|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Support Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
I have a question about this.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
Phat, can you expand on what you mean by this ? In what way is "God" evident but not evident as a personal entity ?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
quote: 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: 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: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
quote: 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: I have no idea how this is supposed to be relevant.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 7.9
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024