Question about eternal damnation

[Der Alte]

.... And I might gently suggest that the orthodox religious groups are equally "intensely indoctrinated". Or do you suppose you stand like a shining beacon of free thought and truth in an ocean of error and falsehood?

It may be true that some in orthodox religious groups are intensely indoctrinated but it does not hold true for me or most other members. While I was introduced to Sunday school preschool age and had a passing familiarity with most of the hero stories; Joshua, Daniel, Samson etc. about the time FDR was president. I had only sporadic contact with any church until I became a Christian about the time LBJ was president, shortly before I wen t to Vietnam, about a quarter of a century. So I questioned everything from day one. I did not believe everything some pastor or teacher told me.

Yes, I'll grant you that. Thoroughness, however, has nothing whatever to do with truth. It has only to do with thoroughness. The Pharisees were thorough in their religious studies. Muslim holy men are thorough in their religious lessons and teaching.

Wrong, as usual. Thoroughness often has much to do with truth. The Bible depicts the Pharisees as thorough concerning Pharisaical traditions. Muslim holy men are mostly thorough concerning Quran Suras which depict all non-Muslims as enemies to be slaughtered. If anything I have posted is not true please point it out to me.

begin

<BW>But of primary interest to me is the fact that in your last post you completely sidestepped the questions I asked of you: "Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"
With that impressive list of reference books you just listed, this should be a cakewalk for you.<end>

end

I will tell you as I have told others here. This is a discussion board, not a game show, I am not here to play 20 questions. If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them. Or you can go back to any of my posts, actually read and respond to the points I have already raised. The ball is in your court. I can link you to some game sites if you like.

 

[FineLinen]

It may be true that some in orthodox religious groups are intensely indoctrinated but it does not hold true for me.....

Of course not! Who in their right mind would suggest such a silly idea!

Never have I beheld a more open, non-indoctrinated individual in all my experiences!

 

[Lazarus Short]

FL, that post belongs in a sarchasm...

 

[FineLinen]

FL, that post belongs in a sarchasm...

Dear Lazarus: That my friend is irrelevant no matter how you spell it. Furthermore it is nonsense! Perhaps tongue in cheek?

 

[Lazarus Short]

FL: O pun your mind to wordplay.

 

[Der Alte]

Of course not! Who in their right mind would suggest such a silly idea!
Never have I beheld a more open, non-indoctrinated individual in all my experiences!

Someone call 911 I think I'm having a heart attack. I think Fine Linen just paid me a complement.

 

[BarWi]

It may be true that some in orthodox religious groups are intensely indoctrinated but it does not hold true for me or most other members.

No of course not. You and those who share your brand of belief are automatically true, correct and doctrinally pure in all your ways. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Wrong, as usual.

As usual? You're all personality, aren't you?

Thoroughness often has much to do with truth.

Wrong, as usual. Oops, I forgot, you have the patent on that phrase.

Thoroughness per se, or thoroughness qua thoroughness, has no shared meaning elements with "truth". Of course thoroughness can be connected to truth--if and when one is being thorough in an actual pursuit of truth. But my point, that thoroughness in and of itself is no actual measure of the truth of one's research, writings, posts, etc. stands as evidenced by the fact that many contradictory religious views possess thoroughness as part of their structure, and truth is antithetical to contradiction--thus, the two are metaphysically unrelated.

If anything I have posted is not true please point it out to me.[

Good Lord, you can't possibly wear a normal size hat can you DA? That head seems pretty swollen.

But now we're coming again to the interesting part of our discussion. Again:
"Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"
Now before we get to your response, I think it prudent to mention a spiritual principle our Lord gave us:
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil." (Jn 3:19)
Light and darkness play out very strongly in my theology as symbols and constituents of metaphysical truth and falsity. (Now are you beginning to remember some of our past exchanges?) In countless discussions with other religious folks, mostly Christians, I've observed the application of this principle so many times I'd have to use a calculator to count them. Condensed version is that human essence [spirit] is darkened (fragmentally falsified), which produces predictable cognitive/emotional/psychological results in exchanges between folks. We react primarily not rationally to the ideas presented to us, but are driven by "value reactions". I.e., the "tidal" forces of attraction and replusion between these opposite values can be reasonably shown to drive most human behavior. This places causation in the spiritual, not material, realm.

Jesus is describing one very identifiable such reaction in the verse above. This unfolds in religious or prescriptive discussion in a number of ways, but the primary feature of our value-driven response to truth we don't want to "hear" or "see"--produced by a falsified essence--is to react with a certain predictable class of responses to the tension and resistance the "truth-falsity" encounter our mind generates. In one way or another, we "hide" from the truth because its reaction with our inherent falsity exerts a natural antagonism in spirit through false beliefs we hold dear. I've observed this in myself and others; we all have the mark of Adam (a fragmentally falsified essence) inside us.

Now I refer you to your last two responses. I asked simple questions, especially simple for someone as qualified as you claim to be in exegetical deftness, my friend. The fist time I asked, you ignored. I asked again and now you are squirming, whirling and twisting in complex pirouettes to avoid answering:

I will tell you as I have told others here. This is a discussion board, not a game show, I am not here to play 20 questions. If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them. Or you can go back to any of my posts, actually read and respond to the points I have already raised. The ball is in your court. I can link you to some game sites if you like.

All the symptons are here. The best defense is an immediate offense when trying to avoid answering questions whose truth one can't bear to endure. Throw out a smokescreen: "I am not here to play 20 questions. If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them." Then there's the customary bait-n-switch: "If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them. Or you can go back to any of my posts, actually read and respond to the points I have already raised." Of course none of the content of my questions has anything remotely to do with any of your posts in this thread, but of course the mere presentation of contempt sways our more fragile-minded readers into supposing you are an intellectual giant in control of this here situation, doesn't it?

The next-to-last wind-up: "The ball is in your court." (This move rips attention away from having to face that terrible truth by pretending to wash one's hands of the entire absurd affair.) And finally the pièce de résistance, showing readers you're in control by throwing out a humiliation, designed to make readers forget you're refusing to face painful truths: "I can link you to some game sites if you like."

I suggest some introspection might be helpful, DA. What is it in the answer to the questions I asked that you hate so much? The answers are very simple. What reason could you have for not facing them head on?

 

[Pneuma3]

Wow, if everyone will be saved, then why would the Bible be necessary at all

Who said it was necessary to be saved? Did Jesus promise to send us a bible to lead us into all truth or the Holy Spirit? Do you not realize that the heavens declare His glory? Did the people of old have a bible as the ones of today? by your analogy no one could be saved until the NT was ratified.

since one could follow any path, any religion or none at all?

No one here has ever said any such thing as this. Christ is the only way too come unto the Father.

Why would Jesus have to die for our sins and tell us, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36
He also said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one come to the Father except through Me." John 14:6

He said it because He is the way, the truth and the life and those who reject him remain under the working of His wrath which scripture says is the law, which is a ministration of death and our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.

There are hundreds of scriptures that deal with sin and evil and also blessings, forgiveness and mercy.

Yup and they have all been dealt with at the CROSS.

Listen, the main purpose in life is to be reconciled to God through Jesus, not Mohammed, not Krishna, not Buddha, not L.Ron Hubbard or through any other person or religion or atheistic philosophy, nor by our own merits.

again no one has said anything about being reconciled to God through Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, or L.Ron Hubbard. So where do you get this idea from?

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13, 14

Those scriptures are dealing with entering into the kingdom of heaven and few will go in via the strait gate and the many will go in via destruction, but ALL will go in.

Finally, it is clear that all through the Bible, we are presented with the idea that God will judge the world with fire and destruction. Humanity is leading towards it's precipice, at which point, some will be saved, a remnant 1/3 and the rest will suffer judgment. Btw, there is about 7.5 billion souls on the planet and about 2.42 billion Christians. That's about 1/3 -- what a coincidence. Judgment Day is coming and unless you put your faith in Jesus, you will die in your sins!

So according to you 1/3 of all people will be saved and 2/3 will be held captive in sin and death for all eternity. In other words you believe that Adams sin in scope is greater then the atonement of Jesus Christ.

So tell me Ronald how can we trust Jesus to be able to do what He came to do if he will lose 2/3 of those He came to save?

 

[FineLinen]

Someone call 911 I think I'm having a heart attack. I think Fine Linen just paid me a complement.

D.A. That is funny.

This is such a broken & bruised world in every area calling out from each and every one for deliverance. Most have zero knowledge of what they need to fill the terrible void within. We expect better things from you on this Christian site!

His name is Bill.

He has wild hair, wears a T-shirt with holes in it, jeans and no shoes. This was literally is wardrobe for his entire four years of college. He is brilliant. Kind of esoteric and very, very bright. He became a Christian recently while attending college.

Across the street from the campus is a well-dressed, very conservative church. One day Bill decides to go there. He walks in with no shoes, jeans, his T-shirt, and wild hair. The service has already started and so Bill starts down the aisle looking for a seat.

The church is completely packed and he can't find a seat. By now people are really looking a bit uncomfortable, but no one says anything. Bill gets closer and closer and closer to the pulpit and, when he realizes there are no seats, he just squats down right on the carpet. (Although perfectly acceptable behavior at a college fellowship, trust me, this had never happened in this church before!

By now the people are really uptight, and the tension in the air is thick. About this time, the minister realizes that from way at the back of the church, an Elder is slowly making his way toward Bill. Now the Elder is in his eighties, has silver-gray hair, and a three-piece suit. A godly man, very elegant, very dignified, very courtly. He walks with a cane and, as he starts walking toward this boy, everyone is saying to themselves that you can't blame him for what he's going to do.

How can you expect a man of his age and of his background to understand some college kid on the floor? It takes a long time for the man to reach the boy. The church is utterly silent except for the clicking of the man's cane.

All eyes are focused on him. You can't even hear anyone breathing. The minister can't even preach the sermon until the Elder does what he has to do. And now they see this elderly man drop his cane on the floor. With great difficulty he lowers himself and sits down next to Bill and worships with him so he won't be alone.

Everyone chokes up with emotion. When the minister gains control, he says, "What I'm about to preach, you will never remember. What you have just seen, you will never forget. Be careful how you live. You may be the only Bible some people will ever read."

 

[FineLinen]

No of course not. You and those who share your brand of belief are automatically true, correct and doctrinally pure in all your ways. Thanks for setting the record straight.


As usual? You're all personality, aren't you?

Wrong, as usual. Oops, I forgot, you have the patent on that phrase.

Thoroughness per se, or thoroughness qua thoroughness, has no shared meaning elements with "truth". Of course thoroughness can be connected to truth--if and when one is being thorough in an actual pursuit of truth. But my point, that thoroughness in and of itself is no actual measure of the truth of one's research, writings, posts, etc. stands as evidenced by the fact that many contradictory religious views possess thoroughness as part of their structure, and truth is antithetical to contradiction--thus, the two are metaphysically unrelated.

Good Lord, you can't possibly wear a normal size hat can you DA? That head seems pretty swollen.

But now we're coming again to the interesting part of our discussion. Again:
"Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"
Now before we get to your response, I think it prudent to mention a spiritual principle our Lord gave us:
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil." (Jn 3:19)
Light and darkness play out very strongly in my theology as symbols and constituents of metaphysical truth and falsity. (Now are you beginning to remember some of our past exchanges?) In countless discussions with other religious folks, mostly Christians, I've observed the application of this principle so many times I'd have to use a calculator to count them. Condensed version is that human essence [spirit] is darkened (fragmentally falsified), which produces predictable cognitive/emotional/psychological results in exchanges between folks. We react primarily not rationally to the ideas presented to us, but are driven by "value reactions". I.e., the "tidal" forces of attraction and replusion between these opposite values can be reasonably shown to drive most human behavior. This places causation in the spiritual, not material, realm.

Jesus is describing one very identifiable such reaction in the verse above. This unfolds in religious or prescriptive discussion in a number of ways, but the primary feature of our value-driven response to truth we don't want to "hear" or "see"--produced by a falsified essence--is to react with a certain predictable class of responses to the tension and resistance the "truth-falsity" encounter our mind generates. In one way or another, we "hide" from the truth because its reaction with our inherent falsity exerts a natural antagonism in spirit through false beliefs we hold dear. I've observed this in myself and others; we all have the mark of Adam (a fragmentally falsified essence) inside us.

Now I refer you to your last two responses. I asked simple questions, especially simple for someone as qualified as you claim to be in exegetical deftness, my friend. The fist time I asked, you ignored. I asked again and now you are squirming, whirling and twisting in complex pirouettes to avoid answering:

All the symptons are here. The best defense is an immediate offense when trying to avoid answering questions whose truth one can't bear to endure. Throw out a smokescreen: "I am not here to play 20 questions. If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them." Then there's the customary bait-n-switch: "If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them. Or you can go back to any of my posts, actually read and respond to the points I have already raised." Of course none of the content of my questions has anything remotely to do with any of your posts in this thread, but of course the mere presentation of contempt sways our more fragile-minded readers into supposing you are an intellectual giant in control of this here situation, doesn't it?

The next-to-last wind-up: "The ball is in your court." (This move rips attention away from having to face that terrible truth by pretending to wash one's hands of the entire absurd affair.) And finally the pièce de résistance, showing readers you're in control by throwing out a humiliation, designed to make readers forget you're refusing to face painful truths: "I can link you to some game sites if you like."

I suggest some introspection might be helpful, DA. What is it in the answer to the questions I asked that you hate so much? The answers are very simple. What reason could you have for not facing them head on?

You have nailed the problem with D.A.!

"The true way to be humble is not to stoop till you are smaller than yourself, but to stand at your real height against some higher nature that shall show you what the real smallness of your greatest greatness is." -Phillips Brooks-

 

[Lazarus Short]

FL, your story about Bill reduced me to tears...

 

[FineLinen]

FL, your story about Bill reduced me to tears...

Dear Lazarus: Our hopes in the Master of Glory reduces me to tears. Pneuma & I are on another Board where we are finding a few who are moving toward the Higher Hope. There is one English brother who wrote this>>>

"I personally first came across it through reading something on the internet when I was in fact seeking something entirely different. When I first read of it I could do nothing but weep in brokenness."

 

[Der Alte]

No of course not. You and those who share your brand of belief are automatically true, correct and doctrinally pure in all your ways. Thanks for setting the record straight.

The question was not about beliefs being automatically and doctrinally pure in all ways. Here it is again since you seem to have forgotten or deliberately ignored, "orthodox religious groups are equally 'intensely indoctrinated.'" Which was in reply to this statement by me, " I quickly learned the hard core proponents of heterodox religious group are so intensely indoctrinated that they are almost unreachable so most of what I post is for those people on the fringes who might be thinking about joining or quitting such a group." It was not about being "automatically true, correct and doctrinally pure."

begin

<BW>Thoroughness per se, or thoroughness qua thoroughness, has no shared meaning elements with "truth". Of course thoroughness can be connected to truth--if and when one is being thorough in an actual pursuit of truth. But my point, that thoroughness in and of itself is no actual measure of the truth of one's research, writings, posts, etc. stands as evidenced by the fact that many contradictory religious views possess thoroughness as part of their structure, and truth is antithetical to contradiction--thus, the two are metaphysically unrelated.<end>

end

Back pedaling , trying to revise your response.
DA "When I address something I am thorough."
BW, "Thoroughness, however, has nothing whatever to do with truth.

begin

<BW>But now we're coming again to the interesting part of our discussion. Again:
"Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"
Now before we get to your response, I think it prudent to mention a spiritual principle our Lord gave us:
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil." (Jn 3:19)
Light and darkness play out very strongly in my theology as symbols and constituents of metaphysical truth and falsity. (Now are you beginning to remember some of our past exchanges?) In countless discussions with other religious folks, mostly Christians, I've observed the application of this principle so many times I'd have to use a calculator to count them. Condensed version is that human essence [spirit] is darkened (fragmentally falsified), which produces predictable cognitive/emotional/psychological results in exchanges between folks.
We react primarily not rationally to the ideas presented to us, but are driven by "value reactions". I.e., the "tidal" forces of attraction and replusion between these opposite values can be reasonably shown to drive most human behavior. This places causation in the spiritual, not material, realm.
Jesus is describing one very identifiable such reaction in the verse above. This unfolds in religious or prescriptive discussion in a number of ways, but the primary feature of our value-driven response to truth we don't want to "hear" or "see"--produced by a falsified essence--is to react with a certain predictable class of responses to the tension and resistance the "truth-falsity" encounter our mind generates. In one way or another, we "hide" from the truth because its reaction with our inherent falsity exerts a natural antagonism in spirit through false beliefs we hold dear. I've observed this in myself and others; we all have the mark of Adam (a fragmentally falsified essence) inside us.
Now I refer you to your last two responses. I asked simple questions, especially simple for someone as qualified as you claim to be in exegetical deftness, my friend. The fist time I asked, you ignored. I asked again and now you are squirming, whirling and twisting in complex pirouettes to avoid answering:
All the symptons are here. The best defense is an immediate offense when trying to avoid answering questions whose truth one can't bear to endure. Throw out a smokescreen: "I am not here to play 20 questions. If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them." Then there's the customary bait-n-switch: "If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them. Or you can go back to any of my posts, actually read and respond to the points I have already raised." Of course none of the content of my questions has anything remotely to do with any of your posts in this thread, but of course the mere presentation of contempt sways our more fragile-minded readers into supposing you are an intellectual giant in control of this here situation, doesn't it?
The next-to-last wind-up: "The ball is in your court." (This move rips attention away from having to face that terrible truth by pretending to wash one's hands of the entire absurd affair.) And finally the pièce de résistance, showing readers you're in control by throwing out a humiliation, designed to make readers forget you're refusing to face painful truths: "I can link you to some game sites if you like."
I suggest some introspection might be helpful, DA. What is it in the answer to the questions I asked that you hate so much? The answers are very simple. What reason could you have for not facing them head on?<end>

end

All this bloviation you are the one who is trying to show readers you're in control, trying to dominate the discussion, which you accused me of. None of which has anything to do with your questions. Here is what you need to do.

"Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"​

Then we will discuss your views on this.

 

[BarWi]

All this bloviation you are the one who is trying to show readers you're in control, trying to dominate the discussion, which you accused me of.

Nothing of the sort. My intent in the last couple posts is to demonstrate that truth--especially in moral or prescriptive matters--should always, but only rarely does, dominate religious discussion. Part of this demonstration is to reveal your coercive, controlling methodology, true, but only as a demonstration to readers of the veracity of these principles. You're an easy target because of your supercilious approach to these discussions, but the principles I'm presenting [among other things] were shown me by the Lord over a three year period from 1991-1993, apply to all. This experience grounds the theological approach I take. This is my imperfect presentation of a fundamental spiritual reality few are able to hear: Christians are, like all other people, religious or not, only interested in hearing those prescriptive truths we have been cleansed to hear, and robustly embrace and defend the falsehoods we embed into the mortar of our personal theologies. I've been testing these principles in conversations and discussions for over 20 years. They're infallible.

None of which has anything to do with your questions. Here is what you need to do.

"Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"​

Then we will discuss your views on this.

The above makes no sense so in order to move our dialog toward the truth, I'll answer the questions you are incapable and/or unwilling to tackle for you, DA.

'BarWi,' [pretending to be DA answering truthfully] '...I have to admit: there is a complete disconnect between critical exegetical methodology and arrival at the knowledge that Moses was a foreshadow and type of Christ in Deut 14 and elsewhere in the OT. Author intent plays absolutely no role in our recognition of this fantastic ability of God to shape secondary and deeper meaning into the Bible by managing the circumstances of history itself! This holds true for all recognized metaphors, types, etc. Exegesis is only capable of uncovering the literal 'starting point' or base semantic content. Aquinas seems to have hit the nail on the head when he penned, "...“The author of Holy Scripture is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only...but also by things themselves. So, whereas...things are signified by words...the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification." (Summa, PART I, QUESTION I, ARTICLE 10)'

'BarWi,' [continuing in DA voice...] 'in keeping with the truth of the matter, which we must do in deference to Truth Himself, it seems that all the scholarly citations, all the carefully constructed interpretive or explanatory propositions, indeed all the poring ceaselessly over the minutia of transliterations and transcriptions carries only a tiny, insignificant bit of weight in understanding the meaning God has painstakingly and wondrously woven into the deeper fabric of His multi-layered word, as expressed in second-tier meaning of metaphor, allegory, parable, etc. Gee, I have to wonder: is it possible that God has hidden even deeper truths in metaphoric language we haven't yet uncovered? Since I now see and admit that the literal has almost no access to the deeper things of God, it seems entirely plausible that there are yet rich veins of spiritual "gold" He may yet reveal to us!'

[Me again] Yes, DA, I believe you're right. And it's great that you finally broke the spell and were able to answer those simple questions honestly. I'll start a thread soon that I humbly believe will demonstrate that there is a logical, rational allegorical structure God wove into both Testaments of the Bible showing that it has been His plan from before time to save every human being ever born. Not only this, in the uncovering of this great truth of His, He reveals in that same structure the "spiritual mechanics" for how He saves. And although the uncovering of this structure necessarily requires us to modify some interpretive conventions, it may come as a bit of surprise to you that most orthodox doctrines are quite compatible with this allegoric structure.

 

[Pneuma3]

God has painstakingly and wondrously woven into the deeper fabric of His multi-layered word, as expressed in second-tier meaning of metaphor, allegory, parable, etc

 

[Lazarus Short]

Der Alter writes: "...this statement by me, " I quickly learned the hard core proponents of heterodox religious group are so intensely indoctrinated that they are almost unreachable so most of what I post is for those people on the fringes who might be thinking about joining or quitting such a group." It was not about being "automatically true, correct and doctrinally pure."

It occurs to me that calling heterodox ideas "nonsense" and such is an unproductive approach to reaching members of such groups. Der Alter, you provide your own answer as to why they may be "unreachable." Please keep in mind what Fine Linen said a few posts ago: "You may be the only Bible some people will ever read."

Also, a saying I was brought up with may well apply: "It is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar."

 

[Der Alte]

anfang

<LS>Der Alter writes: "...this statement by me, " I quickly learned the hard core proponents of heterodox religious group are so intensely indoctrinated that they are almost unreachable so most of what I post is for those people on the fringes who might be thinking about joining or quitting such a group."
It occurs to me that calling heterodox ideas "nonsense" and such is an unproductive approach to reaching members of such groups. Der Alter, you provide your own answer as to why they may be "unreachable." Please keep in mind what Fine Linen said a few posts ago: "You may be the only Bible some people will ever read."
Also, a saying I was brought up with may well apply: "It is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar."<end>

ende

Please show me where I called "'heterodox ideas' nonsense."in the part of my post you quoted above. I occasionally call some statements "nonsense." The words "this statement by me" are from a different post.
As for the rest I always play nice until it is time to not play nice and the other person always establishes that time.

 

[FineLinen]

D.A.: seldom in your responses to anyone is the words "nonsense" "irrelevant" & "scribblings" not posted! You never play nice, in fact you know not how to play. You do not learn "quickly" and from all appearances do not learn anything from anybody.

Your attitude must change or you are doomed to continue in the same arrogant tone!

 

[Lazarus Short]

<LS>Der Alter writes: "...this statement by me, " I quickly learned the hard core proponents of heterodox religious group are so intensely indoctrinated that they are almost unreachable so most of what I post is for those people on the fringes who might be thinking about joining or quitting such a group."
It occurs to me that calling heterodox ideas "nonsense" and such is an unproductive approach to reaching members of such groups. Der Alter, you provide your own answer as to why they may be "unreachable." Please keep in mind what Fine Linen said a few posts ago: "You may be the only Bible some people will ever read."
Also, a saying I was brought up with may well apply: "It is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar."<end>
Please show me where I called "'heterodox ideas' nonsense."in the part of my post you quoted above. I occasionally call some statements "nonsense." The words "this statement by me" are from a different post.
As for the rest I always play nice until it is time to not play nice and the other person always establishes that time.

I see that you are a very focused man, whereas I was speaking more generally. No, you did not say it in the passage I quoted, but you have often called the postings of others by such terms, or you stamp them with this or that logical fallacy. I know, for I have received it, but you are a master of side-stepping and stating that you did no such thing. Anyway, I thought we decided to not read each other's postings.

Your failure to comment on my urging to sweeten things up a bit...is very telling. Shall we both just admit that we are mutual brick walls?

 

[FineLinen]

No of course not. You and those who share your brand of belief are automatically true, correct and doctrinally pure in all your ways. Thanks for setting the record straight.


As usual? You're all personality, aren't you?

Wrong, as usual. Oops, I forgot, you have the patent on that phrase.

Thoroughness per se, or thoroughness qua thoroughness, has no shared meaning elements with "truth". Of course thoroughness can be connected to truth--if and when one is being thorough in an actual pursuit of truth. But my point, that thoroughness in and of itself is no actual measure of the truth of one's research, writings, posts, etc. stands as evidenced by the fact that many contradictory religious views possess thoroughness as part of their structure, and truth is antithetical to contradiction--thus, the two are metaphysically unrelated.

Good Lord, you can't possibly wear a normal size hat can you DA? That head seems pretty swollen.

But now we're coming again to the interesting part of our discussion. Again:
"Tell me, of what value is a careful study of the literal meaning of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion most Christian thinkers have long recognized, that Moses is a symbolic type of Christ in Deut 14? How strong is author intent in perceiving this symbol? What hermeneutic model is most useful in reaching this conclusion?"
Now before we get to your response, I think it prudent to mention a spiritual principle our Lord gave us:
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil." (Jn 3:19)
Light and darkness play out very strongly in my theology as symbols and constituents of metaphysical truth and falsity. (Now are you beginning to remember some of our past exchanges?) In countless discussions with other religious folks, mostly Christians, I've observed the application of this principle so many times I'd have to use a calculator to count them. Condensed version is that human essence [spirit] is darkened (fragmentally falsified), which produces predictable cognitive/emotional/psychological results in exchanges between folks. We react primarily not rationally to the ideas presented to us, but are driven by "value reactions". I.e., the "tidal" forces of attraction and replusion between these opposite values can be reasonably shown to drive most human behavior. This places causation in the spiritual, not material, realm.

Jesus is describing one very identifiable such reaction in the verse above. This unfolds in religious or prescriptive discussion in a number of ways, but the primary feature of our value-driven response to truth we don't want to "hear" or "see"--produced by a falsified essence--is to react with a certain predictable class of responses to the tension and resistance the "truth-falsity" encounter our mind generates. In one way or another, we "hide" from the truth because its reaction with our inherent falsity exerts a natural antagonism in spirit through false beliefs we hold dear. I've observed this in myself and others; we all have the mark of Adam (a fragmentally falsified essence) inside us.

Now I refer you to your last two responses. I asked simple questions, especially simple for someone as qualified as you claim to be in exegetical deftness, my friend. The fist time I asked, you ignored. I asked again and now you are squirming, whirling and twisting in complex pirouettes to avoid answering:

All the symptons are here. The best defense is an immediate offense when trying to avoid answering questions whose truth one can't bear to endure. Throw out a smokescreen: "I am not here to play 20 questions. If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them." Then there's the customary bait-n-switch: "If you want to discuss Moses as a symbolic type of Christ post your views and I will discuss them. Or you can go back to any of my posts, actually read and respond to the points I have already raised." Of course none of the content of my questions has anything remotely to do with any of your posts in this thread, but of course the mere presentation of contempt sways our more fragile-minded readers into supposing you are an intellectual giant in control of this here situation, doesn't it?

The next-to-last wind-up: "The ball is in your court." (This move rips attention away from having to face that terrible truth by pretending to wash one's hands of the entire absurd affair.) And finally the pièce de résistance, showing readers you're in control by throwing out a humiliation, designed to make readers forget you're refusing to face painful truths: "I can link you to some game sites if you like."

I suggest some introspection might be helpful, DA. What is it in the answer to the questions I asked that you hate so much? The answers are very simple. What reason could you have for not facing them head on?

Dear Bar: Your presence on this thread is greatly appreciated! The calibre of this post is awesome! Much thanks.