Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 91 of 304 (645275)
12-24-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 7:23 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
How about what you havent provided, a method of rational evaluation that allows us to distinguish between that which is to be believe from God and that which is to be rejected.
GDR, your faith that jesus was true and the others were not, is not enough to establish your postion as rational, it has to be rational to begin with.
Neither your beliefs nor mine are rational in the strictest sense of the word. We can't really get to either position by reason alone. It is faith. You have faith that God has essentially dictated word for word the entire Bible. I have faith that the Bible is the narrative of the people of God as they perceived it. As part of that I have faith that Jesus was/is the living Word of God and that the NT writers accurately portrayed things that He said and events surrounding His life.
Your faith requires you to, as I said before, take a book written by multiple authors, from multiple sources, translated from the original languages, with numerous inconsistencies, depicting a god that is loving and forgiving but at the same time genocidal, and for no discernible reason believe that it is word for word literally from God.
The question is which of us is more irrational and I would suggest that mine at least gives a consistent view of God, whereas yours leaves you able to create a god in pretty much whatever way you like.
Dawn Bertot writes:
The literal approach is atleast rational, and is consistent with what the scripture has to say overall, especially with what it has to say concerning Gods characteistics and nature
As I said it is irrational and is inconsistent with what scripture says over all. I pointed out in the last post specifically where Jesus corrects what had been written in the OT. It also gives contradictory characteristics of God. Everything that you have just written there is dead wrong.
Dawn Bertot writes:
In your approach, you have God as a finite, limited, confusing, lying, immoral monster. Now I know you dont believe or practice that, but that is the conclusions of your position
It just baffles me how you can say that. It is exactly what I should be saying to you. It is you that believes that the God as depicted in the OT; the one who sanctions genocide and the stoning of difficult kids. I believe in the God that was incarnate in Jesus that repudiated all of that.
dawn Bertot writes:
If not, how do we decide that which is to be as accepted. Should we do this on GDRs conclusions and estimations alone? What is someone disagrees with your approach to the resurrection. Can he still be saved beliving the story is to be believed only as a mythical story?
We went over this before. You are mixing up salvation and vocation. We are saved for vocation by becoming followers of Jesus and we are saved for salvation by having hearts that love unselfishly regardless of theological beliefs. That is what the Scriptures say.
Dawn Bertot writes:
When you are preaching to him concerning the reusrrection and he simply cannot believe that it was real, is he GOOD TO GO? What evidence will you provide him that that Jesus was real and had authority to correct things in the OT. BTW, Jesus was not correcting the OT, but thier misguided perception of it. God did atually provide a bill of divorcement, but then God has always been merciful
They got that misguided perception because it was written in their Scriptures that it was God's desire.
Let's look at other examples.
From Exodus 21:
quote:
23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Jesus corrects this in Matthew 5.
quote:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
This is from Deuteronomy 23.
quote:
3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD ; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 "Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you. 6 "You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.
Jesus again corrects this.
quote:
43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven ; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Here is the proof from the NT,as you you believe it to be the truth
"At the times of this ignorance God let pass, but now commands that all men everywhere repent and come to a knowledge of the truth" Acts
What on earth does that prove. Of course we should come to the knowledge of the truth. That tells us nothing about what is true.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If however we dont know or cannot distinguish what the truth is or is not, then it is impossible to come to the knowledge of anything
And you use for proof, and I repeat myself, a book written by multiple authors, from multiple sources, translated from the original languages, with numerous inconsistencies, depicting a god that is loving and forgiving but at the same time genocidal, and that you for no discernible reason believe is word for word literally from God.
There is no proof. It is faith.
Dawn Bertot writes:
BTW, what authority did jesus have to correct anybody about anything. Both Moses and Jesus claim to be from God. Who is telling the truth and why?
You tell me. They disagree. Which way are you going to have it?
Dawn Bertot writes:
My purpose is not to put you on the spot or hot seat as it were, just to let you know if you make assetions or allegations, you need to be able to defend them in some logical rational fashion
Dawn please go back and look at some of things you have written. I find it difficult to believe that you can make a statement like that.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you choose not answer this question that is fine. Again,do you believe the miracles as described in the Bible are and were real?
I believe that many of the OT miracles are legends and likely not true, (such as the flood and Jonah in the whale), but yes I believe in the miracles of the NT that God performed through Jesus. I believe on faith that those stories are essentially accurate.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 7:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2011 10:50 PM GDR has replied
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-26-2011 2:07 AM GDR has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 304 (645281)
12-24-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
12-24-2011 9:22 PM


The question is which of us is more irrational and I would suggest that mine at least gives a consistent view of God, whereas yours leaves you able to create a god in pretty much whatever way you like.
I don't think this is assessment if fair. DB's position requires God to act exactly as he described in the OT. While holding that position might require God and the universe to be completely inexplicable, DB's kinda stuck with that.
On the other hand, your reading allows a bit more flexibility. I think people of different abilities and backgrounds are more likely to reach different impressions of God using your approach than they are with DB's approach. I don't personally find that to be a problem. The New Testament is directive and straight forward enough about all of the things that Jesus felt was important.
Dawn Bertot writes:
The literal approach is atleast rational, and is consistent with what the scripture has to say overall, especially with what it has to say concerning Gods characteistics and nature
When DB uses the term literal here, what he really means is that the Bible's text is history dictated word for word by God. There is no textual basis for such a belief, so I cannot understand his claim that his approach is rational as it flows from an non-established premise. But in my experience Bertot's arguments are not always (not often?) logical, and it is nigh on impossible to get him to see or acknowledge any error. It is not logical to attempt such a task.
I'd like to see ICANT or someone else take on the examples in your post. Meanwhile...
Merry Christmas to all. Liberal or not...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 12-24-2011 9:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 12-25-2011 9:53 AM NoNukes has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 93 of 304 (645302)
12-25-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NoNukes
12-24-2011 10:50 PM


NoNukes writes:
I don't think this is assessment if fair. DB's position requires God to act exactly as he described in the OT. While holding that position might require God and the universe to be completely inexplicable, DB's kinda stuck with that.
I suppose but the point is that his/her understanding of the OT makes the NT completely inexplicable and forces a worldview that is inconsistent with what Jesus taught.
The whole thing concerns me greatly on all sorts of levels that in the end are mostly political. For example a reading of the OT would support the wide use of capital punishment whereas when we read the words of Jesus and see that he would be opposed. (That will probably take us off on a tangent. ) The OT presents a very different view point than does the NT when it comes to issues like Iraq. (Another tangent) An OT view also promotes a tie between Christianity and nationalism which is contrary to the purposes of the world wide" Kingdom of God" that Jesus established.
Our understanding of Christianity matters immensely. Christianity is meant to be a force for peace and generosity in the world but by accepting that the God that we see embodied in Jesus is also capable of the OT atrocities then Christians will support any number of ungodly issues.
It isn't as if the God that we see in Jesus isn't in the OT. He is all through it. Jesus whole life and message can be found in the OT but it is mixed in with all sorts of other stuff. Look at this passage from Exodus 23.
quote:
1 "You shall not bear a false report ; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 2 "You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; 3nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute. 4 "If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him. 5 "If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him. 6 "You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute. 7 "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. 8 "You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just. 9 "You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Christ's message wasn't new. It was just all mixed in with everything else. If we read "The Sermon on the Mount" most, if not all of the questions can be answered.
NoNukes writes:
On the other hand, your reading allows a bit more flexibility. I think people of different abilities and backgrounds are more likely to reach different impressions of God using your approach than they are with DB's approach. I don't personally find that to be a problem. The New Testament is directive and straight forward enough about all of the things that Jesus felt was important.
I don't see my reading as providing more flexibility. IMHO my understanding of how the scripture is to be read prevents the misunderstandings that arise from reading the Bible the way Dawn does. However I realize that is a matter of faith and I'm subject to as much correction as anyone else.
Dawn Bertot writes:
When DB uses the term literal here, what he really means is that the Bible's text is history dictated word for word by God. There is no textual basis for such a belief, so I cannot understand his claim that his approach is rational as it flows from an non-established premise. But in my experience Bertot's arguments are not always (not often?) logical, and it is nigh on impossible to get him to see or acknowledge any error. It is not logical to attempt such a task.
It can be frustrating. However every individual matters and so we plod on ahead.
NoNukes writes:
Merry Christmas to all. Liberal or not...
In most of my Christian circles I'm considered a conservative but I know around here I'm considered a liberal. I'm just like everyone else looking for that elusive ultimate truth.
Strangely here I am on Christmas morning posting here. I was up early and by myself and church isn't for another couple of hours.
Merry Christmas to you as well.
Edited by GDR, : typo

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2011 10:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2011 11:01 AM GDR has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 94 of 304 (645303)
12-25-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
12-25-2011 9:53 AM


I suppose but the point is that his/her understanding of the OT makes the NT completely inexplicable and forces a worldview that is inconsistent with what Jesus taught.
I largely agree with you. I've tried to stay out of the discussion for the most part because I want to understand the position of those who disagree.
The whole thing concerns me greatly on all sorts of levels that in the end are mostly political. For example a reading of the OT would support the wide use of capital punishment whereas when we read the words of Jesus and see that he would be opposed.
The OT has been used in this country to justify a lot of things that people find abhorrent. But in my opinion, the problem isn't the Bible.
I don't see my reading as providing more flexibility. IMHO my understanding of how the scripture is to be read prevents the misunderstandings that arise from reading the Bible the way Dawn does. However I realize that is a matter of faith and I'm subject to as much correction as anyone else.
I'm suggesting not that the reading is more flexible for you. You appear to be a decent person who would likely try to live in a decent way regardless of the book you choose to follow. But I've encountered some pretty silly interpretations of the New Testament.
It isn't as if the God that we see in Jesus isn't in the OT. He is all through.
You're preaching to the choir bro'. Turn around pastor and face the congregation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 12-25-2011 9:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 12-25-2011 11:20 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 95 of 304 (645304)
12-25-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
12-25-2011 11:01 AM


NoNukes writes:
The OT has been used in this country to justify a lot of things that people find abhorrent. But in my opinion, the problem isn't the Bible.
It's not necessartily the Bible but it's often the misuse of the Bible.
NoNukes writes:
I've encountered some pretty silly interpretations of the New Testament.
There is no shortage of that goin' around IMHO.
NoNukes writes:
Turn around pastor and face the congregation.
I'm the ultimate lay person. I'd be a sorry excuse for a pastor.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2011 11:01 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 96 of 304 (645326)
12-26-2011 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
12-24-2011 9:22 PM


Neither your beliefs nor mine are rational in the strictest sense of the word. We can't really get to either position by reason alone. It is faith. You have faith that God has essentially dictated word for word the entire Bible. I have faith that the Bible is the narrative of the people of God as they perceived it. As part of that I have faith that Jesus was/is the living Word of God and that the NT writers accurately portrayed things that He said and events surrounding His life.
This position that you take is not rational at all for any reason. A literal position atleast starts from a rational standpoint. Let me demonstrate with an example to perhaps get you to understand. Your approach is nonsensical at the outset. As an example Dawkins, Hitchens whoever, begin an attack on God saying he is evil, they derive this partly from scriptures and what God has done
But now watch and pay close attention. thier approach to whether God is evil is the same as your contention as to how we approach the scripture, it makes no sense to begin with, its irrational, illogical and nonsensical, even before we begin an examination of the scriptures
For them to call God evil, they need to have a standard that is absolute to characterize God as evil. If they only have a standard that is subjective and that is all it can be, from any finite perspective, this premise dosent even allow them to characterize anything concerning any book anywhere, much less the Bible. Thier argument is irrational to begin with
Its not that they cant talk about the Bible or come to mental conclusions, its that thier premise is irrational and illogical to begin with. Any further arguments or conclusions or thier part, having NOT resolved that very glaring contradiction are nonsensical and a waste of time
In the same way, your approach makes no logical sense, its not rational, even before examining what the scriptures has to say. Your starting with a premise that says there is no rational way to know what is or is not truth
The comparison between you and them is unmistakeable, neither of you have a logical approach that says truth is possible to begin with
Your faith requires you to, as I said before, take a book written by multiple authors, from multiple sources, translated from the original languages, with numerous inconsistencies, depicting a god that is loving and forgiving but at the same time genocidal, and for no discernible reason believe that it is word for word literally from God.
The question is which of us is more irrational and I would suggest that mine at least gives a consistent view of God, whereas yours leaves you able to create a god in pretty much whatever way you like.
Wrong, as I have just demonstrated. your position ignores even the simplest rules of reason. Your position like thiers is contradictory before it even begins to examine any book, witing or text, muchless the bible
Like them you have no standard of truth or objectivity. Your original premise and starting point is that truth is not obtainable actually. It follows that any points or observations of claimed contradiction by yourself are therefore illogical, irrational, or at best faulty observations
Like them, you have no way to distinguish what is actual, factual, objective or believable. Im not just saying your interpretations of the scriptures are inaccurate, your approach like thiers is irrational and a glaring contradiction to begin with
Once in the scriptures, your position becomes even more unreasonable, because it claims God is somehow its author, then you ignore the characterizations of God as infinte, then start picking and choosing what you want to believe is moral, acceptable and believable
Dont you see GDR, your making the same initial, illogical mistake our secular fandamentalist atheist friends are making, when they characterize God as evil. When you ask them how they decided or came upon what is good and moral, they flounder to give you an answer, because thier survival of the fittest position is subjective at best, which means there is no real evil to begin with Which involves them in immediate contradiction, like your approach to the scriptures.
Forget what the Bible has to say ANYWHERE IN ITS PART OR WHOLE, your approach gives us absolutely no way to decern what the truth or facts are on any matter to start with.
Your FAITH in your ability to distinguish between what is real or truthful, is no better than thier subjective nonsesne, about god being evil. Since you like CS Lewis and he said that there is no reason to talk about evil, if there is no standard of good by which to judge it. it would follow that there is no need to talk about what is truthful, actual or real, if there is no way to identify it, other than our own INDIVIDUAL observations and conclusions, which will soon clash with the next persons
Think about it this way. Its ok to have an opinion, belief or faith about something, but when that fiath, belief or opinion makes claims and demands requirements as Christianity do, then the approach to those claims has to be atleast logical
Its one thing for the atheist to believe God does not exist, but to claim he is evil is another proposition. He has to have a basis for that claim that starts off in some logical fashion, they dont because they have no basis for what is good or evil. Even disregardinf what the scripture says thier approach is illogical to start with
Yours is the same way
In like manner its ok for you to believe that the Bible contains some of the word of God, but when you attach, demands and requirements in the for m of obeying the Gospel, believing Jesus to be saved and hell, then that becomes a different proposition. You approach has to atleast logical and rational
Your approach makes the resurrection subjective, because even within your own approach you have no standard to imply that it is even possibly true. Yet you insist that it has to be ture for Christianity to be valid or believable, yet your approach offers no method t assit in this belief
How would your approach to Gods infinite and eternal word, as the bible describes assure anyone that the resurrection actually happened or could evn be believed
It just baffles me how you can say that. It is exactly what I should be saying to you. It is you that believes that the God as depicted in the OT; the one who sanctions genocide and the stoning of difficult kids. I believe in the God that was incarnate in Jesus that repudiated all of that.
You have consitently ignored anything I have quoted concerning Jesus' veiws on hell
They got that misguided perception because it was written in their Scriptures that it was God's desire.
Let's look at other examples.
From Exodus 21:
quote:
23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Jesus corrects this in Matthew 5.
quote:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
This is from Deuteronomy 23.
quote:
3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD ; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 "Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you. 6 "You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.
Jesus again corrects this.
quote:
43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven ; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Remember my original point above. Its pointless for you to contrast scriptures, when you havent established an initial mehtod for deteming which is true or belivable to begin with. First things first. What is your objective method for deciding which we should accept and what we should be discarded, as non truth and not actually factual?
If you dont have a method, then just say I have no method, Im just winging it
What on earth does that prove. Of course we should come to the knowledge of the truth. That tells us nothing about what is true.
Even in your responses your words give you away that your approach is not rational to begin with. Your statement above is tantamount to saying that you are winging it. Disregarding even what the scriptures say about this or that, is tantamount to saying I dont actually have a clue about what is real or truthful, even including doctrines such as the resurrection
And you use for proof, and I repeat myself, a book written by multiple authors, from multiple sources, translated from the original languages, with numerous inconsistencies, depicting a god that is loving and forgiving but at the same time genocidal, and that you for no discernible reason believe is word for word literally from God.
There is no proof. It is faith.
It appears now, in your above statement, that you are now, not even giving God any credit for any of its content. The "decernable reason" as you call it, is intially made by using atleast some form of sound reasoning in appraoching its content
In a book that is repleat with claims of inspiration, "Thus saith the Lord", "The Word of the Lord came to me Saying", "you shall be guided into all truth", etc, etc, etc, should be given atleast the benifit of a rational approach to begin with
Your position and approach is not even logical or rational, even before you start speaking about faith
Dawn Bertot writes:
BTW, what authority did jesus have to correct anybody about anything. Both Moses and Jesus claim to be from God. Who is telling the truth and why?
GDR writes
You tell me. They disagree. Which way are you going to have it?
No GDR they do not disagree. Jesus had already maintained that he believed and upheld the Law of Moses by saying not one jot or tittle would pass from it, until all was fulfilled
His corrections were to fine tune what the Law actually said, verse what they had come to believe as doctrine. Example, Hillel and Shami were two very conservative priest that had interpreted the law of the sabbath to mean, you can get out of bed, but do nothing (No work). The other said, you cant even get out of bed. To which he said which of you having a donkey fall into the ditch would not try and get him out, even on the Sabbath
"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath"
The people had come to understand that they personally could take an eye for an eye, outside the law. Jesus takes it one step further and says, love you enemies. He is trying to show what you should do on a personal level, he is not disregarding the law or proceedure. They had understood and had come to mean on a personal level. Jesus is addressing it from a personal level
Notice that Jesus' response is on personal level, because that is what they had began to be taught, that on a personal level, you could take the law into yoiur own hands. His response is personal, man to man, because that is how it had begun to be taught by "Them of old", not the law. Them of old were those that had interpreted the law, they wwere not the law maker
Sometimes they had changed the law altogether and said if you give that to the temple you had set aside for your father and mother, you are discharged from you obligation to honor your father or mother in this regard.
Jesus said where did the law ever allow that
When Jesus said "you teach for doctrine the commandments of men". This is clear indication he believed the law of Moses in all its parts. he would not be correcting something he agreed with and said needed to be fulfilled
Think about it logically, why would Jesus say I believe in God, I believe the law will be fulfilled,nothing shall pass out of the law and the Law is the Doctrine of God, then turn right around and start explaining why the law and Moses were wrong.
He was not correcting the Law but the traditions that had grown up around the Law
If your position is correct, not only do we have the Old contradicting the New, now we have Jesus contradicting his own words. That is not what he was doing. He was not comparing his words to Moses
He was showing two distinctions. Traditons that came into direct conflict with Gods law and how we as individuals should act concerning eachother. The law, is that which convicts of sin, not us
Again, for Jesus to say, "You teach for doctrine the commandments of men", implies logically he knew and understood what that law actually was, what the exact parameters of the law were.
It would make no sense for him to contradict what he knew to be true. He was not comparing his words to Moses and implying Moses was in error, when he had already agreed to the validity and content of the Law
.
Dawn Bertot writes:
ou choose not answer this question that is fine. Again,do you believe the miracles as described in the Bible are and were real?
GDR WRITES
I believe that many of the OT miracles are legends and likely not true, (such as the flood and Jonah in the whale), but yes I believe in the miracles of the NT that God performed through Jesus. I believe on faith that those stories are essentially accurate.
thanks for this for now we can discuss its implications at another time
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 12-24-2011 9:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 12-27-2011 2:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 97 of 304 (645457)
12-27-2011 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dawn Bertot
12-26-2011 2:07 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
The comparison between you and them is unmistakeable, neither of you have a logical approach that says truth is possible to begin with
By your definition the treating of the Bible as if it is dictated by God, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, is logical and rational. I think I'm starting to understand your redefinition of logical and rational.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Dont you see GDR, your making the same initial, illogical mistake our secular fandamentalist atheist friends are making, when they characterize God as evil. When you ask them how they decided or came upon what is good and moral, they flounder to give you an answer, because thier survival of the fittest position is subjective at best, which means there is no real evil to begin with Which involves them in immediate contradiction, like your approach to the scriptures.
But it is you that claims that God is capable of directing His people to commit genocide. It is me that says God doesn't do that but tells us to love our enemy and turn the other cheek. The discussion of the atheistic position has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Dawn Bertot writes:
In the same way, your approach makes no logical sense, its not rational, even before examining what the scriptures has to say. Your starting with a premise that says there is no rational way to know what is or is not truth
I have given you my view on how to discern the truth of the Bible but you just dismiss it. Just because you subjectively decide that the Bible is dictated by God does not give you objective truth about anything.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your approach makes the resurrection subjective, because even within your own approach you have no standard to imply that it is even possibly true. Yet you insist that it has to be ture for Christianity to be valid or believable, yet your approach offers no method t assit in this belief
There is no one living today who can know that the resurrection happened. Yes, I think that a very strong historical case can be made for it but in the end it boils down to faith. I frankly have very little doubt but I don’t know in the sense that I know I have 10 fingers.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You have consitently ignored anything I have quoted concerning Jesus' veiws on hell
Well I didn't intend to ignore hell; it is just that you throw up this barrage of words and it becomes difficult to manage to respond to everything you say.
There is a hell for those who ultimately choose self love over unselfish love. C S Lewis had this to say about those in hell.
quote:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.
Yes Jesus talked about hell. Yes there will be perfect justice in the end but it isn't up to us to know, let alone judge, who will ultimately wind up separated from God. There will be those who are ultimately so self focused that they fail to find their joy in the joy of others, and will choose to reject an eternal existence that is characterized by self sacrificial love.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Remember my original point above. Its pointless for you to contrast scriptures, when you havent established an initial mehtod for deteming which is true or belivable to begin with. First things first. What is your objective method for deciding which we should accept and what we should be discarded, as non truth and not actually factual?
If you dont have a method, then just say I have no method, Im just winging it
You keep asking the same question. I view Jesus as the human embodiment of God and I understand the OT in reference to what Jesus teaches in the NT. The teaching of Jesus makes sense of what I observe in the world, but in the end I take it on faith and I've felt the results of that faith in my life.
I keep answering the same questions and just trying to word it differently. I'm not sure what else I can do.
Dawn Bertot writes:
It would make no sense for him to contradict what he knew to be true. He was not comparing his words to Moses and implying Moses was in error, when he had already agreed to the validity and content of the Law
Do you think that he agreed with statements such as this from Numbers 15?
quote:
32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation ; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death ; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Let's forget the NT for now. Let's go back earlier in the Torah in Exodus 23.
quote:
1 "You shall not bear a false report ; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 2 "You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; 3nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute. 4 "If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him. 5 "If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him. 6 "You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute. 7 "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. 8 "You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just. 9 "You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.
The Sabbath and Land
10 "You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, 11 but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat ; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. 12 "Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labour so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves.
I quoted the first part of the Exodus quote to show that yes, the concept of a loving God, and the concept of loving your enemy is all there and revealed in the Torah. The last part of the Exodus quote tells why the Sabbath laws existed for a reason which is completely consistent with the quote you used about the Sabbath being made for man not the other way around. This being the case it makes no sense to believe that some poor smuck who was picking up wood on the Sabbath should be stoned to death by the members of the congregation who are supposed to love him.
You keep asking how I decide which is of God and which isn't. One of those quotes is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and one isn't. You just decide based on your understanding of how to read the Scriptures that they are both true. I'm sure you'll enlighten us on how you square that.
Edited by GDR, : typos

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-26-2011 2:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 12:56 AM GDR has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 98 of 304 (645562)
12-28-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by GDR
12-27-2011 2:14 AM


By your definition the treating of the Bible as if it is dictated by God, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, is logical and rational. I think I'm starting to understand your redefinition of logical and rational.
GDR, there is no "actual evidence to the contrary", for your argument or position,if you dont know what is real or not and if you have to pick and choose by your own judgements
Let me demonstrate. In the beginning of post 42 you stated "The thing is I have faith in God". I would very much contend that you have no faith in God at all. Here is why.
You have been presented with two passages that involve God taking action upon human beings. Acts 5 and Numbers 15. Youve also been presented with many NT passages that imply God will take extreme judgement on people in Hell
In each of these instances you have used your own rescources (your mind) to decide what is or is not Gods actions, what is factual and what is real You pick and choose, essentially making your own mind and decisions God himself
In fact there is no not one single point or statement in the Bible that you could point to and say you have complete faith on God, on that alone. You have chosen every single point from your own mind, on what is Gods and what is not.
Why do need God at all
In Acts 5 and Numbers 15 you have charged God with inappropriate behavior, or at bare minimum, You make God non-effective and your mind supreme
Isnt it possible that God knew the reason in Numbers 15 why that person should be stoned, just like he knew why Ananias and Saphira should die
You actully have no faith in God at all and you dont let him make his own decisions, you make them for him
You decide what is truth and what is not, what is historical and what is not, what was an actual miracle and what was not, what morality is and what is not, etc, etc, etc
Why do you need Gods principles at all. If I am wrong, point to one single thing that you have let God deicide on his own, without your approval. Then tell me how you deicded it
Tell me what it is actually you actually have faith in. You say God, but then I cant see anything you havent decided for yourself and by yourself alone
You intimate that i intellectualize the Word for God, but it is actually you that makes all the cognitive decisions for God and people to accept or reject
Your standard of faithis your own mind. Tell me one thing where you have let God be the soul judge in the matter, without your approval or disaproval, without involving your own standard of morality, without involving yourself at all.
But it is you that claims that God is capable of directing His people to commit genocide. It is me that says God doesn't do that but tells us to love our enemy and turn the other cheek. The discussion of the atheistic position has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. I dont claim anything for God, except what you and I have already agreed upon, is that it is his Word. I take the Word at its word and his judgements as valid concerning his characteristics as they are described
You have read the book of Job correct?
This being the case it makes no sense to believe that some poor smuck who was picking up wood on the Sabbath should be stoned to death by the members of the congregation who are supposed to love him.
Again, do you see any mental processes going on here, where you are deciding for God, or what even may be Gods decisions, being made by GDR?
There is no faith on you part here, regardless of what else you see the scriptures teaching
Isnt it possible that the person described in Numbers 15 was openly defiant and that part was not revealed to us.
Isnt that a much better approach to faith in God, instead of deciding for God what his judgements should be in each situation
"There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death"
"It IS NOT in man to direct his own steps"
A non-literal appproach leads to every man being his own Judge and even God
I dont understand why a guy reaching out to catch the Ark from hitting the ground should be put to death either.
So Iam faced with a delimma. I can reject it outright or I can say Im not God and will not rationalize his decisions to suit my purposes
You keep asking how I decide which is of God and which isn't. One of those quotes is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and one isn't. You just decide based on your understanding of how to read the Scriptures that they are both true. I'm sure you'll enlighten us on how you square that.
this statement closes the door of doubt about who is in charge, in Gods decision making process, its not God, its GDR
If you believe the scriptures are the Word of God, then you read them as the Word of God, without letting your or mine own decision making process, interfere with Gods judgements
You have it backwards, all you do is interfere with Gods judgements, edicts, commands and decisions
Then you tell us God is moral for sending some to Hell for an eternity, in eternal torment
Again why and what do you need God for, if all we need to do is decide for ourselves. Surely if we can decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral on Gods part, we dont need Jesus to save us from anything, nuchless God. because according to you he doesnt even know what he doing most of the time
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 12-27-2011 2:14 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 12-28-2011 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 99 of 304 (645575)
12-28-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dawn Bertot
12-28-2011 12:56 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR, there is no "actual evidence to the contrary", for your argument or position,if you dont know what is real or not and if you have to pick and choose by your own judgements
It is not just my own judgement. I read the Bible. The vast majority of what I read is written by Christian scholars. I have other Christian friends and pastors. I pray. I have the Holy Spirit.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Let me demonstrate. In the beginning of post 42 you stated "The thing is I have faith in God". I would very much contend that you have no faith in God at all. Here is why.
You have been presented with two passages that involve God taking action upon human beings. Acts 5 and Numbers 15. Youve also been presented with many NT passages that imply God will take extreme judgement on people in Hell
In each of these instances you have used your own rescources (your mind) to decide what is or is not Gods actions, what is factual and what is real You pick and choose, essentially making your own mind and decisions God himself
In fact there is no not one single point or statement in the Bible that you could point to and say you have complete faith on God, on that alone. You have chosen every single point from your own mind, on what is Gods and what is not.
I can just repeat the same thing back to you. You have no faith in God. Your faith is completely wrapped up in a book about God. You believe in a God that is inconsistent, vindictive, and cruel but at the same time loving, merciful and forgiving. You frankly have no real concept of God at all.
I repeat the Jesus is the Word of God - the Logos.
I don't just pick and choose. Jesus is God incarnate. I use His words to interpret scripture. I accept on faith what is written in the Gospels as accurately reflecting what He actually said.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Isnt it possible that God knew the reason in Numbers 15 why that person should be stoned, just like he knew why Ananias and Saphira should die
Sure it's possible, but He would be breaking His own rules in order to do it.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Tell me what it is actually you actually have faith in. You say God, but then I cant see anything you havent decided for yourself and by yourself alone
Repeating this over and over and over does not make it true.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your standard of faithis your own mind. Tell me one thing where you have let God be the soul judge in the matter, without your approval or disaproval, without involving your own standard of morality, without involving yourself at all.
I trust God to judge all of creation at the end of time. I have complete confidence that perfect justice will be done. It is you that has the formula to judge who is going to be "saved" and who isn't.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. I dont claim anything for God, except what you and I have already agreed upon, is that it is his Word. I take the Word at its word and his judgements as valid concerning his characteristics as they are described
I said that the Bible contains the word of God. That does not mean that human influences, misconceptions, inventions and rationalizations are not in there as well.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Isnt it possible that the person described in Numbers 15 was openly defiant and that part was not revealed to us.
Isnt that a much better approach to faith in God, instead of deciding for God what his judgements should be in each situation
If the Bible is dictated by God then why on Earth would He leave us with the idea that somebody should be stoned to death for picking up wood on the Sabbath when it was actually for some other reason? Please Dawn, just go over what you write and think about it. God is so much bigger than your limiting view of Him that you get by such a myopic view of the Scriptures.
GDR writes:
You keep asking how I decide which is of God and which isn't. One of those quotes is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and one isn't. You just decide based on your understanding of how to read the Scriptures that they are both true. I'm sure you'll enlighten us on how you square that.
Dawn Bertot writes:
this statement closes the door of doubt about who is in charge, in Gods decision making process, its not God, its GDR
If you believe the scriptures are the Word of God, then you read them as the Word of God, without letting your or mine own decision making process, interfere with Gods judgements
You have it backwards, all you do is interfere with Gods judgements, edicts, commands and decisions
Then you tell us God is moral for sending some to Hell for an eternity, in eternal torment
Again why and what do you need God for, if all we need to do is decide for ourselves. Surely if we can decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral on Gods part, we dont need Jesus to save us from anything, nuchless God. because according to you he doesnt even know what he doing most of the time
This is what is so frustrating about this discussion. I give you two scriptural quotes that present a contradictory nature of God. I ask you to tell me how you rationalize this dilemma.
Your answer is as always to tell me that I am saying He doesn't know what He is doing. You say that because I say that something in the Bible shouldn’t be understood literally that I’m not trusting God. You don’t put forward any kind of sensible argument to support your position, but you just keep repeating it and thinking that provides some kind of justification for what you believe. Instead of actually telling anyone how it is that you have decided that the Bible is to be read as dictated by God you just keep accusing anyone who disagrees with you of not trusting God.
Again, the Bible is not God. The Bible is not an additional member of the Trinity.
Edited by GDR, : typos

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-28-2011 12:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 1:25 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 12:14 AM GDR has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 100 of 304 (645688)
12-29-2011 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by GDR
12-28-2011 2:56 AM


GDR, Ill get to your latest post tommorrow, its pretty late
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 12-28-2011 2:56 AM GDR has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 101 of 304 (645780)
12-30-2011 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by GDR
12-28-2011 2:56 AM


It is not just my own judgement. I read the Bible. The vast majority of what I read is written by Christian scholars. I have other Christian friends and pastors. I pray. I have the Holy Spirit.
Of course it is your judgement when you have picked Jesus verses Moses, Jesus verses some scribe, with no valid way of distinquishing how you do this. Saying you have faith one is true and one is not, will not work.
I can just repeat the same thing back to you. You have no faith in God. Your faith is completely wrapped up in a book about God. You believe in a God that is inconsistent, vindictive, and cruel but at the same time loving, merciful and forgiving. You frankly have no real concept of God at all.
I repeat the Jesus is the Word of God - the Logos.
I don't just pick and choose. Jesus is God incarnate. I use His words to interpret scripture. I accept on faith what is written in the Gospels as accurately reflecting what He actually said.
GDR, the only way you know any of these things about even Christ, is from the Bible. Youve put your faith in Jesus, but refuse to believe God is infinte in wisdom and knowledge as the Bible describes him
You cant even make your faith consistant within the same book claiming to be from God
Here are a few questions. How many of Jesus words are actaully his in the Gospels? How many of the miracles attributed to him and the apostles actually happened and how do you distinguish these from the legends you described in the OT
If we cant trust the writers in the Gospels concerning what seems to us outlandish claims, there is no valid reason believe that if I do or dont believe in Jesus, i will or will not be saved
claiming you have faith in one and not the other is the worst of all approches
I trust God to judge all of creation at the end of time. I have complete confidence that perfect justice will be done. It is you that has the formula to judge who is going to be "saved" and who isn't.
You have know way of knowing, muchless having faith in any of these things, because they only way you know of them iis by the Bible, a book you say we cannot trust, can trust, cant trust, can trust, cant trust, etc, etc, etc
I said that the Bible contains the word of God. That does not mean that human influences, misconceptions, inventions and rationalizations are not in there as well.
And with no valid approach to what the Bible tells us concerning all of the characteristics of God, your above statement makes the word of God the most confusing and contradictory book in exisistence. It also demonstrates you faith is based in you decision making abilty, not God. IOWs you have dead faith
The very things you hold as true and the very things you use to judge one standard by another are all contained in the same Bible
Even if you insist that there are many books, not just one, the ones you claim are telling the truth, are relpeat with the same type of information, miracles, claims and judgements by God
You position on interpreting the Bible gets no more rational, even if we were to narrow it down to one book. You would claim there are things to trust and things to not trust, even in the same book
there is not one single thing in the bible you can point to, to insist, you have faith on it, because you will reject things that are contained in the same book, then illogicaly claim we can trust the writer
Your faith is no faith at all, it is dead from the start, or at best it makes no sense for someone searching to actually accept it
If the Bible is dictated by God then why on Earth would He leave us with the idea that somebody should be stoned to death for picking up wood on the Sabbath when it was actually for some other reason? Please Dawn, just go over what you write and think about it. God is so much bigger than your limiting view of Him that you get by such a myopic view of the Scriptures.
I agree 100%, have you ever stopped to consider how much bigger is Gods wisdom and knowledge than ours
have you ever actually considered he might know what he is doing, without the advice and recommendations of "Christian scholars", views of him, not to mention yours
Any so called Christian scholar that insisted that the Lord didnt actually know what he was doing and claims we can trust Jesus not the writings in the OT, needs to be disarded as quickly as possible
Speaking about Numbers 15 and Acts 5, I believe the only way to square it up, is to rely on what the rest of the scriptures has to say concerning his Characteristics. Atleast you should start there, that would make logical sense. Nothing your attempting does
Again, the Bible is not God. The Bible is not an additional member of the Trinity.
Where did you learn about God and the trinity and how can I trust that writer concerning those characters
Dont you find it the least bit ironic that the only source that provides you knowledge of any of these things, you characterize , as unreliable, incosistent and contradictory
Tell me how you know anything about the Holy SPirit or Jesus outside the Bible?
You dont trust the Bible, but you will trust a small voice in your head?
If you cant trust the Bible, how do you know the Spirit is leading,you, since you only know that from reading the scriptures? Wouldnt it make logical sense to trust both, to be even remotely consistennt
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 12-28-2011 2:56 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 12-30-2011 2:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 102 of 304 (645791)
12-30-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2011 12:14 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
GDR, the only way you know any of these things about even Christ, is from the Bible. Youve put your faith in Jesus, but refuse to believe God is infinte in wisdom and knowledge as the Bible describes him
God being infinite in wisdom and knowledge has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how the Bible is to be understood. I suppose God could have dictated a book for us. I’m just saying that He as usually chose to work through people, even with all of their human failings.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You cant even make your faith consistant within the same book claiming to be from God
Here are a few questions. How many of Jesus words are actaully his in the Gospels? How many of the miracles attributed to him and the apostles actually happened and how do you distinguish these from the legends you described in the OT
If we cant trust the writers in the Gospels concerning what seems to us outlandish claims, there is no valid reason believe that if I do or dont believe in Jesus, i will or will not be saved
claiming you have faith in one and not the other is the worst of all approches
I can't see where you actually read anything I write. I've answered all of these questions already.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You have know way of knowing, muchless having faith in any of these things, because they only way you know of them iis by the Bible, a book you say we cannot trust, can trust, cant trust, can trust, cant trust, etc, etc, etc
I'll try again but I don't have a lot of hope. The Bible is a meta-narrative, of the people of God, written by many authors that were inspired to write down their stories in their words. It contains revelation, poetry, allegory, mythology, drama, history, philosophy etc.
Within that meta-narrative are many shorter narratives. As Christians we see the first part of the meta-narrative being brought to fulfillment or climax in Jesus. In fulfilling the law and the prophets we have a record of much of what He taught. By understanding what He taught we have been given the wisdom to understand what was of God and what was of man in the OT.
Yes I learn about Jesus from the Bible. How do I know that I can trust what He said in the Bible? I don't know. As I've said it is by faith. I have faith in, and base my understanding of God in the resurrected Jesus, whereas your faith is in an inerrant Bible even with all of its inconsistencies, contradictions etc.
I went through Ecclesiastes today which contains a great deal of Godly wisdom as written by Solomon. It is pretty clear that it was written by one man who was pondering some of the mysteries of life and understanding the futility of finding meaning in material things. His personality stands out clearly in that book. When you read through 1st & 2nd Kings for example it is clearly written by scribes that are obviously producing an historical record in their words and with their understanding. The personality we see in the writers of 1st & 2nd Kings is very different than that of Solomon. If the Bible was dictated by God the personalities of the authors wouldn’t be so evident. Even in the NT we can see the differences that Peter and Paul had in their understandings, and in the manner in which they write.
You might consider, although I’m not optimistic, that if God had dictated a book so that we could fully understand what He has to tell us, there would not be all the divisions that we see within the church as to what various passages mean. It would be clear to all of us.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you cant trust the Bible, how do you know the Spirit is leading,you, since you only know that from reading the scriptures? Wouldnt it make logical sense to trust both, to be even remotely consistennt
I do trust the Bible but I understand it differently than you do.
Dawn so much of what you write is repetitive and so there is no point in me repeating myself beyond what I already have.
One other suggestion would be that you run your posts through spell check before posting.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 12:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 8:38 AM GDR has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 103 of 304 (645806)
12-30-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by GDR
12-30-2011 2:58 AM


By understanding what He taught we have been given the wisdom to understand what was of God and what was of man in the OT.
Yes I learn about Jesus from the Bible. How do I know that I can trust what He said in the Bible? I don't know.
Given wisdom from where, about what and by whom? There very book that reveals that you have been given wisdom, you reject in a logical fashion and make it and faith a joke
"If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who has given us a book, filled with human perspectives, lies, inconsistencies and at best conjecture, sprinkled with Gods, tid bits of truth, with no visible logical course to to distinguish between what is truth from God and the perspectives of man"
GDR
"If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbradeith not"
Im going to take James words. If I took your words, I couldnt actually have faith that what James said was REMOTELY true
Hard as you try GDR, you cannot resolve youself from the consequence, in you rtwo statments
Using mental gymnastics to justfiy or rationalize will not make them consistent
Read your two comments above and see if they would make any sense to anybody, but yourself
When you can resolve in a logical fashion such nonsense then you will have platform, for instructing others on the Word of God
GDR, the reason we keep going in circles and the reason I keep repeating myself, is because you have not even resolved the initial problem
I know you honestly believe that saying you have faith resolves that, but it does not
Example, saying you have faith then claiming to know that he has given us wisom to distinguish between it, is as glaring a contradicton, as any position could be
Saying you have faith, then claiming you know a contradiction exists, from the same source, makes no sense. Your claiming to know something a contradiction exists and then using the same source say we can only have faith in it.
I keep repeating myself to and get you to give me something other than, " I have faith"
Dont get me wrong, faith is fine, but not where you claim to know and are able to distinguish(in your mind) between other items, such as contradictions, human perspectives, what miracles actually happened or did not, etc, etc, etc
Your claiming to KNOW from your human judgement, but say we can only have FAITH in God, out of the same source. So yes your are placing your judgements above Gods
Your talking out both sides of your mouth, no matter what you think the history of the Bible is or is not
You say you have faith, but have the strictest confidence in your judgements concerning Gods words. Does that make sense to you?
Give me something that atleast looks like a rational approach, then I will quit repeating myself
Here is a perfect example. Look at the extreme confidence expressed in you abilites to KNOW what was and did take place between these writers and who it was from"
I went through Ecclesiastes today which contains a great deal of Godly wisdom as written by Solomon. It is pretty clear that it was written by one man who was pondering some of the mysteries of life and understanding the futility of finding meaning in material things. His personality stands out clearly in that book. When you read through 1st & 2nd Kings for example it is clearly written by scribes that are obviously producing an historical record in their words and with their understanding. The personality we see in the writers of 1st & 2nd Kings is very different than that of Solomon. If the Bible was dictated by God the personalities of the authors wouldn’t be so evident.
Why then should we have faith in anything the writers of the Gospels had to say concerning Jesus
Dont the skeptics make the same argument, you are inyour comment above, when comparing Jesus to Paul?
Your faith is NO better than that of a skeptic, like those on this board
Your are free to show me why I am wrong if you wish
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 12-30-2011 2:58 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 12-30-2011 11:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 104 of 304 (645819)
12-30-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2011 8:38 AM


It isn’t helpful that you close off the first quote at "I don't know" and leaving off the part where I said it is by faith.
You have never been able to tell me why it is that we should understand the Bible as if it was dictated by God. Your only explanation is by using quotes from the Bible that don’t actually confirm the point you are trying to make anyway. Your reason is circular but even then it doesn’t support your position. You simply keep repeating that it is the only way we can know anything in the Bible with certainty. I keep telling you that there is no certainty which is why they call it a faith. We come to God by faith. It is our faith in God, incarnate in Jesus and His love and understanding, and then taking that on board in our lives that make us Christians.
You keep telling me how necessary it is to understand the Bible as if it were dictated by God. I'm wondering how you think the early Gentile Christians ever came to faith, and to an understanding of who God was and who Jesus was. They only had Paul and others telling them about this Jewish Messiah who was resurrected and was King and that Caesar wasn't. They didn't have either the Hebrew Scriptures or the NT. It was over 300 years before the canon was essentially what it is today. During that period there was considerable controversy about what would be included in both Christian and Jewish canons.
This is going in circles. I'll continue to believe in God incarnate in Jesus that tells us to love our neighbour and our enemy. You can continue to believe in a book that tells us to love our enemy or maybe slaughter him.
You want specific answers as to how I decide what is from God in the Bible and what isn't, and my answer is that I use the words that we have recorded by Jesus, which I accept by faith. I realize that answer doesn't satisfy you but so be it.
How about you tell me how you decide whether it is right to drop bombs on Islamic nations or to reach out to them in love. Both messages are in the Bible.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 8:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by vimesey, posted 12-31-2011 3:37 AM GDR has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 105 of 304 (645887)
12-31-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by GDR
12-30-2011 11:10 AM


A thought
Hi guys,
I hope you don't mind me weighing in to this. I am at best an agnostic, and have no faith which would be recognised as such by a Christian, and I hope that that doesn't make me too presumptuous.
What I find difficult is that because DB sees the Bible as the inerrant word of God, (s)he views faith in God and faith in the Bible as one and the same thing - a single Faith, with a capital F. Consequently, when a Christian with faith in God questions the literal (or indeed the non-literal) accuracy of elements of the Bible, they are told that they have no Faith.
Quite clearly this must be a provocative statement to any Christian, and I think that it moves the debate away from a robust and healthy discussion, into something much more personal and perhaps wounding.
What GDR has been asking you to state, for some time DB, is whether you acknowledge and agree that your Faith is in a God who, whilst He is loving, gentle and kind, is also one who commits and orders genocide, and orders someone stoned to death for picking up wood on a Sunday ? Is that your Faith ?
(Please note - I don't object if that is your Faith, but I would like to know if it is).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 12-30-2011 11:10 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Chuck77, posted 12-31-2011 3:51 AM vimesey has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024