Religion or Science - How do they compare?

quote:

---

But that isn't how the term "the word of God" is used in the context we are talking about.

---

According to you. It’s up to you to support that claim. I very much doubt that it is true of any verse in the Tanakh.

quote:

---

What is actually written is what I follow.

---

We all know that isn’t true.

quote:

---

The Bible was directly and personally inspired by God, meaning the men who wrote it were guided by God.

---

Which is rather different from your traditional claim that God was the actual author. Which would be a surprising change if you could actually support that view from the Bible as you claimed. But of course we know you can’t. You can only cite men who misrepresent the Bible instead.

quote:

---

The real question is how you got so misguided.

---

Maybe he doesn’t think your traditions overrule the text of the Bible. I don't either. Perhaps you should try supporting your idea that they do ?

quote:

---

OK. Give me a verse.

---

So you can’t find any ? Any verse in the Tanakh where the context clearly indicates that it means the Logos rather than the more conventional meaning would do.

I note that Genesis 1 does not actually support your claim - you must read John into it for that. And of course, I already knew that John had the idea of the Logos in it.However, 1 Kings 12 clearly proves my point since it uses God’s word in a sense where the ordinary meaning of word is more appropriate than the Logos.

quote:

---

Funny, I've said that to you many times, how you are the least logical person here. Is tit for tatting me that satisfying to you?

---

At least NoNukes had pretty good evidence, which is more than can be said for you. Your irrationally is one of your major handicaps here, but of course you would rather make false attacks on anyone who disagrees with you than fix the problem.

quote:

---

Those "old dudes" are all the big thinkers of the Christian tradition, plus many in today's Reformed circles, but here I'm up against the most amazing collection of "liberal Christians" I've ever seen assembled in one supposedly neutral place. I've presented my views many many times and there's no way anybody here is going to accept them because it's all against your own liberal views, so there's no point in pursuing it any further. I continue to be astonished but oh well.

---

On one side we have you citing your opinions and calling them traditional - you don’t even do much to support that claim. On the other side we have the Bible. I think that anyone who calls themselves Christian really ought to be going with the Bible. Why don’t you ?

Aside from the fact that capitalisation is a feature of the translation we were talking about the idea of the word of God in general. Even you didn’t consistently use capitalisation. More importantly it started with my reply to Faith which was certainly dealing with lower-case word of God verses like Isaiah 40:8.If you are going to consider the context you need to consider all of it.

If I’m part of the majority it’s probably because I have truth and reason on my side. You should try it.Now are you going to make a rational point or just whine that you are losing because your entire case consists of calling your position traditional ?

Your inability to support your claims or answer criticisms of them is rather convincing evidence.

So instead of hundreds of clear statements of the Trinity you have none at all.Perhaps you ought to think about how you manage to be so wrong about the Bible.Listening to sermons from people who twist the Bible probably doesn’t help.

You claimed that there were: As I said, you have none.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear I meant that TOGETHER they clearly define One God in Three Persons, but obviously not

---

I’d call that grossly misleading myself. If the Trinity has to be derived from putting together hundreds of references - and if it looks more like a way to try and munge differing views into one - it certainly isn’t that clear.

quote:

---

There is nothing vague about the main references as listed on the outline I quoted.

---

I think you will find that is not entirely true. For instance, if the Sin knows less than the Father is that not a reason to think that they are separate beings ? The sum of the statements read in context is far less clear than you would like it to be.

The number of required references need not be a problem if we are assured that they are all aspects of a single coherent view. However the more references required the less likely that is to be true, and I would say that it is almost certainly false.The Trinity is not derived from statements reflecting a singke coherent view. It is an attempt to reconcile statements reflecting quite different views.

More accurately it is clear that the Biblical authors did not agree on the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

quote:

---

I maintain that it is not a directive from God to do evil, and that the evil comes first, and the excuse or justification comes after.

---

Nevertheless there are moral problems in the Bible, whether you attribute them to God or not. The Curse Of Ham is hardly less problematic because it is directed against the Canaanites rather than Africans.And the existence of these problems has consequences. It rules out the idea that the Bible is wholly the product of a supremely good God, for instance. That is not an idea that you or GDR put forward, but there are those who do.Perhaps more significantly, it seems to me that the Bible is compromised as a source of moral guidance if we must apply our own moral sense to it, to sort out the good from the bad.