Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 331 (398318)
04-30-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Admin
04-30-2007 10:19 AM


Topic is now open
Thanks for keeping an eye out, Percy! I changed my mind and opened the topic at Post#37. I still want everyone to understand that this support group is based on the Belief Statement in message 14, but I was happy to let Nator correct me in regards to defining logic.
Belief is not always logical if it ignores rationality, but I am leaning towards presuppositionalism anyway, so I am allowed to be irrational!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Admin, posted 04-30-2007 10:19 AM Admin has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 47 of 331 (398325)
04-30-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
04-30-2007 10:26 AM


Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
Jar writes:
What does "Fully inspired" mean?
What does "without error" mean?
What does "the infallible rule of faith and practice" mean?
I really didn't want to question the Belief Statement, but I suppose that I owe you some sort of a debate since I opened up the topic!
Fully inspired means that the Holy Spirit is the agent which brings the scriptural meanings alive.
I googled a few sources to find what the conservative fundamentalists mean, and found this:
source writes:
Question: "What does it mean that the Bible is inspired?"
Answer: When people speak of the Bible being inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word inspiration simply means “God-Breathed.” Inspiration communicates to us the fact the Bible truly is the Word of God, and makes the Bible unique among all other books.
While there are different views as to what extent the Bible is inspired, 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). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary” inspiration. What that means is that the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal inspiration), not just concepts or ideas; and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary inspiration).
There are some people who believe that only parts of the Bible are inspired, or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of what the Bible itself claims. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.
Personally, I don't believe that the Bible is word for word inspired, but I DO believe that the book is thoughtfully inspired and is a result of human authors having spiritual inspiration to write what they wrote in the context of the times that they were in having been inspired by God. (either directly or through others)
What does "without error" mean?Here is what I found concerning that:
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. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other.
We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled.
Personally, I agree with truthlover in message 18 when he says that people should be led by the Spirit and not by the wording of the scripture itself..
What does "the infallible rule of faith and practice" mean? Here you go making me think again! I want the belief statement to stand as an assumption for the purpose of this thread. I suppose that what that means to me is to do my best and to have a daily communion with God. While it certainly won't make me infallible, it may well allow what I say to have the unction of the Holy Spirit behind it so that I don't sound stupid or arrogant!
BTW what did you think of my rebuttals to Spongs assertions? message 36
Edited by Phat, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 10:26 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 11:24 AM Phat has replied
 Message 49 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:27 AM Phat has replied
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 1:43 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 331 (398337)
04-30-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
04-30-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
Again, you provided lots of words, but no information or content.
If you actually read the supporting assertions you posted all they say is that if you are willfully ignorant you will not find problems.
It says that there is No Error if you can possibly makeup some explanation for the contradictions regardless of how conv.
I thought your response to what Spong said were just more willful ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 10:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 4:09 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 331 (398340)
04-30-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
04-30-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
I have thought that if I had grown up in Spong's congregation, I just might have remained a Christian. Or at least a believer in God.
I greatly admire him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 10:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Phat, posted 10-10-2007 8:49 AM nator has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 50 of 331 (398347)
04-30-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
04-30-2007 7:26 AM


Re: Listening To Radio Preachers and Teachers
Phat this John Shelby Spong is indeed interesting, with a fresh and insightful viewpoint.
The problem I have with contemporary Christianity is that it is really just a reformed Bronze age belief system.
A belief system that is a reformulation or variation on the symbolism and paradigms of a prior time when superstition reigned supreme and humans were largely ignorant of the workings of universe. Bronze age beliefs such as
  • Sacrifice of life as gift to god
  • Blood for atonement of sins
  • Control of nature and the outcome of history as a consequence of the combination of obedient behavior and supplication of prayers (i.e. spells)
  • The vision of god as a warrior
    All have roots themselves in even more primitive beliefs and are common themes in most primitive religions. They appeal to the small part of the brain since that is their origin.
    Just as a snap shot I look at the dichotomy of these two statements:
    Dr.J. Vernon McGee writes:
    Christ was the perfect sacrifice. He was sinless, so He was able to qualify for God’s requirement of a perfect offering. Yet, He took on our sins so that when we put our faith in Jesus, His righteousness is imputed to us. It’s like we are swapping places. The Lord takes our sins, and we take His righteousness of Jesus Christ.
    And
    Spong writes:
    The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
    One has to ask why the omnipotent creator of the universe requires "a perfect offering" a "perfect sacrifice".
    Spong identifies the practice of offering sacrifice as a primitive concept. The NT example takes that concept and improves upon it (a variation) and makes it more palatable for the more modern civilized world.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 7:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 12:40 PM iceage has not replied
     Message 52 by GDR, posted 04-30-2007 1:26 PM iceage has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 51 of 331 (398349)
    04-30-2007 12:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by iceage
    04-30-2007 12:27 PM


    Re: Listening To Radio Preachers and Teachers
    Spong is one somewhat extreme example, but just one.
    There actually is searching and questioning going on in "contemporary Christianity" and I would be more than happy to point you towards such sources.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by iceage, posted 04-30-2007 12:27 PM iceage has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 63 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 4:20 PM jar has not replied
     Message 200 by Phat, posted 06-17-2013 10:00 AM jar has replied

      
    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 6202
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 52 of 331 (398362)
    04-30-2007 1:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by iceage
    04-30-2007 12:27 PM


    Re: Listening To Radio Preachers and Teachers
    iceage writes:
  • Sacrifice of life as gift to god
  • Blood for atonement of sins
  • Control of nature and the outcome of history as a consequence of the combination of obedient behavior and supplication of prayers (i.e. spells)
  • The vision of god as a warrior
  • It seems to me that was one thing that Christ accomplished. He put an end to things like human sacrifice. We now take communion instead of having an actual blood sacrifice. Christ was also a King that embodied the idea of achieving peace by peaceful rather than by military means

    Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by iceage, posted 04-30-2007 12:27 PM iceage has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by iceage, posted 04-30-2007 3:00 PM GDR has replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    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: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    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

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 55 of 331 (398385)
    04-30-2007 2:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
    04-30-2007 1:43 PM


    Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
    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".
    At the time Timothy and Corinthians were written there was NO BIBLE or even the thought of creating a Bible.
    Scripture simply referred to those general Epistles, Gospels and other inspirational writings and most definitely did not refer to the "Bible". It would also include all of those works that never made it into one of the Canons and even those works specifically excluded.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 1:43 PM PaulK has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-30-2007 3:12 PM jar has replied
     Message 58 by iceage, posted 04-30-2007 3:23 PM jar has not replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 56 of 331 (398393)
    04-30-2007 3:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
    04-30-2007 1:26 PM


    Re: Listening To Radio Preachers and Teachers
    GDR writes:
    It seems to me that was one thing that Christ accomplished. He put an end to things like human sacrifice. We now take communion instead of having an actual blood sacrifice.
    GDR my point it that it is a variation, or really an abstraction, on a old and primitive theme. The origins are still firmly rooted in a time when demons and superstition ruled the thoughts of men. The concepts are common to many early religions that formed as humans transition from hunter/gathers to agricultural city-states.
    Viewed objectively the concept of communion sounds so strange and surreal. If you were to explain the concept to say an alien being or some otherwise objective intelligence, I believe they would find the notion extremely strange, archaic and quaint, in much the same way viewers of the "Planet of the Apes" series found the description of Ape religion.
    GDR writes:
    Christ was also a King that embodied the idea of achieving peace by peaceful rather than by military means
    Christ's message was not necessarily about peace...
    Matthew 34 writes:
    Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by GDR, posted 04-30-2007 1:26 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by GDR, posted 05-01-2007 12:29 AM iceage has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 57 of 331 (398396)
    04-30-2007 3:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by jar
    04-30-2007 2:18 PM


    Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
    Scripture simply referred to those general Epistles, Gospels and other inspirational writings and most definitely did not refer to the "Bible". It would also include all of those works that never made it into one of the Canons and even those works specifically excluded.
    Would it have included those? A large number of those writings never made into the Bible, many of them being rejected as either heretical or apocryphal. Would they still be considered "Scripture"? And if not, then, without the foresight of the future Council of Nicea, how could the writer(s) of those epistles know what "Scripture" was supposed to be?
    As I understand the Jewish viewpoint, Scripture refers to the Torah and to the other books which largely makes up what Christians call "the Old Testament". I would expect the writers in question to have had the same understanding.
    The questiont that I'm raising is whether they would have also considered the numerous new religious writings to also be "Scripture". Kind of like whether Chick Pubs tracts should be considered "Scripture".
    Corollary question: just exactly when did New Testament writings come to be considered "Scripture"?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 2:18 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 3:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

      
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 58 of 331 (398397)
    04-30-2007 3:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by jar
    04-30-2007 2:18 PM


    Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
    Jar writes:
    At the time Timothy and Corinthians were written there was NO BIBLE or even the thought of creating a Bible.
    Good and often missed point. I once heard a hymn on the radio with the chorus "If the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it is good enough for me"
    A spoof no doubt, but when you question the beliefs of some "inerrant world of god" believers, you sometimes wonder...
    I believe the whole concept of Canonization is human flawed, notwithstanding effective from a practical point of view.
    The Canon served the same purpose we have technology standards today. It served to promote the religion far and wide and allowed people to convert to the religion without doing much homework. You can't sell something, unless you have a nice tidy package.
    Many reverent Christians do not know anything about the history of the formation of the Christian Canon, even those who proudly profess it to be the "Word of God" - most just assume the references are in order.
    When I think of the Canon, I am always reminded of the phrase of the good Dr Ian Malcolm "you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 2:18 PM jar has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 59 of 331 (398399)
    04-30-2007 3:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
    04-30-2007 3:12 PM


    Re: Don't dismantle the belief statement through critical analysis
    Would it have included those? A large number of those writings never made into the Bible, many of them being rejected as either heretical or apocryphal. Would they still be considered "Scripture"? And if not, then, without the foresight of the future Council of Nicea, how could the writer(s) of those epistles know what "Scripture" was supposed to be?
    We often forget that Judaism was a dynamic, evolving religion even past the time of Jesus. The Tanakh was still in flux during the first century CE and accounts of the period seem to show that it had only 22 Books and not the later 24 Books we are all familiar with.
    In addition, if you read all of the passage from 2 Timothy 3, what is being discussed is most definitely both the older texts that all would have been familiar with but also the teachings of the writer and others.
    14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    It is an exhortation to continue learning and to look critically at EVERYTHING presented. It is basically saying, "Be all you can be!"

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-30-2007 3:12 PM dwise1 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 4:11 PM jar has replied
     Message 65 by Asgara, posted 04-30-2007 4:27 PM jar has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 60 of 331 (398405)
    04-30-2007 4:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 48 by jar
    04-30-2007 11:24 AM


    Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
    Jar writes:
    If you actually read the supporting assertions you posted all they say is that if you are willfully ignorant you will not find problems.
    You have to get off this trip of consistently using these catch-phrases that you use. Have you ever had a personal encounter with God? Are you saying that because you have or have not, I must fall into your paradigm and world view for how things are? None of us have experienced the same things in our lives.
    This is what annoys me about your assertions concerning my beliefs. I have seen and experienced things that you have not. Just as God is not contained in the box that the fundamentalists have built for Him, my reality is not limited to observation and replication. I did not create a little godlet in my mind based on dogma that I was taught. I actually had experiences and witnessed events that helped form the belief paradigm that I currently have.
    You often label much of it as silly or inane. That is your opinion and your right. You might note, however, that the possibility of a supernatural "war" of sorts may well blind your conscience and rationality to the status quo. Things are not always as they seem.
    Jar writes:
    I thought your response to what Spong said were just more willful ignorance.
    Why? Because I did not agree with him? You have to understand that Spong, yourself, and other contemporary Christians have a world view and a belief system just as I do. As you yourself have said, there is a possibility that you may be wrong about it....just as there is that possibility that my belief system may be wrong.
    iceage writes:
    One has to ask why the omnipotent creator of the universe requires "a perfect offering" a "perfect sacrifice".
    You have a valid point. To blindly accept dogma without questioning it is certainly allowed, and I would guess that God certainly foreknows that humans will always question. He gave us the ability to do so...so it is illogical to assume that He does not want us to question what we have been taught.
    A literalist always begins their world view with scripture and attempts to reconcile everything else through that lens. Most logical people will allow themselves to question the validity of the Bible and so end up having human wisdom and experience as the lens through which they view religion, God/human interaction, and life in general. Literalists, in contrast, staunchly and stubbornly stick with the Bible as the lens...perhaps because they see everything ever written as human philosophy and trust that this book is somehow a reliable and accurate source of wisdom.
    Is it willful ignorance to believe that the authors were inspired by God? Why must humans view their recent philosophies as so enlightened? Why must we scoff at the possibility that there is, indeed, a spiritual war going on...for what purpose as yet undetermined?
    It makes sense to question why God would ever create a freewill angel who would then fore knowingly fall from communion with the omnipotent source of truth.
    For the purposes of this topic, however, the belief statement stands as the map through which we explore a vast virgin spirituality within our collective minds.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 11:24 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 4:18 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 64 by iceage, posted 04-30-2007 4:24 PM Phat has replied
     Message 72 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 5:56 PM Phat has seen this message but 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