Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,246 Year: 6,503/9,624 Month: 81/270 Week: 77/37 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 38 of 331 (398298)
04-30-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
04-27-2007 2:43 AM


Re: Basic Loosely Defined Belief Statement for this Group
I have a question about this.
quote:
Calvary Chapel in Aurora, Colorado near my home has this belief statement on their website. While many Christians disagree over doctrines and beliefs, most of the evangelical(conservative Protestant) believers would agree in general with the following belief statement.
1. We believe in what is termed "The Apostles' Creed" as embodying all the fundamental doctrines of orthodox evangelical Christianity.
6. We believe that all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, and that they are the infallible rule of faith and practice.

Given that the doctrine expressed in point 6 is found in neither the Apostle's Creed or the Bible, how is it justified ? Surely it is important enough that it should be in one or the other. Why isn't it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 2:43 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 8:08 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 39 of 331 (398299)
04-30-2007 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
04-29-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Groupthink
Phat, can you expand on what you mean by this ? In what way is "God" evident but not evident as a personal entity ?
quote:
An individual who knows about God (which includes everyone) has an awareness of Gods creative imagination. Romans 1:1-17 tells us as much. There is no excuse. God is evident.
God in a personal, knowable manner is no quite as evident...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 04-29-2007 11:52 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 53 of 331 (398363)
04-30-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
04-30-2007 8:23 AM


Re: Is God known by all?
I'm still puzzled. I mean, God is a personal entity, so if God is not evident as a personal entity, what exactly is evident ?
And Romans 1:21 seems tk make it clear that they acually know not only that some sort of "divinity" (in a loose sense) exists, but that a specific God exists:
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks...
Isn't the problem that Romans seems to indicate that everyone knows that God exists, but that such an interpretation is manifestly false ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 8:23 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 54 of 331 (398369)
04-30-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
04-30-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
I don't want to nitpick but this is relevant to my point - and it does suggest that the belief statement is just a little misleading.
there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word, in every part of the Bible, is inspired by God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). T
2 Timothy 3:16-17, refers to "Scripture" without making it clear what it means. If the writer really is Paul (something widely doubted) then he would be unlikely to have included any of the NT books. Even today - as Jar often points out - there is no universally agreed Christian canon. So it is certainly open to doubt whether the works referred to are "the Bible".
1 Corinthians 2:12-13 doesn't even refer to written works.
If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors - you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book.
This is a clear falsehood. Rather than reading with an unbiased eye, to come to this conclusion you need to read the Bible with the overriding assumption of inerrancy. So this doctrine - which is not even in the Apostle's Creed, must be taken as superior to the Bible.
Taking these points together it seems that rather than the Bible dictating doctrine, doctrine dictates the reading of the Bible. The stretches of 2 Timothy and Corinthians above are hardly unusual or even the worst examples I have seen. That isn't want Evangelicals would have you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 10:54 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 2:18 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 62 of 331 (398408)
04-30-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
04-30-2007 4:09 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
quote:
A literalist always begins their world view with scripture and attempts to reconcile everything else through that lens.
In my experience this is not true. They start with the dogma of their church or even their own opinions and force scripture to fit. The Bible is more an excuse to put words in God's mouth than anything with real value in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 4:09 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 110 of 331 (398669)
05-02-2007 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Phat
05-02-2007 3:03 AM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
It seems pretty clear. It's those people who refuse to accept knowledge that contradicts their beliefs.
The ones who insist that an unbiased mind won't find any contradictions in the Bible, while simultaneously insisting that the correct reading requires a strong bias against finding contradictions.
The people who insist that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 1 Corinthans 2:12-13 "unquestionably" refer to the Bible as we have it despite the fact that 2 Timothy only mentions unspecified "scripture" and the Corinthians reference refers to spoken preaching. They don't even want people to know what the bible really says !
The people who refuse to accept any finding of Biblical scholarship that contradicts their beliefs. The ones who reject the copying between the Synoptic Gospels (to the point of abandoning discussion rather than dealing with the matter). The ones who insist that the dating of Daniel is solely driven by a rejection of the possiblity of prophecy.
These are people who do not want you to know about the bible - not even what it really says. If I had to question any part of Jar's description it would be the "Christian" part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 3:03 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 8:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 112 of 331 (398698)
05-02-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Phat
05-02-2007 8:08 AM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
quote:
Well, the Gnostics were ostracized from the rest of Christianity
Except I'm not talking about Gnosticism, am I ? I'm talking about ordinary knowledge, the sort of knowledge that comes from reading and study. Not the mystical "knowledge" of Gnosticism (I suppose that you could call yourself a Gnostic since your religious experience(s) seem to be important to your belief but that wouldn't really help your argument).
quote:
I myself believe several things that are refuted by knowledge. The main reason that I made this very topic was to showcase the idea that beliefs are often not rational. If that makes me part of the ignorant ones, so be it. I prefer truth over knowledge any day, even if the ideas are taken from a belief statement.
Of course, this is fundamentally self-contradictory. What you really seem to mean is that you prefer to believing that you are right over believing the truth.
quote:
That showcases a basic difference between taking a fundamental stand and remaining 100% open to new ideas. How can anyone be a Christian if they can't even define the God they believe in?
Except I'm not talking about really new ideas, either. Look at the examples I gave.
I think that what you mean is that fundamentalism is based on tradition and only pretends to be based on the Bible (which is mainly important as an excuse for putting words in God's mouth).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 8:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 8:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 125 of 331 (398756)
05-02-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Phat
05-02-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
quote:
Knowledge is always evolving. The conclusions that many scholars make are by no means the final word on a subject
So applying that to my actual examples what you are saying is that it's anybody's guess what the Bible actually says - the texts we have are too corrupt to be useful. But then we have the problem that in one example - a quote provided by you - the author falsely asserted that the Bible "unquestionably" made certain claims. Clearly he was not relying on the text being so questionable that it might say anything !
And I have to say that I have never seen a fundamentalsit claim that the Bible text is unreliable. They are far more likely to say that it was miraculously preserved - and indeed to argue that God would have to miraculously preserve it .
quote:
MB, Jesus is alive today, always has existed, is Gods character, and according to the Bible called Himself truth.
Yo may say that my belief is based on cultural indoctrination and dogma, but you can't declare with any absolute certainty that I am wrong.
However I have said no such thing in this thread and it really has nothing to do with the points I've been making.
The central point is that evangelicals routinely misrepresent the Bible - whcih they claim to be the Word of God - to prop up their beliefs. Are you going to discuss that or continue to bring up irrelevancies ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 8:55 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 135 of 331 (398930)
05-03-2007 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
05-02-2007 4:03 PM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
quote:
How can the Bible be misrepresented? What standard is used to represent it?
The same way that any other written work may be misrepresented. See the two examples I took from your post earlier in the thread.
quote:
if one has a room full of books, how do humans determine the ones they trust?
I have no idea how this is supposed to be relevant.
quote:
can't a belief be based on a consensus?
And which belief are you referring to here ?
(Some beliefs - those that are necessarily intersubjective e.g. word defnitions must be based on a consensus. Others which refer to objecive claims obviously should not be - e.g. if there was a time when a majority of humans - or even all living humans - believed that the Earth was flat it would still be false).
You said that you were going to stop evading the issue. Clearly you are not living up to your words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 05-02-2007 4:03 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 05-03-2007 3:40 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


(2)
Message 306 of 331 (902228)
11-19-2022 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Phat
11-19-2022 3:20 PM


Re: If you say so
You obviously aren’t going to find a real consensus.
Nobody witnessing the last 6 years can believe that modern “Conservatives” accept the second. Granted some Conservatives have hit back but they’re in the minority and condemned as “RINO”s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Phat, posted 11-19-2022 3:20 PM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.9


(1)
Message 331 of 331 (902904)
11-28-2022 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Phat
11-28-2022 2:05 PM


Re: Consensus. Is It Possible?
The Republican Party is currently dominated by people who are either Trumpists or have similar attitudes, even if they do not support Trump personally.
They will not compromise in their desire for power. They see the Democrats as the enemy to be fought by any means available.
They cannot be part of a consensus. And until the Republicans fix the problem, any real moderate must side with the Democratic Party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Phat, posted 11-28-2022 2:05 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024