General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

In this post Message 7Let us note, that not one of the points ruled off-topic is primarily about scientific or historical evidence against reliability. The one that most closely addresses the issue is as much about the beliefs of early Christians as it is about reliability - which would seem to be obviously relevant for a theological discussion on doctrine. The point about Jesus' use of parables seems obviously on-topic by any standards.More importantly, I think that Moose has misinterpreted the OP. The OP seeks to defend the reliability of the Bible on the grounds that 1) Christians should believe that God wrote the Bible and 2) that interpreting the Bible would be too difficult or too arbitrary without the assumption of inerrancy. I do not see why a theological discussion on those issues, without addressing the actual reliability should be ruled off-topic. Indeed, it would seem to be very much relevant to the OP.

quote:

---

We've had threads dealing with the problem with literal reading of the Bible. This thread is from a literalist's position asking how can those who worship God as a Christian can do so given that they don't believe that the Bible stories are all historically true?

---

Which would make all my points on-topic. Indeed, rejecting the idea that God literally wrote the Bible is essential.

quote:

---

He's asking non-literalist Christians how they can trust any part of the book if part is fiction?
He's asking how can non-literalist Christians worship a being that uses lies (fiction) to communicate.
He's asking how non-literalist Christians determine what is true since some is consider fiction?

---

I would have thought that pointing out that Jesus used fictions to teach would have been directly relevant to all three points. But what about the cases where the Bible seems to be presenting legends rather than fictions intended to make a point or literal history? What about contradictions in overlapping accounts ?

quote:

---

This is the religious side and it doesn't matter if he believes that God wrote the Bible or not. It isn't the point of the topic.

---

It's a religious question, and directly relevant to the question in the title of the thread! If God didn't write the Bible then He can't be accused of authoring a book of lies based on inaccuracies in the Bible. So why is addressing a relevant religious question on religious grounds ruled as being off topic?The role of God in the writing of the Bible IS a major issue if the question is to be addressed on religious grounds. If God literally authored the Bible you can't, for instance, explain away the differences in the accounts of Judas' death by simply saying that it isn't theologically important - while if God took more of a back seat role you CAN argue that.

I'm sure that it can be explained in other ways (for instance, "Peter was wrong!") but it seems to me "it wasn't important so God let the human authors write as they believed, without providing a correction" is a reasonable position for a Christian to take. Why then, should it be ruled out of a topic which is specifically discussing ways to interpret the Bible which allow for such errors?

quote:

---

There's a difference between saying "non-literalists don't believe that God wrote the Bible" and "Who said that God wrote the Bible?" One is stating a belief and the other is asking for proof. It isn't in the accuracy and inerrancy thread. It doesn't matter if the Bible supports his statement or not (unless he actually claims that it does, which he hasn't yet in this thread) it is his belief.

---

It is implicit in his defence of Biblical reliability that Christians should believe that God wrote the Bible. Asking for a justification for that claim is hardly unreasonable.

quote:

---

IMO, by lies he means fiction, not inacurracies. From the OP.

---

More accurately he means fictions presented as facts. But, assuming God's authorship the same might be said of any event which is inaccurately described, and te death of Judas would qualify.

quote:

---

The sentence that Jesus used fiction to make a point was on topic. You got one sentence, but the question that followed was not. The thread isn't about literalism. You turned it back on literalism. This thread is about non-literal interpretation.

---

If the argument is that one mode of interpretation should be lollowed because it is better in some respect (and it is) then it is legitimate to point out that it is not. I hardly see how addressing a point in the OP can be ruled off-topic.

quote:

---

So Exodus lacks basic historical details, what does that have to do with those who don't believe it is an actual event, but still worship God? This thread isn't about convincing the author that there is fiction in the Bible. He's asking how can a Christian who believes there is fiction in the Bible still worship God?

---

If Exodus is presented as an account remote from the events, written at a time when significant details have been lost, how can we say that it is presented as an entirely trustworthy reliable account? Let alone one written with Divine knowledge underwriting every part. Presentation is an issue in the OP, and therefore this again addresses a point in the OP.

quote:

---

The thread isn't about taking the Bible as inerrant. It is about the non-literal understanding.

---

I have to disagree. Indeed it seems to me more about inerrancy than about literalism - that, after all, is why the issue of presentation become important. Foreveryoung does not argue that the Bible cannot contain fictions, he argues that certain specific accounts are presented as literal accounts and must - given the assumption of Divine authorship - be reliable or lies.

quote:

---

Each thread is a new beginning. Don't bring baggage from other threads or previous knowledge of the author. Address what is said, not what you know or think the author believes.

---

It seems to me that I am clearly following this policy, and I cannot see your objection.

quote:

---

You seem to be making assumptions that aren't there.

---

Then please tell me what they are. I can't see any.

quote:

---

The questions in the OP are to Christians who use a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and still worship God.

​

If you or anyone else can't address the actual questions asked concerning non-literal interpretation and worshiping God, then I suggest that the thread is not a good fit for you.

---

I have yet to see any genuine problems with my participation in the thread.

I think that you are actually missing a point here. The question is not whether God actually did or did not write the Bible, the question is is such a claim theologically justifiable and does the Bible support it. Now that is certainly relevant to the argument ForeverYoung wishes to make and certainly belongs in Faith and Belief. So what is the problem with discussing it in that topic ?

God would presumably know the truth and therefore a fiction passed off as a fact might be considered a lie. A human author need not, and might therefore be mistaken rather than lying.

To be fair, it was a moderator request that you change the thread name and the name you changed it to was pretty silly. A suspension was justified. Four weeks was not.

In my view you intentionally flouted the spirit of Rule 1. You were given a reasonable request from a moderator and you chose to respond in a way that you surely knew was not what the moderator intended - and was, under the circumstances, arguably worse than refusing to comply. That's good enough for a short suspension in my book.

By choosing a stupid joke title that had nothing to do with the topic. You know damn well that wasn't what was wanted. You were given a simple request. You chose to play silly games with the moderators instead of following it sensibly. And you know it. Don't try to play innocent.

Given the low quality of the "comparisons" which seem to be mainly based on the conclusions they are meant to support, it seems that Faith has no case and no interest in honest discussion.

If you can't even make a good-faith attempt at making a case, I don't see why we need to do any more than point out that fact.And even you admit that you did exactly what I said with your post on Radiometric dating: Message 35Edited by PaulK, : Recording Faiths admission.

And yet - as we've seen just lately - Faith would like to ban posters who prove her wrong and censor all criticism of creationists, while retaining the right to slander anyone who dares to tell truths she doesn't like.It's not much of a stretch to say that Creationism is an idolatrous cult and that all too many creationists feel that they are entitled to be worshipped.

David Jay was already banned for his previous behaviour.Since being let off his ban he has contributed exactly nothing in the way of reasonable discussion.Given that he has not changed for the better since the original ban how much more rope must he be given ?

I've tried to stay out this, but.

quote:

---

Leftists are weird.

---

There is nothing weird in seeing things that contradict what YOU want to be true.

quote:

---

it's about the objective factual meaning of Political Correctness, which I've shown many times before, and what is now being trotted out on this thread as a different definition is simply bogus.

---

The idea of a phrase having an "objective factual meaning" is weird. However, to the extent that that is so, JonF did a far better job than you, citing a number of neutral sources of generally good quality - while you prefer a hit piece. In addition I'm sure that I am not the only one who remembers the'80s and '90s and can confirm what JonF's sources say. Message 971And this is hardly the first discussion of the subject.

quote:

---

Why can't Leftists think?

---

It is funny how you always equate disagreement with a lack of thought when thinking will almost always (maybe always) show that you are wrong.