Quoting Bible verses

[Non sequitur]

I find it rather self-serving when people use Bible verses to explain things non-believers ask.

Since it has been pretty much established that people can interpret it however they want and/or in many a number of ways, that would mean that there could, equally, be any number of other possible interpretations... which could only establish that it is the "idea behind it" that is true, but the interpretations could be wrong.


However, since you can only first start with with the subjectivity of interpretation to determine the objectivity of the material, wouldn't that mean your objectivity would always skewed?

So logistically, you would arrive nowhere else.


You wouldn't quote Bible verses, if you didn't already believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas".

You wouldn't believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas", if you didn't already believe in the Bible.


So, to me, doesn't it seems useless to use them as "truthful nuggets of knowledge" to other people, outside your ideology?

 

[Biker Angel]

I find it rather self-serving when people use Bible verses to explain things non-believers ask.

So you come to a Christian forum and ask questions and then complain when bible verses are used? Then your reason to be here makes no sense at all, unless you are here to just bark out your own self serving ideas of why God does not exist and Christianity is wrong.

 

[Non sequitur]

So you come to a Christian forum and ask questions and then complain when bible verses are used? Then your reason to be here makes no sense at all, unless you are here to just bark out your own self serving ideas of why God does not exist and Christianity is wrong.

I didn't complain and at all and you obviously didn't read anything I wrote, past that one sentence.

And, if you did, what I said would not prove that Christianity is wrong or even tries to.

It talks about the methodology used in quoting Bible verses, not the simple fact that they are used.



Is there another forum where people answer intelligibly and/or address the actual question, taking into account the things related to the question?

How can I block you from posting?

 

[Biker Angel]

How can I block you from posting?

Put me on your ignore list. But that seems self serving to me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I didn't complain and at all and you obviously didn't read anything I wrote, past that one sentence.

And, if you did, what I said would not prove that Christianity is wrong or even tries to.

It talks about the methodology used in quoting Bible verses, not the simple fact that they are used.

Is there another forum where people answer intelligibly and/or address the actual question, taking into account the things related to the question?

How can I block you from posting?

You can't block someone from posting [tho you can report them], but there is an "ignore" function that will keep a member's post from showing up in threads when you view a thread.

I sometimes use it if a member constantly post long cut/pasts posts, extra large pictures or a bunch of utube videos. [you can still view a post by hitting the "view" option]

Anywho, you might check out this thread on the Christian Forums How To board. Hope this helps

http://www.christianforums.com/f681/
Christian Forums How-To?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7320102/#post49736577
How to put other members on "ignore"?

Hi

Sorry to hear you are having problems!

CLICK USER CP (TOP LEFT OF YOUR PAGE)

Scroll down to SETTINGS AND OPTIONS....then click on EDIT IGNORE LIST in that section.

Just put in the name (s) of those you do not want contact with.
*If needed &/or serious...send a copy of their pm's to a moderator, or report posts (red icon @ top right of their post)

Hang in there; there are many wonderful people in CF!

God bless you +
Gail

 

[Biker Angel]

Truth hurts so you must block it.

 

[Non sequitur]

Truth hurts so you must block it.

Creating clever sayings, that imply you are right and others are wrong, only give you credit for a clever saying.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I find it rather self-serving when people use Bible verses to explain things non-believers ask.

Since it has been pretty much established that people can interpret it however they want and/or in many a number of ways, that would mean that there could, equally, be any number of other possible interpretations... which could only establish that it is the "idea behind it" that is true, but the interpretations could be wrong.


However, since you can only first start with with the subjectivity of interpretation to determine the objectivity of the material, wouldn't that mean your objectivity would always skewed?

So logistically, you would arrive nowhere else.


You wouldn't quote Bible verses, if you didn't already believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas".

You wouldn't believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas", if you didn't already believe in the Bible.


So, to me, doesn't it seems useless to use them as "truthful nuggets of knowledge" to other people, outside your ideology?

The bible is 'of no private interpretation' (no need to quote chapter and verse, this is very familiar ). We have been taught that this means that one must accept the orthodox interpretation held by most Christian religions, and not try to 'wrest', or twist, the scriptures in any way. This is fine for the masses who are spoon fed scriptural meanings by the churchES and don't seek deeper meanings. Those of us who do seek deeper meanings often find them. When a minister teaches from God's word he tailors his message to the masses. When God is speaking to the individual through personal bible study all sorts of revelations appear, and any honest minister will admit this.

 

[joey_downunder]

I use bible verses whenever it directly answers a question, whether responding to an atheist or believer.

Is your objection that some people are simply quoting verses to "shut you up" and avoid real analysis of what you are saying, or are these verses being quoted simply offending you?

 

[Non sequitur]

I use bible verses whenever it directly answers a question, whether responding to an atheist or believer.

Is your objection that some people are simply quoting verses to "shut you up" and avoid real analysis of what you are saying, or are these verses being quoted simply offending you?

Neither.

Please read the post.

(WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH NEW QUESTIONS?!)

 

[drich0150]

Neither.

Please read the post.

(WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH NEW QUESTIONS?!)

BECAUSE IT IS A TEACHING STYLE MODELED BY CHRIST, AND MANY OTHER TEACHERS OF GOD WORD. IT INSPIRES PERSONAL THOUGHT AND ALLOWS A TRUE STUDENT TO COME TO A BIBLICAL CONCLUSION ON HIS OWN.

I ASSUME THIS IS WHY GREEK PHILOSPHERS CONSIDER IT SUCH A PHILOSICIPHICAL SIN TO ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION.

 

[Sketcher]

So, to me, doesn't it seems useless to use them as "truthful nuggets of knowledge" to other people, outside your ideology?

No more than say, quoting a history book or a newspaper. When I give people verses, I do it to point them to the truth, and I explain their relevance to the subject at hand as needed.

 

[Non sequitur]

No more than say, quoting a history book or a newspaper. When I give people verses, I do it to point them to the truth, and I explain their relevance to the subject at hand as needed.

But you are referencing something that carries and holds no weight to the non-believer.

It seems rather pointless, to do so...

 

[LOCO]

I find it rather self-serving when people use Bible verses to explain things non-believers ask.

Since it has been pretty much established that people can interpret it however they want and/or in many a number of ways, that would mean that there could, equally, be any number of other possible interpretations... which could only establish that it is the "idea behind it" that is true, but the interpretations could be wrong.


However, since you can only first start with with the subjectivity of interpretation to determine the objectivity of the material, wouldn't that mean your objectivity would always skewed?

So logistically, you would arrive nowhere else.


You wouldn't quote Bible verses, if you didn't already believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas".

You wouldn't believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas", if you didn't already believe in the Bible.


So, to me, doesn't it seems useless to use them as "truthful nuggets of knowledge" to other people, outside your ideology?

Nodding head in agreement...couldn't find the icon for it. This is where Catholics depart from other Christians. We don't believe in Sola Scriptura or personal interpretation of the Bible as Jesus did not leave a book, he left a Church, the Holy Spirit and his Teachings which were orally transmitted via the Disciples who interpreted verses, decided on doctrine guided by the Holy Spirit and then taught the masses.

The interpretation of Bible verses and all doctrines of the CC is formulated by the Magisterium which includes the Pope and is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is then taught to the masses via the Catechism.

Agree about Bible verse quoting. I don't find it effective especially if talking to non-believers. I find talking about Jesus the man to be more effective, they can relate to that on a human level and of course actions always speak louder than words.

How will death by Bible verses convince atheists if they don't believe a God exists?

I firmly believe trying to convert atheists is a waste of time. They usually convert during a time of personal crisis or dealing with human suffering on a daily basis such as Francis Collins (scientist working on Human Genome Project and recently appointed by the Pope to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences).

'During a debate with Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical aspects favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe.

Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion."

 

[Non sequitur]

Nodding head in agreement...couldn't find the icon for it. This is where Catholics depart from other Christians. We don't believe in Sola Scriptura or personal interpretation of the Bible as Jesus did not leave a book, he left a Church, the Holy Spirit and his Teachings which were orally transmitted via the Disciples who interpreted verses, decided on doctrine guided by the Holy Spirit and then taught the masses.

The interpretation of Bible verses and all doctrines of the CC is formulated by the Magisterium which includes the Pope and is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is then taught to the masses via the Catechism.

Agree about Bible verse quoting. I don't find it effective especially if talking to non-believers. I find talking about Jesus the man to be more effective, they can relate to that on a human level and of course actions always speak louder than words.

How will death by Bible verses convince atheists if they don't believe a God exists?

I firmly believe trying to convert atheists is a waste of time. They usually convert during a time of personal crisis or dealing with human suffering on a daily basis such as Francis Collins (scientist working on Human Genome Project and recently appointed by the Pope to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences).

'During a debate with Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical aspects favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe.

Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion."

I hope I meet more Christians like you


I never heard him say that there is no possibility of a god or gods. I mean, there is always the possibility.

It has always been my impression that when Dawkins makes those statements, he is talking with the assumption on the Christian God as the "only logical choice."

 

[Sketcher]

But you are referencing something that carries and holds no weight to the non-believer.

It seems rather pointless, to do so...

All I can do is point them to the truth, let them know what Christianity really says. They can either accept it or not. It's not as though I'm some salesman and I need to fudge a little here or a little there to close the deal. If they're going to convert, they deserve to know what they're getting themselves into, and if they're going to reject it, they ought to know what they're rejecting. As a Christian, I believe the Holy Spirit is at work in every conversion, and so I leave the heavy lifting of actual convincing and conversion to him.

 

[LOCO]

I hope I meet more Christians like you


I never heard him say that there is no possibility of a god or gods. I mean, there is always the possibility.

It has always been my impression that when Dawkins makes those statements, he is talking with the assumption on the Christian God as the "only logical choice."

Thank you

If you are saying the possibility of God exists, then maybe you are not an atheist/humanist. Are you still searching? Maybe you are an agnostic.

Yes, Dawkins constantly refers to the Christian God. I find him quite targeted in his arguments. I don't think I have ever heard Dawkins refer to a Muslim, Jewish or any other religious God or Gods.

 

[razeontherock]

only establish that it is the "idea behind it" that is true, but the interpretations could be wrong.

This is EXACTLY why Biblical explanations are used! So you don't rely on anyone's interpretation, but come into contact with the "idea behind it" for yourself.

 

[LOCO]

This is EXACTLY why Biblical explanations are used! So you don't rely on anyone's interpretation, but come into contact with the "idea behind it" for yourself.

You are treading on thin theological ground. How then do you know whose interpretation of a verse is correct if all of you are supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit.

No Christian should decide doctrine for themselves.

That is exactly why the Bible warns us of false doctrine.

The Holy Spirit can never be the author of confusion or chaos

 

[joey_downunder]

OK, this time I will answer each major point.... can I use the excuse that I had my attention interrupted by my kids? (yes another question )

Since it has been pretty much established that people can interpret it however they want and/or in many a number of ways....

Just because that is a common strategy used by many christians, that does not mean that is a correct one. That is why when I quote scripture I show the whole verse/paragraph to make sure that someone reading cannot dismiss my entry as being my own opinion.

that would mean that there could, equally, be any number of other possible interpretations...

Yes there could be an infinite number of interpretations... that does not mean they are all equally valid. Do facts support their position? Is the person well-informed about what they are talking (or typing) about?

..which could only establish that it is the "idea behind it" that is true, but the interpretations could be wrong.

Yes people can interpret things incorrectly, again that is why I quote scripture fully in context. I also sometimes give links to biblical scholars who can show why prophets/apostles said what they did in a particular time period. That way they can see what the Bible says for themselves and (again) see it is not merely my own opinion.

However, since you can only first start with with the subjectivity of interpretation to determine the objectivity of the material, wouldn't that mean your objectivity would always skewed?

Generally I try not to start with the subjectivity of my opinion. I show what the Bible says (again in context) to show why I have formed a particular opinion.

You wouldn't quote Bible verses, if you didn't already believe it as a viable source for quoting "ideas"....

Yes that's right. I have not seen any outsider (i.e. non-christian) evidence that has disproved the Bible at all and I have read and listened to a lot from both sides. For example, just the other week I watched some of a National Geographic so-called documentary that could only back up some of its claims by deliberately misquoting and leaving out neighbouring verses in the Book of Genesis. When I showed my atheist husband the section they had distorted, even he admitted that he could see what they had done and was then willing to read quite a few chapters surrounding that area for himself! I never thought I'd see that... I almost felt in shock for a while.

So, to me, doesn't it seems useless to use them as "truthful nuggets of knowledge" to other people, outside your ideology.

That is your own opinion and you are entitled to it. However as a christian of course I completely disagree with you.

You still didn't answer my questions that I suppose were addressed more to your feeling side (which is my default position). Do you personally find Bible verses being quoted offensive 1 corinthians 1:18-24, or have you found that some christians try and avoid answering your questions in more depth by quoting verses at you not for you?