Rusticus said:
Sorry I don't know what he was getting at, but I guess that makes Japan closer to God than Israel
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rusticus said:Does that mean that a nation with a low crime rate has repented more and is closer to God than a nation with a high crime rate?
Cleany said:you know, i really am not a humanist!
Cleany said:might i then, genuinely ask you, how we love god? apart from saying it what do we actually do? as i write im thinking perhaps worship?
Cleany said:what does "turning a blind eye to sin" involve because, clearly, he ate with sinners.
Cleany said:perhaps i should elaborate.
a. "the truth" isnt in the bible, some things that are a part of the truth are.
Cleany said:b. even if it were, it is "unavailable" to us because we have to translate it, we filter it, we have to understand it in the context of our own lives because that is the nature of us human beings. everything that we are, how we understand things, what words mean to us, is subject to a vast array of influences such as our bodies, the environment, our upbringing, our parents.
Cleany said:here, i will directly address what you have said.
this:is what you are doing.Simonline said:to be made subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas'
Cleany said:you believe that you arent, but, like a lot of fundamentalists seem to, you are in denial and are subject to the fundamentalist dogma that says it has no agenda but the "Word of God".
Cleany said:you will pick and choose what you want to interpret as literal truth, just as anybody else would.
Cleany said:you yourself said that:you are making the bible "subservient to our own theological presuppositions" as you said. but you think that you are doing it correctly, whereas i am not.Simonline said:Deut.21:18-21 only applies within the context of the Old Testament theocracy of Israel [i.e. direct rule by God] and not in any other non-theocratic context.
Cleany said:as for a "hidden agenda" as you put it. i freely admit that i have an agenda, i am full of agendas. you though, claim to not have one, which is the fallacy of the fundamentalists position.
Cleany said:lets see where our current conversation leads us.
Simonline said:As a fundamentalist, I do not share your relativistic view of reality by which means absolutely anything can (and often is) 'justified'. Whilst I believe that Truth cannot be fully known (since God, as Truth (Jn.14:6), is infinitely bigger than the human mind (even the best human mind) to fully comprehend), I absolutely do not believe that Truth cannot be known at all, otherwise what was the purpose of God revealing anything about himself?! The Truth is that humans can know truely, they just cannot know fully. It is on the basis of God's revealed Truth that Man is in a position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality.
Only when humans start from the absolute darkness of finite relativism (as you are doing) rather than the absolute light of Divine Revelation as the Judeo-Christian faith teaches, are humans not in any kind of position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality, hence the utter moral and objective bankruptcy of their pronouncements (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point).
i think that "as a fundamentalist" you are in denial of your condition as a fallible human being and are subject to relativism like eveyone else.
Cleany said:you call "finite relativism" darkness, i call it reality, i call it humanity.
Cleany said:and you are not "starting from" the absolute light of Divine Revelation, you are starting from the bottom like everybody else. the "absolute light" is what you are trying to acheive. there is a big difference.
Cleany said:we appear to be far apart, that is true. but i find this helpful and interesting.
Rusticus said:Does that mean that a nation with a low crime rate has repented more and is closer to God than a nation with a high crime rate?
enelya_taralom said:Sorry I don't know what he was getting at, but I guess that makes Japan closer to God than Israel
Simonline said:No, of course not, since there is more than one way to reduce crime rates. However, the best way to reduce crime rates (without manipulating or oppressing people in order to do it) is for a nation to repent before God and so receive God's forgiveness and subsequent healing and restoration.
Simonline.
Rusticus said:Firsly, would it not [be] better to, instead of talking about "reducing" crime rates, not to let them get so high in the first place?
Rusticus said:Secondly, Is there any statistical evidence that repentence etc actually have an effect on the crime rate?
Simonline said:....
Yes. I suggest that you read up on the great revivals of the Western Christian World.....
Rusticus said:What do we do with those people in our Nations who simply refuse to be part of any such repentence and revival?
Declare non-participation a crime? (which would increase the crime-rate...)
Just shoot them?
Expell them and "transport" them to other, less worthy Nations?
your argument depends on assuming that you always know what god wants. do you claim this?Simonline said:If you place love of man over love and above obedience to God then you are a humanist. Obedience to God must always take precedence over 'love of man' because it's only through love of and obedience to God that we know how to love man correctly [i.e. the difference between true Judeo-Christian morality and Situational Ethics] (Jn.14:15,23-24).
these verses seem to be about obedience, they have absolutely nothing to do with worship? are you saying that we worship god by being obedient? it would follow from your arguments - therefore obedient to the bible? are you saying that is what worship is?Simonline said:And how do we worship God (in Spirit and in Truth (Jn.4:24))? Answer: 1Sam.15:22-23; Matt.28:18-20; Jn.14:15,23-24.
you havent really answered my question here, what does "not compromising" on sin mean?Simonline said:Turning a blind eye to sin involves compromising on doing what is right in order to 'love' people...i.e. going soft on sin. Sin is the moral cancer that destroys people causing them to perish and God will always destroy sin rather than allow it to destroy his people. This is why God insists that Israel and the Church (as the two great theocracies) purge themselves of sin at every available opportunity because it is a destructive cancer which shows no mercy. Only in Holiness and Righteousness will God enter into personal relationships with Man. Sin always cuts us off from God.
ok, which translation?Simonline said:You're absolutely right, the Truth isn't in the Bible. The Bible does not contain the Truth, it IS the Truth. The Bible is the permanant 'written version' of the Word of God, of which there are three 'versions' - spoken (Gen.1:1-31), written (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) and living (Jn.1:1-5, 14-18). All three versions are equally valid and of equal authority (since all three will be present at our judgment).
ok questions:Simonline said:No. I disagree. Yes, we must first translate and interpret the written Word but God has given us His Holy Spirit to enable us to do that correctly (Matt.28:18-20; Jn.16:5-16). We must first understand it in it's own original context (not our own context) and then apply the same commands/principles etc. of that situation and context to our own. Only then will we have interpreted and applied the Scriptures correctly (2Tim.2:15). If we have the written record and archaeological evidence externally and the Holy Spirit and a heart of integrity (that is aware of its own subjective theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas' yet still subjects them to objective scrutiny and is willing to modify or even reject those presuppositions and agendas, as necessary, in its quest for Truth at all costs) internally then it is reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions.
and establish it i shall. why? because ..Simonline said:This you have yet to establish. I have said this of you because you have already declared that you have rejected the authority of God's written revelation (insofar as it doesn't serve your own theological presuppositions) in favour of your own subjective interpretations and applications, whereas I accept God's written revelation entire as the authoritative Word of God and seek to interpret it in its own context and then apply it to my life and situations.
it is already established. it is just a matter of you actually realising it.Simonline said:Again, you have yet to establish this [Q.E.D.] in my case?
what is your source for understanding the context of the bible text? is it possible that this source is capable of making any errors?Simonline said:No. I interpret as literal only what the original context allows me to interpret as literal. I don't interpret all of Scripture as literal but only according to context.
whether your interpretation is correct or not isnt the point. the point is that you are interpreting it by "rules" that have their source outside of the bible. is this source infallible too?Simonline said:Nonsense. what I have said about Deut.21:18-21 is absolutely correct and the onus is on you to prove me wrong [Q.E.D.]. Again, slinging mud is easy. Demonstrating that an argument is flawed requires effort but your counter argument is invalid without it.
incredible - i would say the same to you! how is it that we are misunderstanding each other so?Simonline said:I have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'. The difference between my theological presuppositions/hidden agendas and yours is that I regularly subject mine to objective scrutiny and modify/jettison them, as necessary, in my quest for objective Truth, whereas you appear to revere yours as infallibly sacrosanct?!
even if you assume that there "is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture", the tools for obtaining that interpretation are a part of this sinful world and subject to error.Simonline said:No. I freely acknowledge that I am a falible human being and that I exist relative to God. However, I also acknowledge that God's position is absolute and not just another 'relative' position relative to everyone else's. We all exist relative and contingent to him. He exists absolutely without relation or contingence to anyone or anything else. Therefore, not all interpretations of the Scriptures are relatively subjective (and therefore mere 'opinions' to be accepted or ignored as they fit in with our own sacrosanct theological presuppositions). There is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture. The Bible, when correctly interpreted (2Tim.2:15), cannot be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say in order to justify any position whatsoever.
what do you mean "starting point"? it is our aim to be like god, to know god, we start as sinners.Simonline said:Like I said, we live on different planets (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point).
No. That's the difference between you and I. You believe that we have to start from where we are (i.e. in complete moral relativism) wheras I believe we can start from a moral fixed point (i.e. God) by which we get our moral bearings and formulate a moral and ethical compass. Without God as a fixed point we have absolutely no hope of salvation or redemption.
Like I said, you are a humanist (your starting point is Man as relative creature rather than God as absolute Creator and the only non-contingent Being in existence). Is it any wonder that you have absolutely no effective moral compass or ethical guide? Humanistic 'social contract' is fundamentally defective as a moral compass or ethical guide.
Me too!
Simonline.
Cleany said:your argument depends on assuming that you always know what god wants. do you claim this?
Cleany said:these verses seem to be about obedience, they have absolutely nothing to do with worship? are you saying that we worship god by being obedient? it would follow from your arguments - therefore obedient to the bible? are you saying that is what worship is?
Cleany said:you havent really answered my question here, what does "not compromising" on sin mean? lets say, for example, that you and your family are living in britain and there is a war on and the city where you live is being bombed. your children have no water, and will die without some, but, just across the road from you, is a shop. the owner is away and inside the shop is the only source of water, the clean water system has broken down because of the bombing and you have run out of backup supply.
do you go and steal the water (compromising on sin?) or do you save the life of your children (love).
Cleany said:ok, which translation?
Cleany said:ok questions:
1. by what means is it possible to "understand it in its own original context" without being influenced by our sinful nature?
Please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.
2. what infallible source is there that tells us how to "understand it in its own original context"?
Again, please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.
3. how is it possible for a fallible and sinful human to "subjectthem to objective scrutiny" without error?
Again, please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.
4. what of those who dont have "the written record and archaeological evidence", what meaningful faith can they have?
Rom.1:18-23 tells us that God has revealed his Truth (in varying degrees) to all men and thus all men have some knowledge of the Truth. God requires that all men live consistantly in obedience to the amount of Truth that they know. As men come to realise that this is impossible for imperfect beings, that realisation should (if they are people of integrity) motivate them to seek God out and to put their faith in God as they seek to both increase and live by their knowledge and understanding of God (Abraham being a classic case in point, since he trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Gen.15:6; Rom.4:3))
5. apparently given all the possibilities for error, is it still "reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions"?
Millions of reasonable and intelligent orthodox Evangelical Christians seem to think so?
6. does "reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions" mean that those conclusions will be infallible and without error, and wholly reflect the true meaning of scripture?
No. Only the revelation itself is inerrant. However, as long as the interpretations are based on sound hermenutics the conclusions and subsequent applications should also be sound. The 'true meaning of Scripture' is by no means 'uniform or monolithic' because it deals with the full spectrum of human existence. However, the Scriptural principles (when interpreted and applied correctly) will be constant (since they are based upon the Immutable Nature and Character of God) even when the contexts in which those principles might be applied will be fluid (due to the wide spectrum of human existence).
Cleany said:and establish it i shall. why? because ..
1. it is unproven that scripture is actually infallible. in fact, it is impossible to prove!
This is an absolute statement which requires omniscience on the part of the person making it in order to be valid. Are you omniscient?
2. you cannot actually believe, even in your wildest dreams, that you can interpret the bible without any error whatsoever and you must admit that at least in some way you are actually subject to applying your own agenda, and the agendas of your tradition to your interpretation of scripture, just like the rest of the human race. to claim otherwise is simply ludicrous.
I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures but for me, that agenda is always to strive for objective Truth and not believe that I am the only source of 'truth' but only for myself. Such relativism reduces all ethics and morality to a mere 'matter of opinion' and whoever's 'opinion' is argued (or imposed) most forcefully is the one which prevails [i.e. 'might is right' - the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade who, on the basis of such a philosophy, advocated that men had every right to forcibly subject women to any and every perverted sexual act ('Sadism') simply because men are the 'stronger' sex?!] Is this what you would advocate?!
it is already established. it is just a matter of you actually realising it.
No. It isn't 'established' at all.
what is your source for understanding the context of the bible text? is it possible that this source is capable of making any errors?
My primary source for understanding the Biblical context is the Bible itself since, as I was taught as a young Christian, so I have always found to be true, that the Bible is its own best commentary. If the Bible really is the revealed Word of God then no, it is not capable of being wrong (I make this claim only for the original writings in their original languages and not for any subsequent translations or paraphrases).
whether your interpretation is correct or not isnt the point. the point is that you are interpreting it by "rules" that have their source outside of the bible. is this source infallible too?
The principles of Hermenutics:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hermeneutics-bib.html
http://www.probe.org/content/view/688/149/
http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/interpret.htm
http://www.watchman.org/cults/interprt.htm
http://web.crown.edu/b&t/castonv/caston/principles/crn%2001.htm
actually, this is not about arguments and propositions, this is about examining ourselves as people and identifying the processes that are involved in working out our faith.
Agreed.
To be continued...
incredible - i would say the same to you! how is it that we are misunderstanding each other so?
could i perhaps get you to admit that if you have jettisoned or modified some of your theological presuppositions/hidden agendas because presumably you considered them to be in error, could it be that your previous interpretations and understanding of the bible was influenced by them, and therefore also in error?
even if you assume that there "is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture", the tools for obtaining that interpretation are a part of this sinful world and subject to error.
what do you mean "starting point"? it is our aim to be like god, to know god, we start as sinners.
you seem to have trouble admitting that, though you believe the bible to be infallable, it is not possible to make an infallible interpretation of it.
you denied that you were guilty of making the bible "subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas'", you said to me "This you have yet to establish". Yet in the same post you say "I have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."
and you also said "The difference between my theological presuppositions/hidden agendas and yours is that I regularly subject mine to objective scrutiny and modify/jettison them, as necessary, in my quest for objective Truth, whereas you appear to revere yours as infallibly sacrosanct?!". you admit that you are on a "quest for objective truth" as you put it, how then can you say that "I believe we can start from a moral fixed point (i.e. God) by which we get our moral bearings and formulate a moral and ethical compass."
this is what i find worrying:
you admit that you are on a "quest". hopefully it is obvious to you that your quest is not finished and you have not yet discovered the whole truth of god.
you also said that you "have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."
given these things, may i ask you what right do you have to say that
"The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people."
or
"Absolutely no-one is above the Law. If God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them. "
or
"The principle of capital punishment is sound. "
or
"The Lord did not tell you that at all. "
or
"The Scriptures teach that everyone has an allotted number of days and each person is required to repent and come to faith within their allotted number of days. If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences"
you really need to understand how it looks when someone who admits that they do not have all the answers, claims that people should be killed in the name of "truth". a truth they openly admit they have not yet grasped.
it is the truth of these claims that we are debating.Simonline said:Insofar as we have the Bible as the written Word of God and that is the permanent objective source of our knowledge of God, yes. We also have the Holy Spirit within us revealing Truth to us and confirming and bearing witness that our interpretations/applications are correct. Such interpretations will always be in harmony with what he has already authored in the Bible.
what about singing, what about praising god? is this flattery and self-deceit?Simonline said:Obedience is worship. Anything apart from obedience is mere flattery and self-deceit (Isa.29:13; Matt.7:21-23). Yes, obedience to the revelations of God spoken, written or living is obedience to God.
so you admit that you would break into the shop and steal the water?Simonline said:In that situation, neither. I would do the minimum amount of damage necessary to gain access to the water and leave a note advising the shop keeper that I took it and that I would pay for what I had taken next time we met and I was in a position to pay him.
The kind of situations about which you are talking relates to Biblical situational ethics (as distinct from humanist situational ethics) or 'Graded absolutism'. http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage/Graded%20Absolutism.htm
so you have these original manuscripts i take it?Simonline said:None of them (including the Authorized Version of 1611). Infalibility pertains exclusively to the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek only and not to any subsequent translations. http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
See: Inerrancy Edited by Norman L. Geisler, published by the Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530 ISBN 0310392810 (c)1980. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310392810/002-6299724-9628855?v=glance
Also
The Old Testament Documents Are They Reliable And Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jnr. http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1975
The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? by F.F.Bruce http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
so i need to read 4 books to have these 3 questions answered?Simonline said:Please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.
did these people have enough of a revelation to declare that "the truth" means that it is right to kill as a punishment or does it take some special knowledge to say that?Simonline said:Rom.1:18-23 tells us that God has revealed his Truth (in varying degrees) to all men and thus all men have some knowledge of the Truth. God requires that all men live consistantly in obedience to the amount of Truth that they know. As men come to realise that this is impossible for imperfect beings, that realisation should (if they are people of integrity) motivate them to seek God out and to put their faith in God as they seek to both increase and live by their knowledge and understanding of God (Abraham being a classic case in point, since he trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Gen.15:6; Rom.4:3))
presumably then these millions of orthodox Evangelical Christians would then have no disagreements?Simonline said:Millions of reasonable and intelligent orthodox Evangelical Christians seem to think so?
is "sound" near enough to the truth talk about the punishment of literally billions of people in terms like this:Simonline said:No. Only the revelation itself is inerrant. However, as long as the interpretations are based on sound hermenutics the conclusions and subsequent applications should also be sound. The 'true meaning of Scripture' is by no means 'uniform or monolithic' because it deals with the full spectrum of human existence. However, the Scriptural principles (when interpreted and applied correctly) will be constant (since they are based upon the Immutable Nature and Character of God) even when the contexts in which those principles might be applied will be fluid (due to the wide spectrum of human existence).
you admit that your word "sound" does not reflect the infallible truth 100%, but is an approximation of it.Simonline said:The Scriptures teach that everyone has an allotted number of days and each person is required to repent and come to faith within their allotted number of days. If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences
what qualifications then, are needed to claim that the bible is infallible?Simonline said:This is an absolute statement which requires omniscience on the part of the person making it in order to be valid. Are you omniscient?
Simonline said:Absolutely no-one is above the Law. If God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them.
interesting.Simonline said:The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people.
it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of other people are striving for objective truth, including me. and i dont think that anyone believes that the only source of truth is themselves.Simonline said:I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures but for me, that agenda is always to strive for objective Truth and not believe that I am the only source of 'truth' but only for myself. Such relativism reduces all ethics and morality to a mere 'matter of opinion' and whoever's 'opinion' is argued (or imposed) most forcefully is the one which prevails [i.e. 'might is right' - the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade who, on the basis of such a philosophy, advocated that men had every right to forcibly subject women to any and every perverted sexual act ('Sadism') simply because men are the 'stronger' sex?!] Is this what you would advocate?!
perhaps in time you will realise that not everything you know has come about by your own making, and that as a professed fundementalist, that the fundementalist tradition has influenced your thinking, and your interpretation of the bible.Simonline said:No. It isn't 'established' at all.
and yet you saySimonline said:My primary source for understanding the Biblical context is the Bible itself since, as I was taught as a young Christian, so I have always found to be true, that the Bible is its own best commentary. If the Bible really is the revealed Word of God then no, it is not capable of being wrong (I make this claim only for the original writings in their original languages and not for any subsequent translations or paraphrases).
look at what you have said!Simonline said:I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures
does it claim to be infallible?Simonline said:The principles of Hermenutics:
yay!Simonline said:Agreed.
i hope so.Simonline said:To be continued...
ladyerica said:I have formulated an opinion and I have decided that based on Scripture i do not believe that the death penalty is wrong.
I will explain from the Scriptures and from my own reasoning why I believe this way. First of all, the 10 commandments declare that we are not to murder. Murder is the shedding of innocent blood. (The American Heritage Dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful killing of one human being by another". I am not saying that this dictionary overrides God's Word, but I thought it was interesting that the definition includes the word "unlawful".)The death penalty, however, is not shedding innocent blood...it is the punishment of guilty and dangerous lawbreakers.
Secondly, there are examples of the killing of sinners in Scripture. First, I'd like to bring up Exodus 32. In this chapter, Moses is up on Mt. Sinai to get the 10 commandments and the Israelites lost faith in God and made idols and worshipped them. When Moses came down from the mount, he was so angry he threw the 10 commandments down, breaking them. He told all the people who still believed in God to kill all those who didn't. This is an example of "government" (I refer to Moses as government because he was leading the people) using the death penalty to punish sinners.
Another example of "government" enforcing laws by death is in Joshua 7. In this chapter, Achan of Israel stole from the Lord. The city of Jericho was devoted to God by the people of Israel and they were to kill every living thing and burn the entire city along with any possessions. Achan secretly took a robe, 200 shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold, deceiving the entire nation. God, of course, cannot be deceived and when Israel goes into battle against the Amorites, He allows the Amorites to defeat the Israelites for Achan's sin. After a long process, Joshua narrows the nation of Israel down and figures out that Achan was the sinner and confronts him about it. After Achan was proven guilty, the people of Israel stoned him and all his possessions (including his children) to death.
In Bible-times, the punishment of death was being stoned... The following are several verses referring to different sins that must result in being stoned to death:
Exodus 21:28-29
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 35:17***
Deuteronomy 13:10
Deuteronomy 17:5
Deuteronomy 21:21
God has placed government in position to keep our nations orderly and under control. I believe that governments are corrupted because they are run by humans who are corrupted; however, God commands us to obey authorities and the government is an authority. When people murder, they are not only disobeying the government, the are disobeying God and God commands that they be put to death as stated in Numbers 35:17. God is perfect and He does not contradict Himself. It is difficult to understand how God could command us not to murder, yet command us to punish murderers by putting them to death; but if you keep in mind what Leviticus 24:17 and 24:20 say, it makes sense that God was telling us not to shed innocent blood and by killing murderers, the government is not shedding innocent blood, but carrying out God's law.
~Erica~
yuzuyuzuken said:Jesus died on the cross.
Does it mean Jesus died with an unrighteous way?
Paul died by execution...
God flooded the earth
God killed a lot of people out of justice
God also killed people out of mercy
does it mean God must die?
You know what, Without Jesus, we all deserve life sentence
....
Murder and [lawful] execution are two different things.
Murder is evil
[lawful] execution is, even in God's eyes, righteous.
What am i saying
Cleany said:it is the truth of these claims that we are debating.
Cleany said:what about singing, what about praising god? is this flattery and self-deceit?
Cleany said:so you admit that you would break into the shop and steal the water?
Cleany said:so you have these original manuscripts i take it?
Cleany said:so i need to read 4 books to have these 3 questions answered?
Cleany said:did these people have enough of a revelation to declare that "the truth" means that it is right to kill as a punishment or does it take some special knowledge to say that?
Cleany said:and abraham, he obviously had the knowledge of "some truth", would you say that those who have access to the scripture in the "original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek" had more of a knowledge of the truth than abraham. would you say that of paul?
Cleany said:presumably then these millions of orthodox Evangelical Christians would then have no disagreements?
Cleany said:is "sound" near enough to the truth [to] talk about the punishment of literally billions of people in terms like this:
Cleany said:you admit that your word "sound" does not reflect the infallible truth 100%, but is an approximation of it.
Cleany said:unless you claim that "sound" actually means it is 100% correct, even though it is itself based on "sound" (not infallible) hermeneutics, then dont you think it a little arrogant to talk of the "everlasting consequences" of literally billions of people as if you know all the answers?
Cleany said:what qualifications then, are needed to claim that the bible is infallible?
Cleany said:also - lets look at some other absolute statements, the author will, i believe, not claim to be omniscient ...
Cleany said:it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of other people are striving for objective truth, including me. and i dont think that anyone believes that the only source of truth is themselves.
Cleany said:this discussion is about what is right in making life or death decisions in the world today, and upon what those decision are based upon.
Cleany said:you say that we can base these decisions on an "infallible" document. yet you can make no basis for the "infallibility" of this document other than the document itself.
Cleany said:you also admit that your interpretation of this document is not perfect and that you have an agenda.
Cleany said:i put it to you again, that this is not a sound basis upon which to publicly talk, in the name of christianity, about the lives and deaths of billions of people.
Cleany said:i will also say that no person, and no christian, can claim to know for absolute certain the destiny of the human population of this world. and that untold damage has been done to christianity by such claims.
Cleany said:perhaps in time you will realise that not everything you know has come about by your own making, and that as a professed fundementalist, that the fundementalist tradition has influenced your thinking, and your interpretation of the bible.
and yet you saySimonline said:My primary source for understanding the Biblical context is the Bible itself since, as I was taught as a young Christian, so I have always found to be true, that the Bible is its own best commentary. If the Bible really is the revealed Word of God then no, it is not capable of being wrong (I make this claim only for the original writings in their original languages and not for any subsequent translations or paraphrases).
Simonline said:I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures
you may have studied hard, you may have read many books, but that is still only an opinion, there is nothing divine about it.Simonline said:There is a kernel of Truth that is non-negotiable to Judeo-Christianity and this includes the sanctity of human life and the corresponding capital punishment for murder.
you are just redefining the meaning of the word steal there. it want yours and you took it, and you did it by damaging the property of the owner. you have broken the law, but you were willing to compromise it slightly to save your children. your intentions were perfectly good, but the situation demonstrated the problem with the law, in that it is not perfect and cannot be a sole guide for life.Simonline said:No. I have admitted no such thing. If I wanted to 'steal' the water then I wouldn't leave a note admitting that I had taken it and that I was willing to pay for it, would I?
that is, simply, dogma. nothing more, nothing less. why especially paul? it is well known that fundementalism considers the writings of paul to be the most that it agrees with.Simonline said:The Holy Spirit illuminated the understanding of the first generation apostles (especially Paul)
even if you say that simonline, can you not see how it appears what you say that your opinion, and the opinions of those that agree with you, are "as close to the absolutely perfect Truth as sinful human beings can get." please tell me you can see how that sounds.Simonline said:By 'sound' I mean as close to the absolutely perfect Truth as sinful human beings can get.
yet you said "Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures"Simonline said:But that's the point, because of Divine Revelation, we DO know the answers (at least about those things that God has revealed to us). We are not simply surmising and conjecting. That is the whole point of God revealing things to us.
what is "a life of obedience"? who will ever claim to be totally obedient to god? we all try, we all fail, we all try again, we all fail again. this is the christian life, learning to change and to be a better person, from our mistakes, and with the help of god and the other christians in our lives.Simonline said:[worship (singing and praising god)] If it is not offered in conjunction with a life of obedience it is just two-faced hypocrisy (no matter how 'heavenly' it sounds) and God loathes it with every fibre of His Being
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?