Summations Only

I can show you the water. Its your choice whether to drink it or not. Denying that your thirst will be quenched is of course your decision.

I see christianity has not progressed at all from its roots as a mystery religion. Just listen to you and you will introduce me to the secrets of your god. No thanks.If I listened to every proselytizing nut job that said they had the secret to a god I would have to follow hundreds of different beliefs.The audacity and hubris that people like you believe you have the secret is absolutely astounding.Your analogy is so inaccurate and ridiculous it is laughable. I can see water, I can taste it and feel it. I know what water does to me when I am thirsty. I can feel thirst and know what alleviates it. Your god, pitiful as it is, does none of this. Water is essential to life, a god is essential to nothing.

Personally, I really appreciate this attitude, which is all I have ever hoped Faith could express, but alas... But I see this as at the heart the of inerrancy issue; inerrancy must be absolute, so that not only is the Bible itself inerrant, but one's personal understanding of it must also be inerrant since the position is supposedly so clearly spelled out in Scripture.HBD

Sounds a bit like deifying oneself.

I agree that it doesn't have to be contentious as it should be something that we can discuss and if necessary disagree. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that it is important.Any serious religion is about understanding the nature of whatever deity there might be. In the majority of cases religion becomes about how can I control this deity so that I gain power or other desires either in this life or the next.As monotheists we worship the one creator God, but are we really worshiping that God if we don't have a true grasp of the nature of that God. If we don't have the nature of God right, then are we truly worshiping that God at all or a false image of Him.I have had many discussions with Faith about this. She agrees that she understands God's nature as one who, at least in the past, has been genocidal, supported mass stoning for the most minor of offences, and has been misogynistic. If one believes in an inerrant Bible then it is the only conclusion that you can come to.However, if you start with the Jesus of the Gospels you gain an entirely different view of the nature of God. If Jesus, as I believe, embodied the "Word of God" or His wisdom if you like, then we understand the nature of God as being "always", loving, forgiving, just, and merciful to people of all races and genders.If I had to accept an inerrant Bible to be a Christian then I wouldn't be one. I am not prepared to worship a god as sometimes depicted in the OT, but I am prepared to worship and serve the God that I see embodied in the life and message of Jesus. I understand Jesus as being the embodiment of the nature and wisdom of God as a result of the firm belief I have that God vindicated and validated the life and message of Jesus the Christ by resurrecting Him.In believing what I do I am forced to believe that Faith believes in a false nature of God. IMHO she has replaced an inerrant Jesus with an inerrant Bible.The thing is, that is most cases it probably doesn't really matter that much and we can just go on co-existing harmoniously but sometimes it does make a difference. There are things that matter from questions of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, capital punishment, the environment, our response to terrorism etc. As Christians we need be able to be able to ask the question, "what would God do" and form a conclusion. That conclusion is going to be based on our understanding of the nature of God.When Faith and I have such different understanding of the nature of God then when comes to questions like the ones I mentioned, or personal questions of how we conduct our lives we are likely to come to very different conclusions.In the end is Christianity about a god who justifies extreme violence to achieve His ends or a god who justifies extreme love to achieve the same ends? I believe that these differences do matter.

Faith, I note that your list of links includes the usual attempt to present Ezekiel's failed prophecy against Tyre as a success. The fact that Tyre is still there is an ironclad refutation of any claim that it would be destroyed and never rebuilt !Really, falsehoods and excuses are not evidence.

Yes, I admit that I know you were using the word in this way. The problem is that there is no clear definition of what "orthodox" or "correct" or "true" actually mean. Or in other words, you determine what is correct and then refer to that as orthodox. If any group or doctrinal system should have the right to claim orthodoxy it should be those whose roots, whose origins go back to the earliest days of Christianity. The two main groups that do are Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which, of course, you would not consider orthodox.There are groups that I would consider orthodox that differ in doctrine from what you consider to be orthodox doctrine. Examples would include Church of God, Church of the Nazarene, Methodist, Wesleyan and others of the Armenian / Wesleyan tradition as opposed to the Calvinistic tradition. So your use of orthodox to mean "correct" or "true" is rather subjective. Rather than declaring your tradition to be correct, you could simply state the tradition that agrees with you. So for example, you could say "Here are some sermons by Baptist preachers that agree with me." or whatever particular group you associate your doctrine. I did some reading related to this idea and it seems the commonly used term for this position is infallible, which is actually unfortunate because the word actually implies that it cannot be wrong, which is even more stringent than inerrant. However, the word has been slightly redefined when used in this circumstance and it means just what I said, that the Bible contains everything necessary to our salvation and does not mislead in those matters. You have stated that you don't hold the KJV to be inerrant, which using your reasoning means that some of the Bible is wrong, at least some of the Bible you use. So it becomes a matter of magnitude, right? I hold that more of the Bible is wrong than you do? So what percentage of the KJV is erroneous? Do you have any idea, and how would you even know?Some suggest that the Bible was inerrant as originally written, but none of those original documents are extant, so what is the point of making that claim? The problem with inerrancy arguments is that they require absolute inerrancy, otherwise, they are not inerrant, they are with error. This would have to include subsequent translations as well as the originals, otherwise there is no reason to argue for inerrancy. To one that holds an absolute inerrant view, there can be no minutiae. There is only right and wrong, no shades of grey. If MacArthur is wrong about the smallest thing he says that the Bible says then he is wrong and he is making the Bible out to be in error. No its not. You make it out to be a purely religious experience. It was not. It was also political and personal.HBD

Pascal was a Catholic but the group he belonged to, the Jansenists, had many beliefs in common with Protestants, which brought them to the attention of the Inquisition. I just looked through the Pensees, having forgotten most of it because I'd read it so long ago, and I think now that I am remembering certain parts of it and must have just skipped over others. He ponders a lot of issues that don't interest me, but when he ponders the efficacy of scripture then I appreciate him.Another Catholic Protestants usually appreciate is Madame Guyon for her life of committed faith. Sorry I'm writing this on the run, may come back to say more later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as inerrancy in a translation, but since errors there are recognizable as errors, that means we can reconstruct the original Greek. Those who spend their lives with the Greek documents can demonstrate that reconstruction is possible from all the various mss and fragments.I would regard the denominations you list as orthodox too. I disagree with Arminianism, yes, but that's one of the secondary issues that doesn't affect orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has more to do with salvation by faith alone. Where we get outside of the orthodox camp is with reinterpretations of scripture to accommodate evolution, but even there they may not have completely left the ballpark. I say "may not" because I think at least you're flirting with falling off the cliff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I shouldn't have posted the links, it was an attempt to dismiss the subject which of course was a silly idea. I generally like the site but haven't read that page and don't want to spend the time on it so you get to have a freeforall with it.

So as support for your argument you post links to pages you haven't even read? You wonder why we berate you?Wow!

If you read the NT as it is written it wasn't a matter of faith. It was about the heart. That is the original orthodoxy. Salvation by faith grew out of the reformation in order to counter the idea of salvation by works.The thing is though, that once again you expose the error of fundamentalism. It is all about personal salvation. You sell an image of God that is all about believing so that you get to live forever. You are marketing something that is all about the self, as how else do you get someone to follow the type of god you have to espouse with inerrancy.How about a God that is worth worshiping and serving . It is a god that is loving, just and forgiving, and is worth following and serving on that basis alone, without consideration of what is in it for the self. That is the God we see in Jesus Christ.Read Matthew 25 and the sheep did what they did without realizing that it was done for and to Jesus. It is all about the heart.

Actually I should have included as definitional of orthodoxy: inspiration and inerrancy, the Trinity, and possibly other doctrines I'm failing to think of at the moment, along with salvation by faith.

Well, of course it was just a bluff to try and shut down discussion. You don't have anything better. That's why you have to try to bully people into unquestioningly believing you.

True, it's been years since I studied the prophecies and I don't want to take the time now. I remember the explanations as convincing and yes you should believe me.