn't have the inerrantist view towards the Scriptures of His day that conservative Christians have towards the Christian Scriptures of today. Conservatives might argue that Jesus would view the modern Bible--or maybe just the New Testament?--in the way they favor, even if the approach to Scripture that He actually modeled is at odds with their approach.

Allow me to treat such a speculative claim with suspicion. If Jesus is the primary revelation of God in history, then it strikes me as appropriate to follow His model for approaching Scripture, and respectfully look beyond the letters on the page to the deeper intentions that finite human authors might have missed, noticing trajectories and exploring where they might lead....
"

To be continued in the next post.

http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 4:10:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"3. In the New Testament, Paul distinguished between his views and the Lord's

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-12, Paul says the following:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her...

I've talked about this passage before, so I won't go into details. What interests me is the distinction Paul makes between his own views and those of the Lord. In this passage, it's clear that Paul did not see Himself as taking dictation from God. He made a clear distinction between his own opinions and those of the Lord, and by making the distinction explicit was signaling to his readers that they should treat the injunctions differently--as if he didn't want to claim for himself the kind of authority that he took to accompany Jesus' explicit teachings.

But if inerrantism is true, then Paul's teachings are the inerrant word of God, and so have the same kind of authority as Jesus' words. In other words, if inerrantism is true, then Paul was wrong to make the distinction he made. But that distinction is made by Paul in a letter that's in the Bible. And if inerrantism is true, a distinction made in a letter that's in the Bible has to be accurate. But if it's accurate, inerrantism isn't true. Zounds!

An exercise in creative interpretation might offer the inerrantist the wiggle room to escape this logical trap, but inerrantists are routinely skeptical of such creative interpretation of Scripture. At best, then, this amounts to a difficulty for inerrantism, the sort of difficulty one often sees when trying to force a theory onto subject matter that doesn't quite suit it. Theories can perhaps weather some such difficulties, but if they become too common it is hard to reasonably persist in endorsing the theory.

4. Efforts to overcome apparent contradictions in Scripture lead to a false view of Scripture

Speaking of difficulties of this sort, the Bible isn't a neat, orderly, systematically consistent treatise. The Gospel narratives, for example, aren't identical. They tell the stories of Jesus' life in different ways. Details differ--for example, in accounts of the resurrection. Bart Ehrman does a fine job of cataloguing many of these in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible.

Mostly, these tensions aren't explicit contradictions but rather what might be called apparent ones: they don't seem as if they can go together, because you'd need to tell a rather convoluted story to make them fit.

Inerrantists have not been remiss in offering such convoluted stories. But if you need to tell enough of them in order to make your theory map onto what it's supposed to explain, the theory becomes increasingly implausible.

And there's another problem, one that should be of concern to Christians who care about the Bible. The convoluted tales that you have to tell in order to make disparate biblical narratives fit together end up leading you away from an honest appreciation of the message of the biblical authors. As Ehrman puts it, "To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story."

When you do this, you care more about preserving your theory about the Bible than you do about understanding and taking in its message. For me, this is one of the greatest tragedies of an inerrantist approach to Scripture: It makes it difficult for readers to engage with the Bible on its own terms. It's like someone who is so devoted to a false image of their spouse that they can't see their spouse for the person they really are. Likewise, the steps that need to be taken in order to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy in the face of the Bible's actual content means that it becomes impossible to have an intimate relationship with the Bible as it really is. This is not taking the Bible seriously. It is taking the doctrine of inerrancy seriously at the expense of the Bible.

5. God is love

Christianity teaches that God is love. In fact, it is the closest thing Christians have to a scriptural definition of God: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8).

If God is love, then we experience God when we love. If God is love, then the primary way we can encounter God is through loving and being loved--that is, through cultivating loving relationships with persons. This may help to explain the Christian view that a person--Jesus--served in history as God's fundamental revelation, rather than a book. Books can't love you. And you can't love a book in the sense of "love" that Christians (and the author of 1 John) have in mind when we say God is love.

When we feel the profound presence of the divine showering love upon us--or when we feel the joy of being loved by others--we are encountering the divine nature as something coming to us from the outside. But when we love our neighbors as ourselves, we are channeling divine love, and experiencing it "from within" (so to speak). The divine nature is moving within us, more intimately connected to us than any mere object of experience. I think this is what the author of 1 John means when he says that whoever does not love does not know God. To love others is to be filled with the spirit of God. It is to let God in.

If any of that is true, then it is by encouraging us to love one another that God makes possible the most profound revelation of the divine nature and will. And while the Bible does encourage us to love one another, the theory about the Bible which takes it to be the inerrant revelation of God may actually be an impediment to love.

We end up focusing more attention on the Bible than on our neighbors. We are more committed to "doing what the Bible says" than we are to loving those around us. Out of a desire to be connected with God, we insist that homosexuality is always and everywhere sinful--and when the gay and lesbian neighbors we are supposed to love cry out in despair, their lives crushed by these teachings, we stifle our compassion, shutting out love in fear that loving them as ourselves might lead us to question the inerrancy of the Bible.

If God is love, then any theory of revelation that tells us to find God by burying our noses in a book is a problematic theory. If God is love, we must look for God in the love we see in the world. The Bible, understood as a flawed and finite human testament to the God of love working in history, can be a deeply meaningful partner in our quest to encounter God and live in the light of divine goodness. But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

The Bible points away from itself. Respect for it demands that we look up from the page and engage with our neighbors and the creation. God is alive in the world. The Bible tells us that God is alive in the world. In so doing, the book is telling us that if we want to find God, we need to look into our neighbor's face with love, and at the natural world and all its creatures with love.

Because God is there. God is there, revealing Himself in the vibrancy of life and the child's laugh and the mother's tender kiss. God is there, in the gay man who sits by his longtime partner's hospital bedside, gently stroking his brow. God is there, in the joyous wedding vows of the lesbian couple that can finally get a legal marriage after years together."


http://thepietythatliesbetween.bl...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:08:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Someone once asked me why I think this, and I was about to type it out but luckily I found someone who said it all much better than I can. Many of my reasons are similar. Thoughts?

"The Patheos website is currently hosting a multi-blog conversation about progressive Christianity and Scripture which has generated numerous engaging and thoughtful contributions--such as this one by James McGrath. Because the relationship between progressive Christian faith and the Bible is one of my enduring interests, the sudden flood of interesting essays on the topic has inspired me to take a few minutes to reflect on the issue myself.

As a philosopher of religion, the way I approach this topic is in terms of a philosophical question: What theory of revelation fits best with the Christian view of God? Put another way, if there is a God that fits the broadly Christian description, how would we expect such a God to reveal the divine nature and will to the world?

Many conservative Christians take it for granted that God has revealed the divine nature and will in and through a specific book. More precisely (although they aren't usually this precise), they believe that God inspired certain human authors at various times in history to write texts that inerrantly express divine truths--and then inspired other human beings to correctly recognize these texts and include all and only them in the comprehensive collection of Scriptures we call the Bible.

Let's call this the theory of biblical inerrancy.

Does this theory fit well with broader Christian beliefs? Is this a good Christian theory about divine revelation, culminating in a good Christian theory about what the Bible is and what sort of authority we should attach to it? I think there are a number of reasons to be skeptical.

Put more narrowly, I think there are a number of reasons why Christians should be skeptical, given their Christian starting points. Let's consider at least some of these reasons.

1. Christianity holds that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God

Traditional Christian teaching holds that Jesus is the Word made Flesh, the incarnation of God in history. And this means that for Christians, the primary and monumental revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, not in any book (however inspired). It is this fact which motivated George MacDonald to say of the Bible,

I'm not so sure that this is even true. Jesus was and is more like the "ultimate sacrifice." But "ultimate revelation"? No inspired writer ever applied this appellation to Him. In fact, Jesus Himself emphatically stated that while He revealed the truth, He did not reveal all of the truth. Rather, that task belong to the Holy Spirit, and was accomplished well after the ascension.

It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," not the Bible, save as leading to him.

Play on words. Jesus dispatched the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and other inspired men into "all truth". Jesus is not an "ever-unfolding" revelation.

Biblical inerrantists might argue that nothing precludes God from both revealing the divine nature primarily in Jesus and authoring an inerrant book as a secondary revelation. This is true as far as it goes. But there are reasons for concern.

"Revealing the divine nature" is one thing. Possessing a Book written by men who were guided into all truth by the Spirit is quite another.

First, there's a difference between the kind of revelation that Jesus represents, and the kind that a book represents. A person and a book are different things, and we learn from them in different ways. Consider the difference between having a mentor in the project of becoming a better person, and reading self-help books.

Doesn't Christianity teach that God's preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words?

Absolutely not.

The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a "supplemental" revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship.

Nahhh ... it leads to a deep respect and reverence, but I have never seen a person "worship" the Bible.

Given human psychology, there is something alluring about having a book with all the answers.

Answers to what? On certain subjects, the Bible does indeed tell us all we need to know.

But if God primarily wants us to find the answers through personal engagement with the living God, as discovered in Jesus, isn't there a real danger that fixation on the Bible will distract the faithful from God's primary mode of self-disclosure?

What in the world is a "personal engagement with a living God"? Is the writer claiming that he hears voices or something? Does he carry on conversations with God?

None of this is to say that human stories--witness accounts of divine revelation in history--aren't important.

Is the writer referring to men like Josephus? He wrote eye-witness accounts ("human stories") of the events round about him. Somehow I do not think that's what he's talking about; however, he is relegating Matthew, Paul, Luke, and Peter to the level of Josephus. They just wrote "human stories."

They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you've found the one you seek or an imposter.

Anybody who's going about it this way is sure to find an imposter - and that imposter is his own imagination.

But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

The above paragraph is an almost-blasphemous demotion of the Holy Scriptures. Inexcusable. In other words, what the Scriptures have to say just amounts to some nice stories. But what's really important is one's "friendship" with Jesus. That's very dangerous.

2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn't directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn't appear in the earliest versions).

Notice the writer's subtle, yet powerful, put-down. How did the narrative of John 8 wind up in the Bible? Why, some fallible fella just decided to write it down! He doesn't even possess the respect to name the writer as "John". Patently pitiable. Then he informs us that the narrative does not appear in "the earliest versions" - but you notice he did not name those versions.

But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 7:02:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:10:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

4. Efforts to overcome apparent contradictions in Scripture lead to a false view of Scripture

To the contrary, coming to the conclusion that one passage directly contradicts another passage is what leads to a false view - a demotion and devaluation - of the Holy Scriptures.

Speaking of difficulties of this sort, the Bible isn't a neat, orderly, systematically consistent treatise. The Gospel narratives, for example, aren't identical. They tell the stories of Jesus' life in different ways. Details differ--for example, in accounts of the resurrection. Bart Ehrman does a fine job of cataloguing many of these in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible.

Bart Ehrman is an enemy of the Bible, when one gets right down to the nitty-gritty.

Mostly, these tensions aren't explicit contradictions but rather what might be called apparent ones: they don't seem as if they can go together, because you'd need to tell a rather convoluted story to make them fit.

Oh, great



And there's another problem, one that should be of concern to Christians who care about the Bible. The convoluted tales that you have to tell in order to make disparate biblical narratives fit together end up leading you away from an honest appreciation of the message of the biblical authors. As Ehrman puts it, "To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story."

Case in point.

When you do this, you care more about preserving your theory about the Bible than you do about understanding and taking in its message. For me, this is one of the greatest tragedies of an inerrantist approach to Scripture: It makes it difficult for readers to engage with the Bible on its own terms. It's like someone who is so devoted to a false image of their spouse that they can't see their spouse for the person they really are. Likewise, the steps that need to be taken in order to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy in the face of the Bible's actual content means that it becomes impossible to have an intimate relationship with the Bible as it really is. This is not taking the Bible seriously. It is taking the doctrine of inerrancy seriously at the expense of the Bible.

LOL @ "taking the Bible seriously". The writer has pretty much told us, "Don't trust it. It contradicts itself. It's 'human stories'."

5. God is love

Christianity teaches that God is love. In fact, it is the closest thing Christians have to a scriptural definition of God: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8).

If God is love, then we experience God when we love.

Untrue. I truly love my first cigarette in the morning. But that would hardly be called "experiencing God."

If God is love, then the primary way we can encounter God is through loving and being loved--that is, through cultivating loving relationships with persons. This may help to explain the Christian view that a person--Jesus--served in history as God's fundamental revelation, rather than a book. Books can't love you. And you can't love a book in the sense of "love" that Christians (and the author of 1 John) have in mind when we say God is love.

"Books can't love you". Duhhhhhhhh.





We end up focusing more attention on the Bible than on our neighbors. We are more committed to "doing what the Bible says" than we are to loving those around us.

Is that wrong?

Out of a desire to be connected with God, we insist that homosexuality is always and everywhere sinful--and when the gay and lesbian neighbors we are supposed to love cry out in despair, their lives crushed by these teachings, we stifle our compassion, shutting out love in fear that loving them as ourselves might lead us to question the inerrancy of the Bible.

False statement and false conclusions.

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

Let's look at what he's saying again, in bold:

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

BINGO. Very telling, eh?

The writer could have left out all the other stuff, and summed up his motives with that one statement.

(1) I want to do it.
(2) The Bible says not to do it.
(3) What to do! What to do?
(4) Answer: Biblical errancy - and curses upon those darn inerrantists.


The Bible points away from itself.

False.

Respect for it demands that we look up from the page and engage with our neighbors and the creation. God is alive in the world. The Bible tells us that God is alive in the world. In so doing, the book is telling us that if we want to find God, we need to look into our neighbor's face with love, and at the natural world and all its creatures with love.

Because God is there. God is there, revealing Himself in the vibrancy of life and the child's laugh and the mother's tender kiss. God is there, in the gay man who sits by his longtime partner's hospital bedside, gently stroking his brow. God is there, in the joyous wedding vows of the lesbian couple ....

Oh, brother. One has to feel sorry for this fella. Ever get the impression that his whole agenda on "Biblical inerrancy" is that he knows at least some of what the NT teaches concerning homosexual marriage - and he "don't be likin' it".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:58:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The main reason to not say it is inerrant is because it shows that if you do say it is, that you haven't even read the first 2 chapters.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is even true. Jesus was and is more like the "ultimate sacrifice." But "ultimate revelation"?

Yup.

No inspired writer ever applied this appellation to Him.

If you have seen me, you have seen God/the Father?

In fact, Jesus Himself emphatically stated that while He revealed the truth, He did not reveal all of the truth. Rather, that task belong to the Holy Spirit, and was accomplished well after the ascension.


Okay? How does this refute his contention.


Play on words. Jesus dispatched the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and other inspired men into "all truth". Jesus is not an "ever-unfolding" revelation.


He is if the trinity is true. And if you can always deepend in your understanding of Jesus' teachings/etc, then he is an ever unfolding revelation.


"Revealing the divine nature" is one thing. Possessing a Book written by men who were guided into all truth by the Spirit is quite another.


That's merely begging the question.

Doesn't Christianity teach that God's preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words?

Absolutely not.


Absolutely does.
The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a "supplemental" revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship.

Nahhh ... it leads to a deep respect and reverence, but I have never seen a person "worship" the Bible.


I have. Whole swathes of Christians can fairly be described as bibliodolaters.

Given human psychology, there is something alluring about having a book with all the answers.

Answers to what?

Everything.

On certain subjects, the Bible does indeed tell us all we need to know.



What in the world is a "personal engagement with a living God"?

Having a relationship with God.

Is the writer claiming that he hears voices or something? Does he carry on conversations with God?


That's what worship and prayer and meditation are for.

None of this is to say that human stories--witness accounts of divine revelation in history--aren't important.

Is the writer referring to men like Josephus? He wrote eye-witness accounts ("human stories") of the events round about him.

All of the stories are written by humans. Therefore they are human stories. That doesn't preclude them from being MORE then human stories or "merely" human stories, but that is what they are.

Somehow I do not think that's what he's talking about; however, he is relegating Matthew, Paul, Luke, and Peter to the level of Josephus. They just wrote "human stories."


Well, they are. They are human stories that are testament to the divine. What's your problem with this again?

They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you've found the one you seek or an imposter.

Anybody who's going about it this way is sure to find an imposter - and that imposter is his own imagination.


Elaborate.

But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

The above paragraph is an almost-blasphemous demotion of the Holy Scriptures. Inexcusable. In other words, what the Scriptures have to say just amounts to some nice stories. But what's really important is one's "friendship" with Jesus. That's very dangerous.


That isn't what he said. The stories (and other literary tropes) function as means to an end. Those "nice stories" included.

Your responses evince an "almost blasphemous" promotion of the holy scriptures.
2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn't directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn't appear in the earliest versions).

Notice the writer's subtle, yet powerful, put-down. How did the narrative of John 8 wind up in the Bible? Why, some fallible fella just decided to write it down! He doesn't even possess the respect to name the writer as "John". Patently pitiable.

Lol, he just recognizes what most biblical scholars do - the bible is full of interpolations, additions, editing, redactions, etc. This doen't detract from it's status but that is simple fact.

Then he informs us that the narrative does not appear in "the earliest versions" - but you notice he did not name those versions.


Because you can just look it up. This is common knowledge.

But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 11:59:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 7:02:17 PM, annanicole wrote:


To the contrary, coming to the conclusion that one passage directly contradicts another passage is what leads to a false view - a demotion and devaluation - of the Holy Scriptures.


Nope, rather, it's facing facts.

Bart Ehrman is an enemy of the Bible, when one gets right down to the nitty-gritty.


That doesn't make him wrong. Do you deny that the gospel narratives are different and that some of their details contradict each other? This is patently obvious. Are these differences significant? Nope. Do they exist? Yep.

Mostly, these tensions aren't explicit contradictions but rather what might be called apparent ones: they don't seem as if they can go together, because you'd need to tell a rather convoluted story to make them fit.

Oh, great


'Tis true.


And there's another problem, one that should be of concern to Christians who care about the Bible. The convoluted tales that you have to tell in order to make disparate biblical narratives fit together end up leading you away from an honest appreciation of the message of the biblical authors. As Ehrman puts it, "To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story."

Case in point.


Of what?


LOL @ "taking the Bible seriously". The writer has pretty much told us, "Don't trust it. It contradicts itself. It's 'human stories'."


No, that isn't what he has told us. Go back and re read it.

5. God is love

Christianity teaches that God is love. In fact, it is the closest thing Christians have to a scriptural definition of God: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8).

If God is love, then we experience God when we love.

Untrue. I truly love my first cigarette in the morning. But that would hardly be called "experiencing God."


I can't tell if you are being purposefully not getting the point or not, but he made it clear that love he is talking about is of the intrapersonal kind. Your reductio ad absurdum fails.

If God is love, then the primary way we can encounter God is through loving and being loved--that is, through cultivating loving relationships with persons. This may help to explain the Christian view that a person--Jesus--served in history as God's fundamental revelation, rather than a book. Books can't love you. And you can't love a book in the sense of "love" that Christians (and the author of 1 John) have in mind when we say God is love.

"Books can't love you". Duhhhhhhhh.


Me thinks you missed the point.


We end up focusing more attention on the Bible than on our neighbors. We are more committed to "doing what the Bible says" than we are to loving those around us.

Is that wrong?


yes. Considering the fact that all the law is summed up in two commandments. I assume you know what those are. I forget the exact phrasing but there is that verse where

Out of a desire to be connected with God, we insist that homosexuality is always and everywhere sinful--and when the gay and lesbian neighbors we are supposed to love cry out in despair, their lives crushed by these teachings, we stifle our compassion, shutting out love in fear that loving them as ourselves might lead us to question the inerrancy of the Bible.

False statement and false conclusions.


Elaborate.

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

Let's look at what he's saying again, in bold:

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

BINGO. Very telling, eh?


Not really.

The writer could have left out all the other stuff, and summed up his motives with that one statement.

(1) I want to do it.
(2) The Bible says not to do it.
(3) What to do! What to do?
(4) Answer: Biblical errancy - and curses upon those darn inerrantists.


Didn't know you were able to read the motives of a guy you never met through a blog post.


The Bible points away from itself.

False.


True. They point towards Jesus.

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,"

Respect for it demands that we look up from the page and engage with our neighbors and the creation. God is alive in the world. The Bible tells us that God is alive in the world. In so doing, the book is telling us that if we want to find God, we need to look into our neighbor's face with love, and at the natural world and all its creatures with love.

Because God is there. God is there, revealing Himself in the vibrancy of life and the child's laugh and the mother's tender kiss. God is there, in the gay man who sits by his longtime partner's hospital bedside, gently stroking his brow. God is there, in the joyous wedding vows of the lesbian couple ....

Oh, brother. One has to feel sorry for this fella. Ever get the impression that his whole agenda on "Biblical inerrancy" is that he knows at least some of what the NT teaches concerning homosexual marriage - and he "don't be likin' it".

No, I don't get that impression.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 12:35:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with you, pooka.

Writers of biblical scripture undoubtedly saw something miraculous in their lifetime and that's why they wrote about what they saw. But it's blatantly obvious to me that some of what they recorded is inaccurate and many of their views are just flat-out wrong!

The Bible writers were not inerrant. They saw something divine, but their interpretations should be scrutinized.

To prepare people for this unavoidable fact, I take the perspective that the Bible and other Holy Books can be divinely inspired (influenced by divine events)--but such books are not infallible (without error).

The New Testament, the Quran, the Old Testament (and other holy books) are not without significant human errors and free of bad judgement.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 12:43:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:08:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I think that Catholicism answers most of your questions.

Many conservative Christians take it for granted that God has revealed the divine nature and will in and through a specific book. More precisely (although they aren't usually this precise), they believe that God inspired certain human authors at various times in history to write texts that inerrantly express divine truths--and then inspired other human beings to correctly recognize these texts and include all and only them in the comprehensive collection of Scriptures we call the Bible.

Jesus left Apostles with authority. Jesus did not say to write a book, but to proclaim the Gospel. The writings of those men, or those who wrote down what these men said while alive have authority because they are valid expressions of the Holy Spirit .

Let's call this the theory of biblical inerrancy.

Does this theory fit well with broader Christian beliefs? Is this a good Christian theory about divine revelation, culminating in a good Christian theory about what the Bible is and what sort of authority we should attach to it? I think there are a number of reasons to be skeptical.

All of scripture is "God breathed". However, the difficulty is providing an authentic interpretation to scripture.

1. Christianity holds that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God

It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," not the Bible, save as leading to him.

And Christ sent forth Apostles with his authority. As God has sent me, so I send you.

First, there's a difference between the kind of revelation that Jesus represents, and the kind that a book represents. A person and a book are different things, and we learn from them in different ways. Consider the difference between having a mentor in the project of becoming a better person, and reading self-help books.

This is why the Nicene Creed says that the Church has 4 attributes: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

It is that apostolic bit that you seem to be lacking in your critique.

2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn't appear in the earliest versions). But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

The old testament contained 3 types of laws. Moral, ceremonial and civil. The moral law is that adultery is wrong was not denied and that it leads to eternal death is not denied. However, that does not mean that the civil punishment has to be physical death.

In short, it's clear Jesus didn't have the inerrantist view towards the Scriptures of His day that conservative Christians have towards the Christian Scriptures of today. Conservatives might argue that Jesus would view the modern Bible--or maybe just the New Testament?--in the way they favor, even if the approach to Scripture that He actually modeled is at odds with their approach.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

3. In the New Testament, Paul distinguished between his views and the Lord's

This is why you need an authority beyond the bible to provide an interpretation that is guarded by the Holy Spirit.

4. Efforts to overcome apparent contradictions in Scripture lead to a false view of Scripture

http://www.catholicculture.org...

5. God is love

And Jesus is also the Truth. One cannot fully love if one is not also adhering to the truth.

I was brief in my answers to see where you want this discussion to go.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:50:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 11:59:53 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 7:02:17 PM, annanicole wrote:


To the contrary, coming to the conclusion that one passage directly contradicts another passage is what leads to a false view - a demotion and devaluation - of the Holy Scriptures.


Nope, rather, it's facing facts.

The same "facts" that align one with the atheists who take joy in pointed out alleged contradictions?

Bart Ehrman is an enemy of the Bible, when one gets right down to the nitty-gritty.


That doesn't make him wrong. Do you deny that the gospel narratives are different and that some of their details contradict each other?

Yep

This is patently obvious. Are these differences significant? Nope. Do they exist? Yep.

And I'd lay 8 to 5 that you are talking about the same alleged contradictions available on most atheist websites that deal with the Bible. "Three days and three nights" ... "facts concerning the resurrection" .... and on and on.

Mostly, these tensions aren't explicit contradictions but rather what might be called apparent ones: they don't seem as if they can go together, because you'd need to tell a rather convoluted story to make them fit.

Oh, great


'Tis true.

'Tis true that he is saying, "If you must constantly employ a Greek lexicon or other contemporary works, then you must be wrong somewhere."


And there's another problem, one that should be of concern to Christians who care about the Bible. The convoluted tales that you have to tell in order to make disparate biblical narratives fit together end up leading you away from an honest appreciation of the message of the biblical authors. As Ehrman puts it, "To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story."

Case in point.


Of what?

He assumes the other side is telling "convoluted tales". But he on the other hand is "honestly dealing" with "disparate narratives".


LOL @ "taking the Bible seriously". The writer has pretty much told us, "Don't trust it. It contradicts itself. It's 'human stories'."


No, that isn't what he has told us. Go back and re read it.

Yes, it is.

5. God is love

Christianity teaches that God is love. In fact, it is the closest thing Christians have to a scriptural definition of God: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8).

If God is love, then we experience God when we love.

Untrue. I truly love my first cigarette in the morning. But that would hardly be called "experiencing God."


I can't tell if you are being purposefully not getting the point or not, but he made it clear that love he is talking about is of the intrapersonal kind. Your reductio ad absurdum fails.

If God is love, then the primary way we can encounter God is through loving and being loved--that is, through cultivating loving relationships with persons. This may help to explain the Christian view that a person--Jesus--served in history as God's fundamental revelation, rather than a book. Books can't love you. And you can't love a book in the sense of "love" that Christians (and the author of 1 John) have in mind when we say God is love.

"Books can't love you". Duhhhhhhhh.


Me thinks you missed the point.

That one can love the truth which is in the Book without losing his love for his fellow man.


We end up focusing more attention on the Bible than on our neighbors. We are more committed to "doing what the Bible says" than we are to loving those around us.

Is that wrong?


yes. Considering the fact that all the law is summed up in two commandments. I assume you know what those are. I forget the exact phrasing but there is that verse where

The Jewish law?

Out of a desire to be connected with God, we insist that homosexuality is always and everywhere sinful--and when the gay and lesbian neighbors we are supposed to love cry out in despair, their lives crushed by these teachings, we stifle our compassion, shutting out love in fear that loving them as ourselves might lead us to question the inerrancy of the Bible.

False statement and false conclusions.


Elaborate.

Pointing out the sinful nature of homosexual activities is not a sign of lack of love. Telling someone, "Oh, it's OK - don't worry about it" is very selfish.

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

Let's look at what he's saying again, in bold:

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

BINGO. Very telling, eh?


Not really.

Yes it is:

"But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse."

His entire rationale is summed up in that ridiculous statement.

The writer could have left out all the other stuff, and summed up his motives with that one statement.

(1) I want to do it.
(2) The Bible says not to do it.
(3) What to do! What to do?
(4) Answer: Biblical errancy - and curses upon those darn inerrantists.


Didn't know you were able to read the motives of a guy you never met through a blog post.

He just gave his motive:

But as soon as it is treated as inerrant, it is in danger of becoming a bludgeon used to silence those neighbors who want to share experiences that don't quite fit with this or that verse.

My summary was a generality.


The Bible points away from itself.

False.


True. They point towards Jesus.

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,"

And you know very well that Jesus is saying that the Jewish scriptures, Genesis to Malachi, were pointing toward Him. They were but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

Respect for it demands that we look up from the page and engage with our neighbors and the creation. God is alive in the world. The Bible tells us that God is alive in the world. In so doing, the book is telling us that if we want to find God, we need to look into our neighbor's face with love, and at the natural world and all its creatures with love.

Because God is there. God is there, revealing Himself in the vibrancy of life and the child's laugh and the mother's tender kiss. God is there, in the gay man who sits by his longtime partner's hospital bedside, gently stroking his brow. God is there, in the joyous wedding vows of the lesbian couple ....

Oh, brother. One has to feel sorry for this fella. Ever get the impression that his whole agenda on "Biblical inerrancy" is that he knows at least some of what the NT teaches concerning homosexual marriage - and he "don't be likin' it".

No, I don't get that impression.

I do. If not, why bring it, of all things, up?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is even true. Jesus was and is more like the "ultimate sacrifice." But "ultimate revelation"?

Yup.

Cite the passage - and make sure it's not one where you just "read it in" to it.

No inspired writer ever applied this appellation to Him.

If you have seen me, you have seen God/the Father?

Does not equate to the "ultimate revelation" - no moreso that Paul saying that Christ lives in him.

In fact, Jesus Himself emphatically stated that while He revealed the truth, He did not reveal all of the truth. Rather, that task belong to the Holy Spirit, and was accomplished well after the ascension.


Okay? How does this refute his contention.

Revelation = Revealed, and Jesus said plainly that He did not reveal all of the truth.



Play on words. Jesus dispatched the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and other inspired men into "all truth". Jesus is not an "ever-unfolding" revelation.


He is if the trinity is true. And if you can always deepend in your understanding of Jesus' teachings/etc, then he is an ever unfolding revelation.

My understanding of this or that may unfold as I mature, but His teachings are settled once and for all.


"Revealing the divine nature" is one thing. Possessing a Book written by men who were guided into all truth by the Spirit is quite another.


That's merely begging the question.

It is if someone wants to condone something that the New Testament does not authorize, or that the NT condemns.

Doesn't Christianity teach that God's preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words?

Absolutely not.


Absolutely does.

Such a teaching would have God revealing Himself directly in some sort of eerie, spooky better-felt-than-explained feeling
.
The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a "supplemental" revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship.

Nahhh ... it leads to a deep respect and reverence, but I have never seen a person "worship" the Bible.


I have. Whole swathes of Christians can fairly be described as bibliodolaters.

Name one on here.

Given human psychology, there is something alluring about having a book with all the answers.

Answers to what?

Everything.

Nobody teaches that, not that I know of.

On certain subjects, the Bible does indeed tell us all we need to know.



What in the world is a "personal engagement with a living God"?

Having a relationship with God.

What kind of a "relationship"?

Is the writer claiming that he hears voices or something? Does he carry on conversations with God?


That's what worship and prayer and meditation are for.

And God answers back through His word, the Scriptures.

None of this is to say that human stories--witness accounts of divine revelation in history--aren't important.

Is the writer referring to men like Josephus? He wrote eye-witness accounts ("human stories") of the events round about him.

All of the stories are written by humans. Therefore they are human stories. That doesn't preclude them from being MORE then human stories or "merely" human stories, but that is what they are.

Are they are any portion of them of human invention? Or were these men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit during their writing?

Somehow I do not think that's what he's talking about; however, he is relegating Matthew, Paul, Luke, and Peter to the level of Josephus. They just wrote "human stories."


Well, they are. They are human stories that are testament to the divine. What's your problem with this again?

Inspiration versus fallible.

They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you've found the one you seek or an imposter.

Anybody who's going about it this way is sure to find an imposter - and that imposter is his own imagination.


Elaborate.

But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

The above paragraph is an almost-blasphemous demotion of the Holy Scriptures. Inexcusable. In other words, what the Scriptures have to say just amounts to some nice stories. But what's really important is one's "friendship" with Jesus. That's very dangerous.


That isn't what he said. The stories (and other literary tropes) function as means to an end. Those "nice stories" included.

Your responses evince an "almost blasphemous" promotion of the holy scriptures.
2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn't directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn't appear in the earliest versions).



Because you can just look it up. This is common knowledge.


But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 3:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is even true. Jesus was and is more like the "ultimate sacrifice." But "ultimate revelation"?

Yup.

Cite the passage - and make sure it's not one where you just "read it in" to it.

No inspired writer ever applied this appellation to Him.

If you have seen me, you have seen God/the Father?

Does not equate to the "ultimate revelation" - no moreso that Paul saying that Christ lives in him.

In fact, Jesus Himself emphatically stated that while He revealed the truth, He did not reveal all of the truth. Rather, that task belong to the Holy Spirit, and was accomplished well after the ascension.


Okay? How does this refute his contention.

Revelation = Revealed, and Jesus said plainly that He did not reveal all of the truth.



Play on words. Jesus dispatched the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and other inspired men into "all truth". Jesus is not an "ever-unfolding" revelation.


He is if the trinity is true. And if you can always deepend in your understanding of Jesus' teachings/etc, then he is an ever unfolding revelation.

My understanding of this or that may unfold as I mature, but His teachings are settled once and for all.


"Revealing the divine nature" is one thing. Possessing a Book written by men who were guided into all truth by the Spirit is quite another.


That's merely begging the question.

It is if someone wants to condone something that the New Testament does not authorize, or that the NT condemns.

Doesn't Christianity teach that God's preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words?

Absolutely not.


Absolutely does.

Such a teaching would have God revealing Himself directly in some sort of eerie, spooky better-felt-than-explained feeling
.
The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a "supplemental" revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship.

Nahhh ... it leads to a deep respect and reverence, but I have never seen a person "worship" the Bible.


I have. Whole swathes of Christians can fairly be described as bibliodolaters.

Name one on here.

Given human psychology, there is something alluring about having a book with all the answers.

Answers to what?

Everything.

Nobody teaches that, not that I know of.

On certain subjects, the Bible does indeed tell us all we need to know.



What in the world is a "personal engagement with a living God"?

Having a relationship with God.

What kind of a "relationship"?

Is the writer claiming that he hears voices or something? Does he carry on conversations with God?


That's what worship and prayer and meditation are for.

And God answers back through His word, the Scriptures.

None of this is to say that human stories--witness accounts of divine revelation in history--aren't important.

Is the writer referring to men like Josephus? He wrote eye-witness accounts ("human stories") of the events round about him.

All of the stories are written by humans. Therefore they are human stories. That doesn't preclude them from being MORE then human stories or "merely" human stories, but that is what they are.

Are they are any portion of them of human invention? Or were these men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit during their writing?

Somehow I do not think that's what he's talking about; however, he is relegating Matthew, Paul, Luke, and Peter to the level of Josephus. They just wrote "human stories."


Well, they are. They are human stories that are testament to the divine. What's your problem with this again?

Inspiration versus fallible.

They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you've found the one you seek or an imposter.

Anybody who's going about it this way is sure to find an imposter - and that imposter is his own imagination.


Elaborate.

But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

The above paragraph is an almost-blasphemous demotion of the Holy Scriptures. Inexcusable. In other words, what the Scriptures have to say just amounts to some nice stories. But what's really important is one's "friendship" with Jesus. That's very dangerous.


That isn't what he said. The stories (and other literary tropes) function as means to an end. Those "nice stories" included.

Your responses evince an "almost blasphemous" promotion of the holy scriptures.
2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn't directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

It is a stunning and powerful story (no wonder someone decided to write it into the Gospel of John, even though it didn't appear in the earliest versions).



Because you can just look it up. This is common knowledge.


But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.

I haven't seen anything man has had a hand in creating, that was perfect and exactly as intended.

The reason why the bible is touted as inerrant, is because of a sliding slope fallacy. Works both ways. If claim "X" in this particular chapter is wrong then ALL claims are wrong. Better to say all claims could be wrong. But each claim should be tested on it's own accord.

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Do not despise prophetic utterances. 21.But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22. abstain from every form of evil."

To question and search is not against the Bible. Some would like to believe the Bible is without error and they sink a lot of their own ideas into the pages of the Bible.

But the Bible is account of a relationship so far. It is not having the relationship itself. Errors and small and can be picked out. But the theme and the context does not change. And the Bible is only what was voted on by a certain council.

People have testimony everyday and tells of this relationship continue. Test every propheti
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 4:38:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 3:28:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is even true. Jesus was and is more like the "ultimate sacrifice." But "ultimate revelation"?

Yup.

Cite the passage - and make sure it's not one where you just "read it in" to it.

No inspired writer ever applied this appellation to Him.

If you have seen me, you have seen God/the Father?

Does not equate to the "ultimate revelation" - no moreso that Paul saying that Christ lives in him.

In fact, Jesus Himself emphatically stated that while He revealed the truth, He did not reveal all of the truth. Rather, that task belong to the Holy Spirit, and was accomplished well after the ascension.


Okay? How does this refute his contention.

Revelation = Revealed, and Jesus said plainly that He did not reveal all of the truth.



Play on words. Jesus dispatched the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and other inspired men into "all truth". Jesus is not an "ever-unfolding" revelation.


He is if the trinity is true. And if you can always deepend in your understanding of Jesus' teachings/etc, then he is an ever unfolding revelation.

My understanding of this or that may unfold as I mature, but His teachings are settled once and for all.


"Revealing the divine nature" is one thing. Possessing a Book written by men who were guided into all truth by the Spirit is quite another.


That's merely begging the question.

It is if someone wants to condone something that the New Testament does not authorize, or that the NT condemns.

Doesn't Christianity teach that God's preferred way of disclosing the divine nature and will is through personal, living relationship rather than fixed words?

Absolutely not.


Absolutely does.

Such a teaching would have God revealing Himself directly in some sort of eerie, spooky better-felt-than-explained feeling
.
The problem with throwing in an inerrant book as a "supplemental" revelation is that it can lead to Bible-worship.


Is the writer claiming that he hears voices or something? Does he carry on conversations with God?


That's what worship and prayer and meditation are for.

And God answers back through His word, the Scriptures.

None of this is to say that human stories--witness accounts of divine revelation in history--aren't important.

Is the writer referring to men like Josephus? He wrote eye-witness accounts ("human stories") of the events round about him.

All of the stories are written by humans. Therefore they are human stories. That doesn't preclude them from being MORE then human stories or "merely" human stories, but that is what they are.

Are they are any portion of them of human invention? Or were these men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit during their writing?

Somehow I do not think that's what he's talking about; however, he is relegating Matthew, Paul, Luke, and Peter to the level of Josephus. They just wrote "human stories."


Well, they are. They are human stories that are testament to the divine. What's your problem with this again?

Inspiration versus fallible.

They can motivate a desire to seek out the one whom the stories are about, and they can offer tools for discerning whether you've found the one you seek or an imposter.

Anybody who's going about it this way is sure to find an imposter - and that imposter is his own imagination.


Elaborate.

But once they are seen as secondary, as valuable as a means to an end, the need for inerrancy dissipates. If what really matters is my friendship with Joe, and if I sought out and formed a friendship with him because lots of people told me stories about him that revealed him as an awesome guy I wanted to meet, do I really need to insist that those storytellers were inerrant? Why?

The above paragraph is an almost-blasphemous demotion of the Holy Scriptures. Inexcusable. In other words, what the Scriptures have to say just amounts to some nice stories. But what's really important is one's "friendship" with Jesus. That's very dangerous.


That isn't what he said. The stories (and other literary tropes) function as means to an end. Those "nice stories" included.

Your responses evince an "almost blasphemous" promotion of the holy scriptures.
2. The Jesus of Scripture was not an inerrantist

In John 8:1-11, we have the story of the teachers of the law coming to Jesus with an adulteress, and asking Him whether they ought to stone her to death as the Scriptures prescribe. The passage itself declares that this was a trap: If Jesus came out and directly told them not to stone her, He would be defying a direct scriptural injunction.

He avoided the trap: He didn't directly telling them to act contrary to Scripture. Instead, He told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.



But notice that Jesus didn't tell them to do what Scripture prescribed. Instead, He found a powerful way to drive home exactly what was wrong with following that scriptural injunction--in a way that avoided their trap.

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.

I haven't seen anything man has had a hand in creating, that was perfect and exactly as intended.

The reason why the bible is touted as inerrant, is because of a sliding slope fallacy. Works both ways. If claim "X" in this particular chapter is wrong then ALL claims are wrong. Better to say all claims could be wrong. But each claim should be tested on it's own accord.

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Do not despise prophetic utterances. 21.But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22. abstain from every form of evil."

To question and search is not against the Bible. Some would like to believe the Bible is without error and they sink a lot of their own ideas into the pages of the Bible.

But the Bible is account of a relationship so far. It is not having the relationship itself. Errors and small and can be picked out.

There's that confusing word "relationship" again. A quick search of the Bible finds that the word is not even in the Bible, for good reason: it's subjective. Yet it's on the lips and keyboards of half of the professed Christians. From whence did it derive? I know where it didn't come from.

How does one know if he/she has a "personal relationship" or a "relationship" with God? That would be my question. And here's an example:

(True story) A woman that I know - a very fat woman, at that - is sure of three things: (1) She has a personal relationship with the Father and the Son, (2) she knows it because she feels it .... feels it right here (hand on chest), and (3) all Catholics are lost. She knows those things. How does she know it? What is this "relationship" that she claims? Does God talk to her by means other than His written word?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 4:46:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 4:38:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:28:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.

I haven't seen anything man has had a hand in creating, that was perfect and exactly as intended.

The reason why the bible is touted as inerrant, is because of a sliding slope fallacy. Works both ways. If claim "X" in this particular chapter is wrong then ALL claims are wrong. Better to say all claims could be wrong. But each claim should be tested on it's own accord.

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Do not despise prophetic utterances. 21.But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22. abstain from every form of evil."

To question and search is not against the Bible. Some would like to believe the Bible is without error and they sink a lot of their own ideas into the pages of the Bible.

But the Bible is account of a relationship so far. It is not having the relationship itself. Errors and small and can be picked out.

There's that confusing word "relationship" again. A quick search of the Bible finds that the word is not even in the Bible, for good reason: it's subjective. Yet it's on the lips and keyboards of half of the professed Christians. From whence did it derive? I know where it didn't come from.

How does one know if he/she has a "personal relationship" or a "relationship" with God? That would be my question. And here's an example:

(True story) A woman that I know - a very fat woman, at that - is sure of three things: (1) She has a personal relationship with the Father and the Son, (2) she knows it because she feels it .... feels it right here (hand on chest), and (3) all Catholics are lost. She knows those th...

A relationship is the way 2 things are connected. Personal means it is intimate to one's thoughts and emotions.

The Bible does not teach to go on things just based on feelings.

There is no one way to anything. We have feelings, those are a part. But anything based solely on feeling has potential to be extremely wrong.

You may not find the word in the Bible. But many passages talk about it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 5:33:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 4:46:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:38:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:28:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.

I haven't seen anything man has had a hand in creating, that was perfect and exactly as intended.

The reason why the bible is touted as inerrant, is because of a sliding slope fallacy. Works both ways. If claim "X" in this particular chapter is wrong then ALL claims are wrong. Better to say all claims could be wrong. But each claim should be tested on it's own accord.

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Do not despise prophetic utterances. 21.But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22. abstain from every form of evil."

To question and search is not against the Bible. Some would like to believe the Bible is without error and they sink a lot of their own ideas into the pages of the Bible.

But the Bible is account of a relationship so far. It is not having the relationship itself. Errors and small and can be picked out.

There's that confusing word "relationship" again. A quick search of the Bible finds that the word is not even in the Bible, for good reason: it's subjective. Yet it's on the lips and keyboards of half of the professed Christians. From whence did it derive? I know where it didn't come from.

How does one know if he/she has a "personal relationship" or a "relationship" with God? That would be my question. And here's an example:

(True story) A woman that I know - a very fat woman, at that - is sure of three things: (1) She has a personal relationship with the Father and the Son, (2) she knows it because she feels it .... feels it right here (hand on chest), and (3) all Catholics are lost. She knows those th...

A relationship is the way 2 things are connected. Personal means it is intimate to one's thoughts and emotions.

The Bible does not teach to go on things just based on feelings.

Correct. Feelings wouldn't really be involved in it much at all.

There is no one way to anything. We have feelings, those are a part. But anything based solely on feeling has potential to be extremely wrong.

Yes, there is only one way to many things.

You may not find the word in the Bible. But many passages talk about it.

Not in the way that it is currently employed. Why don't you try to describe it using terminology found in New Testament.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TRUECRISTIAN
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 5:53:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you saved? The reason I ask is because you seem to be very ignorant. So that leads me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Lord. To someone who believes the Lord well enough to tell you about the free gift you can receive, called SALVATION. Salvation is the only way you will enter the kingdom of heaven. You have to believe with all your heart that God sacrificed his only begotten Son Jesus Christ for all our sins. You also must believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and resurrected in 3 days. I will pray for you that you allow yourself this gift and become a true Christian in the army of the Lord. If you choose to remain ignorant lost soul, enjoy your life in hell.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 6:25:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 5:33:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:46:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:38:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:28:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.

I haven't seen anything man has had a hand in creating, that was perfect and exactly as intended.

The reason why the bible is touted as inerrant, is because of a sliding slope fallacy. Works both ways. If claim "X" in this particular chapter is wrong then ALL claims are wrong. Better to say all claims could be wrong. But each claim should be tested on it's own accord.

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Do not despise prophetic utterances. 21.But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22. abstain from every form of evil."

To question and search is not against the Bible. Some would like to believe the Bible is without error and they sink a lot of their own ideas into the pages of the Bible.

But the Bible is account of a relationship so far. It is not having the relationship itself. Errors and small and can be picked out.

There's that confusing word "relationship" again. A quick search of the Bible finds that the word is not even in the Bible, for good reason: it's subjective. Yet it's on the lips and keyboards of half of the professed Christians. From whence did it derive? I know where it didn't come from.

How does one know if he/she has a "personal relationship" or a "relationship" with God? That would be my question. And here's an example:

(True story) A woman that I know - a very fat woman, at that - is sure of three things: (1) She has a personal relationship with the Father and the Son, (2) she knows it because she feels it .... feels it right here (hand on chest), and (3) all Catholics are lost. She knows those th...

A relationship is the way 2 things are connected. Personal means it is intimate to one's thoughts and emotions.

The Bible does not teach to go on things just based on feelings.

Correct. Feelings wouldn't really be involved in it much at all.

Feelings have their place. Notice I said we are not supposed to accept anything PURELY based on feelings.


There is no one way to anything. We have feelings, those are a part. But anything based solely on feeling has potential to be extremely wrong.

Yes, there is only one way to many things.

You may not find the word in the Bible. But many passages talk about it.

Not in the way that it is currently employed. Why don't you try to describe it using terminology found in New Testament.

You don't understand how the Bible speaks of a personal relationship with God?

"I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Hebrews 13:5)
"If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." (Galatians 5:25)
"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:13-14)
"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory." (Colossians 3:4)

""If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." John 14:15

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:11-13

So Calling God father, receiving gifts from God, being IN Christ, having Christ IN me, Church marrying Jesus, Being lead, fed, secured, made alive, etc.. You think none of this speaks of a personal kind of relationship?
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:14:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 5:53:17 PM, TRUECRISTIAN wrote:
Are you saved? The reason I ask is because you seem to be very ignorant. So that leads me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Lord. To someone who believes the Lord well enough to tell you about the free gift you can receive, called SALVATION. Salvation is the only way you will enter the kingdom of heaven. You have to believe with all your heart that God sacrificed his only begotten Son Jesus Christ for all our sins. You also must believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and resurrected in 3 days. I will pray for you that you allow yourself this gift and become a true Christian in the army of the Lord. If you choose to remain ignorant lost soul, enjoy your life in hell.


LMAO. Go somewhere else, troll. Your own ignorance is pathetic.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:22:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:25:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 5:33:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:46:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 4:38:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:28:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/23/2014 11:44:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:48:04 PM, annanicole wrote:

The Old Law was called "flawed" ... "not faultless" ... a "yoke of bondage". It was admitted and known to be such. I'm not sure what the writer is hoping to accomplish with this side-track.

It fits in with his larger point about Jesus not treating the scriptures the way modern day inerrantists do.

I haven't seen anything man has had a hand in creating, that was perfect and exactly as intended.

The reason why the bible is touted as inerrant, is because of a sliding slope fallacy. Works both ways. If claim "X" in this particular chapter is wrong then ALL claims are wrong. Better to say all claims could be wrong. But each claim should be tested on it's own accord.

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Do not despise prophetic utterances. 21.But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22. abstain from every form of evil."

To question and search is not against the Bible. Some would like to believe the Bible is without error and they sink a lot of their own ideas into the pages of the Bible.

But the Bible is account of a relationship so far. It is not having the relationship itself. Errors and small and can be picked out.

There's that confusing word "relationship" again. A quick search of the Bible finds that the word is not even in the Bible, for good reason: it's subjective. Yet it's on the lips and keyboards of half of the professed Christians. From whence did it derive? I know where it didn't come from.

How does one know if he/she has a "personal relationship" or a "relationship" with God? That would be my question. And here's an example:

(True story) A woman that I know - a very fat woman, at that - is sure of three things: (1) She has a personal relationship with the Father and the Son, (2) she knows it because she feels it .... feels it right here (hand on chest), and (3) all Catholics are lost. She knows those th...

A relationship is the way 2 things are connected. Personal means it is intimate to one's thoughts and emotions.

The Bible does not teach to go on things just based on feelings.

Correct. Feelings wouldn't really be involved in it much at all.

Feelings have their place. Notice I said we are not supposed to accept anything PURELY based on feelings.

Yeah, and their "place" is in the back of the bus, if they are on the bus at all. Do you not think that every religionist on earth "feels" just fine?


There is no one way to anything. We have feelings, those are a part. But anything based solely on feeling has potential to be extremely wrong.

Yes, there is only one way to many things.

You may not find the word in the Bible. But many passages talk about it.

Not in the way that it is currently employed. Why don't you try to describe it using terminology found in New Testament.

You don't understand how the Bible speaks of a personal relationship with God?

That's just it. It doesn't. It is the language of Ashdod, meaningless terminology that just means whatever someone wants it to mean.

"I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Hebrews 13:5)
"If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." (Galatians 5:25)
"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:13-14)
"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory." (Colossians 3:4)

""If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." John 14:15

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:11-13

So Calling God father, receiving gifts from God, being IN Christ, having Christ IN me, Church marrying Jesus, Being lead, fed, secured, made alive, etc.. You think none of this speaks of a personal kind of relationship?

I do not see anything even close to it. As I said, the phrase "personal relationship" is just shibbolet, a form of double talk which means nothing. That's why no gospel writer ever employed the phrase. Can you imagine the apostle Peter being asked on Pentecost, "What must we do?" - and responding with something along the lines of "Oh, folks! You need a 'personal relationship'." Or "How do I lead a Christian life?". "Why, you set up this here 'personal relationship' thing."

In the end, it's nothing more than, "It makes me feel as if I'm ok. I imagine that I am. So I am." Some of the folks think that God is talking to them, or communicating with them, by some means other than the Word. Some pray, then feel better, so they conclude that God will miraculously answer their prayer.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:33:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 5:53:17 PM, TRUECRISTIAN wrote:
Are you saved? The reason I ask is because you seem to be very ignorant. So that leads me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Lord. To someone who believes the Lord well enough to tell you about the free gift you can receive, called SALVATION. Salvation is the only way you will enter the kingdom of heaven. You have to believe with all your heart that God sacrificed his only begotten Son Jesus Christ for all our sins. You also must believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and resurrected in 3 days. I will pray for you that you allow yourself this gift and become a true Christian in the army of the Lord. If you choose to remain ignorant lost soul, enjoy your life in hell.


Boy, I'm glad you cleared that up, kinda like a fireman or medic who jumps in to render incalculable aid to those in distress. The next time you make the leap into the foray, just warn us by saying, "White nigger to the rescue! White nigger to the rescue!" so that we may brace ourselves for the profound wisdom headed our way.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TRUECRISTIAN
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your behavior is actually sociopathic.
To dismiss life, ANY life, so easily, only shows that you lack almost all compassion, and even have some traits that only mentally challenged sociopaths have.

I'm assuming the lot of you are teenagers, which really makes me wonder just how many of you will grown up to be serial killers.

I surely feel sorry for any pets in your homes.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:32:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ignore the fool. Back to the original discussion.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."