Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

It’s a false dichotomy - either this thing is totally true, according to my/your understanding - or it isn’t understandable. That doesn’t represent any sort of objective standard. I mentioned Abraham’s story as there is a great deal of ‘space’ and a lot of cultural relevance in the text, just the kind of thing that leaves a lot of room for rumination without altering the fundamental message. What, would you say, is the principle point of Abraham’s story from a biblical perspective, taking into account how it is treated in the OT and NT?

I'm not here to exchange subjective interpretations of OT Bible stories. I'm addressing a very specific observation. If you want independent critiques of specific stories from the Bible, please start a new thread.

You are continuously avoiding my very simple, very direct, and very basic point.

(post #369)

'Truth' is independent of opinion, individuality, 'good', etc...

When God asserts a passage, it presumably means one thing. And yet, read that passage to 10 people, and see how many differing 'conclusions' you might receive. This demonstrates that maybe, just maybe, the provider of truth did not choose [the most] effective means of communication.?.?

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not here to exchange subjective interpretations of OT Bible stories. I'm addressing a very specific observation.

Think about what you’re saying there - You have an observation but you’re not willing to test your observation against the thing it is supposed to be about.

 

[cvanwey]

Think about what you’re saying there - You have an observation but you’re not willing to test your observation against the thing it is supposed to be about.

Think about what I'm saying, in post #369. Truth is not up for debate. We are not speaking about the 'book of the week', the 'movie of the week', or the 'flavor of the month'. God's intent and purpose is in attempt to convey His truth to the masses. In regards to salvation, and the tenets for salvation, do you really think He succeeded? If so, then explain the extreme lack in uniformity among His followers.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not here to exchange subjective interpretations of OT Bible stories. I'm addressing a very specific observation. If you want independent critiques of specific stories from the Bible, please start a new thread.

You are continuously avoiding my very simple, very direct, and very basic point.

(post #369)

'Truth' is independent of opinion, individuality, 'good', etc...

When God asserts a passage, it presumably means one thing. And yet, read that passage to 10 people, and see how many differing 'conclusions' you might receive. This demonstrates that maybe, just maybe, the provider of truth did not choose [the most] effective means of communication.?.?

This could, potentially, lead to some sort of interesting discussion, but your approach is way too superficial to lead to anything useful. If you can define or explain some of your starting points that might move it forward a bit:

'Truth' is independent of opinion, individuality, 'good', etc... It is? Can you explain what you mean? What is your definition of 'truth' that is independent of (etc), in relation to what and what is your evidence for this viewpoint?

When God asserts a passage, it presumably means one thing Can you explain what you mean, with some examples?. And yet, read that passage to 10 people, and see how many differing 'conclusions' you might receive. This demonstrates that maybe, just maybe, the provider of truth did not choose [the most] effective means of communication.?.? For this last to have some relevance you first need to provide some context, i.e. what passages you mean, why you think they should only be taken in one way, how those relate to other passages in the bible, to the thinking of people at the time it was written and so on. Once you have some sort of context for your idea you may be able to formulate some useful questions.

 

[Tom 1]

Truth is not up for debate

Says who?

 

[cvanwey]

Says who?

Says the God which you believe. You are going all around my point...

God has any means available to convey truth. And He chose.... 'Book'. Leads to subjectivity, especially when it is the humans whom wrote every single page.

Let's start with Matthew 12:32. What does this passage mean to you? And more importantly, what was God's intent in inspiring this message?

 

[cvanwey]

This could, potentially, lead to some sort of interesting discussion, but your approach is way too superficial to lead to anything useful. If you can define or explain some of your starting points that might move it forward a bit:

'Truth' is independent of opinion, individuality, 'good', etc... It is? Can you explain what you mean? What is your definition of 'truth' that is independent of (etc), in relation to what and what is your evidence for this viewpoint?

When God asserts a passage, it presumably means one thing Can you explain what you mean, with some examples?. And yet, read that passage to 10 people, and see how many differing 'conclusions' you might receive. This demonstrates that maybe, just maybe, the provider of truth did not choose [the most] effective means of communication.?.? For this last to have some relevance you first need to provide some context, i.e. what passages you mean, why you think they should only be taken in one way, how those relate to other passages in the bible, to the thinking of people at the time it was written and so on. Once you have some sort of context for your idea you may be able to formulate some useful questions.

See post #386.

Hint... Regardless of the answer you provide, it will already be in conflict with other intelligent follower's answers. I've even asked two interlocutors to have God intervene, to settle the conflict. This was an epic fail. Hence, God either does not exist, and we humans wrote this book ourselves. God exists, and does not adhere to many verses in Scripture, but somehow, apologists make excuses for Him. Or, maybe some 'blanket' third choice...?

 

[Tom 1]

Says the God which you believe. You are going all around my point...

He does? Where did he say that?

 

[Tom 1]

See post #386.

Hint... Regardless of the answer you provide, it will already be in conflict with other intelligent follower's answers. I've even asked two interlocutors to have God intervene, to settle the conflict. This was an epic fail. Hence, God either does not exist, and we humans wrote this book ourselves. God exists, and does not adhere to many verses in Scripture, but somehow, apologists make excuses for Him. Or, maybe some 'blanket' third choice...?

Lol we always have the same discussion, and you always avoid answering. If your premise is phony, nothing you build on it bears any relation to anything real. Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[Tom 1]

See post #386.

Hint... Regardless of the answer you provide, it will already be in conflict with other intelligent follower's answers. I've even asked two interlocutors to have God intervene, to settle the conflict. This was an epic fail. Hence, God either does not exist, and we humans wrote this book ourselves. God exists, and does not adhere to many verses in Scripture, but somehow, apologists make excuses for Him. Or, maybe some 'blanket' third choice...?

That’s just some random stuff you think. Where’s your argument, and what is it based on? How about responding to some questions?

 

[cvanwey]

He does? Where did he say that?

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

Now I ask you... Would you mind asking Him what He meant when He asserted Matthew 12:32? If we cannot clarify a seemingly important verse, with the Source, then what?

 

[cvanwey]

Lol we always have the same discussion, and you always avoid answering. If your premise is phony, nothing you build on it bears any relation to anything real. Is that so hard to grasp?

Or maybe, you are starting to notice that, no matter what 'answer' you provide, you will further support the title of this thread

 

[cvanwey]

That’s just some random stuff you think. Where’s your argument, and what is it based on? How about responding to some questions?

My argument, with you, here, is simple... God asserts truth(s). Can you verify what this truth IS? Let's start with Matthew 12:32, and go from here...

 

[Tom 1]

My argument, with you, here, is simple... God asserts truth(s). Can you verify what this truth IS? Let's start with Matthew 12:32, and go from here...

If you can’t honesty address your own questions, why should I? Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours.

 

[Tom 1]

My argument, with you, here, is simple... God asserts truth(s). Can you verify what this truth IS? Let's start with Matthew 12:32, and go from here...

Really, there is potential for an actually useful discussion here, but, assuming that is what you actually want (far from clear) your idea needs to be deconstructed and built back up again in a more useful fashion. One of the supporting ideas you have is your assertion that ‘truth is not debatable’ and that this is something God said. If you can substantiate that, or at least explain why you think it, then that could be step 1.

 

[cvanwey]

Really, there is potential for an actually useful discussion here, but, assuming that is what you actually want (far from clear) your idea needs to be deconstructed and built back up again in a more useful fashion. One of the supporting ideas you have is your assertion that ‘truth is not debatable’ and that this is something God said. If you can substantiate that, or at least explain why you think it, then that could be step 1.

Or maybe, you just cannot follow I do not know how much more clear I can be.

 

[cvanwey]

If you can’t honesty address your own questions, why should I? Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours.

You asked a direct question, in post #388. I answered in post #391.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or maybe, you just cannot follow I do not know how much more clear I can be.

I don't know either, cvanway. You seem to be a purveyor of confusion, really.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't know either, cvanway. You seem to be a purveyor of confusion, really.

Funny

God provides a verse. The verse implies a threat. Ask many, get conflicting answers. This is God's chosen primary mechanism for communication of 'truth'.

Care to join in the festivities?

Matthew 12:32. What is your take?

I say, if your claim to salvation is 'faith', any Christian whom commits this act, will negate 'faith'. Same goes with any Christian really... i.e. 'saved by grace', 'saved by grace, faith, works'... Other...

Matthew 12:32 negates all. Why am I wrong? Can you inquire upon the Source? If so, great, let's resolve this now. If not, then it might seem God does not care to resolve this matter.

And why should God cater to me? I'm not saying He should, per se. However, there exists Christians out there, whom if they read this verse, may fear they are doomed - (no matter what).

If they are wrong, it would be nice for God to clarify. You can ask many educated people, and the passage means something different, virtually from all 'interpretations'. Makes for confusion, if you ask me

 

[Tom 1]

You asked a direct question, in post #388. I answered in post #391.

Lol yes I can see that you’ve edited that . So, that supports your ‘truth is not debatable and god says so’ notion? Where does that really come from?