Quoting biblical passages instead of original thought

[Skellybones]

Just a thought.

Why do so many christians have the need to toss in bible verses whenever they feel they can't debate intelligently? This is not always the case, I know, but in many verbal skirmishes it is.

I'm asking why use a book to support you when those you are attempting to minister to do not even believe the text in the first place?

Keep in mind that I'm against quoting passages, but rather questioning the logic of it.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense... but that's their religious holy text and they feel that it contains the answers that we all need.... so... it's a difference in viewpoints mainly

 

[Isaiah 53]

The bible teaches us that God's word will never come back void. Why should I express my own human, flawed opinion when I can express the truth of God's word.

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

 

[Lyle]

I'm asking why use a book to support you when those you are attempting to minister to do not even believe the text in the first place?

The word of God is sharp and powerful, somewhat like a timebomb.... On the grounds of debating religion, we back the claims of what we believe by using the Bible.. Other would back what they believe with using various writings of teachers and philosophers...
The question is, why not? The Bible has yet to be proven false, so why not believe it?

 

[peaceful soul]

Just a thought.

Why do so many christians have the need to toss in bible verses whenever they feel they can't debate intelligently? This is not always the case, I know, but in many verbal skirmishes it is.

I'm asking why use a book to support you when those you are attempting to minister to do not even believe the text in the first place?

Keep in mind that I'm against quoting passages, but rather questioning the logic of it.

If they are using scripture as a crutch, that is a bad thing; otherwise, it makes perfect sense. Christians are not to park their brains and not be smart and wise. We are to support our stand just like you would support yours. Not only do we have the scriptures, but we have a life of fulfilled promises from scriputures to back it up. That gives us authority to quote. For those who don't involve themselves with Bible, you may have a valid point.

 

[Monk Rock]

i think that the main issue is where we place authority for the "ultimate ground of truth"... it was the project of the enlightment christians to rationally defend their faith, so they looked around, saw their scriptures, pointed to it and said, "there, let's make that be the ultimate ground for truth". it has been the curse of christianity since then to try to show how the bible is the ultimate ground of truth: either through the infallible-inerrant route or otherwise...

the bible was written by numerous authors, in many different regions, for many different reasons. not all were meant to be literal and historical. there are books that aren't included in the bible for reasons of church politics...

truth seems to emerge within communities through their internal conversation with themselves (was that redundant? sorry) ... that as we talk about what we believe to be truth with those around us, those ideas interact with the standard of truth in our community... we challenge and converse with each other, and a general truth emerges... when someone new comes along and has some new ideas to offer, those add to the truth, and the truth (or their understanding of the truth) consequently "changes". this is the story of the various saints and sages who have come along to add to or better explain the truth to their community. i'm not saying that truth is relative. i'm saying that our understanding of the truth is relative. i believe that there is an ultimate truth, but that we each have our own relative way of approaching it.

that's what we have in the bible, the ideas that those communities believed about themselves and others. tradition has carried that down to us and influenced the way we do life...


the problem i think is that people approach each other with different understandings of truth and how it exists. since there are those who believe that the bible is the revealed and literal word of god, that for them constitutes the standard of truth.

true conversation exists when others are sensitive to the beliefs of others and are geniunely involved in communicating their ideas and learning from others....

sorry so long. did that make any sense?

 

[Shekinahs]

Because it's a shield. If a Christian knows scripture they will NEVER have to quote it to a non Christian to discuss the ideas of scripture. If you know a subject you can talk and teach it and not have to quote external sources all the time. They do not get it that people who are not Christians do not see the scriptures the same way as we as Christians do. I love scripture but quoting it all the time says to me that I do not know it. I should be able to explain John 3:16 without ever having to quote it. Any real Christian should. They have this notion that nothing can convey the meaning of a scripture better than the scripture itself. And if you are talking to other Christians that may be true. But if you are talking to non Christians it's pointless and weak. Especially if they have no interest in the scriptures to begin with.

Just a thought.

Why do so many christians have the need to toss in bible verses whenever they feel they can't debate intelligently? This is not always the case, I know, but in many verbal skirmishes it is.

I'm asking why use a book to support you when those you are attempting to minister to do not even believe the text in the first place?

Keep in mind that I'm against quoting passages, but rather questioning the logic of it.

 

[Shekinahs]

The bible teaches us that God's word will never come back void. Why should I express my own human, flawed opinion when I can express the truth of God's word.

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

Right God's word will never come back void. But just because you put it in print does not mean it has "gone forth". You just put it into print that's all. You have done nothing any different than the millions of Bible on bookstore shelves. I mean what did you actually do to send forth the heart of God's word. Type it???

 

[Isaiah 53]

Right God's word will never come back void. But just because you put it in print does not mean it has "gone forth". You just put it into print that's all. You have done nothing any different than the millions of Bible on bookstore shelves. I mean what did you actually do to send forth the heart of God's word. Type it???

I type it, you read it....forward it goes...

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

 

[Skellybones]

i think that the main issue is where we place authority for the "ultimate ground of truth"... it was the project of the enlightment christians to rationally defend their faith, so they looked around, saw their scriptures, pointed to it and said, "there, let's make that be the ultimate ground for truth". it has been the curse of christianity since then to try to show how the bible is the ultimate ground of truth: either through the infallible-inerrant route or otherwise...

the bible was written by numerous authors, in many different regions, for many different reasons. not all were meant to be literal and historical. there are books that aren't included in the bible for reasons of church politics...

truth seems to emerge within communities through their internal conversation with themselves (was that redundant? sorry) ... that as we talk about what we believe to be truth with those around us, those ideas interact with the standard of truth in our community... we challenge and converse with each other, and a general truth emerges... when someone new comes along and has some new ideas to offer, those add to the truth, and the truth (or their understanding of the truth) consequently "changes". this is the story of the various saints and sages who have come along to add to or better explain the truth to their community. i'm not saying that truth is relative. i'm saying that our understanding of the truth is relative. i believe that there is an ultimate truth, but that we each have our own relative way of approaching it.

that's what we have in the bible, the ideas that those communities believed about themselves and others. tradition has carried that down to us and influenced the way we do life...


the problem i think is that people approach each other with different understandings of truth and how it exists. since there are those who believe that the bible is the revealed and literal word of god, that for them constitutes the standard of truth.

true conversation exists when others are sensitive to the beliefs of others and are geniunely involved in communicating their ideas and learning from others....

sorry so long. did that make any sense?

Totally clear, I'm refering to the wack-jobs that explode anytime someone expresses a different opinion contradicting their religious beliefs. Following this explosion, the wack-job spouts out biblical passages as if he/she were so miffed that they couldn't think of a reasonable response...I'm just curious if this really is the case...
However, when discussing (not debating, mind you) religion/philosophy with others I expect quotes...

 

[-Anonymous-]

I type it, you read it!..

Well, I don't. I never read Scriptures when they are quoted in debate; I just skip right over it. IMO, that is the lowest form of argument possible, and I won't waste my time reading it.

 

[EviStar]

Well, I don't. I never read Scriptures when they are quoted in debate; I just skip right over it. IMO, that is the lowest form of argument possible, and I won't waste my time reading it.

Yep that's usually what I do too. I'd rather hear someone speak from their own mind and knowledge then just quoting the Bible all the time. I hardly ever hear Satanists or Buddhists quote their "bible" or "book".

 

[Fiendishjester]

I usually don't ignore scripture in a debate, but at the same time I don't give it much weight. Scripture isn't the lowest form of argument, because it's not an argument at all. It is what the other side of the debate believes is absolute Truth in verbal form, regardless of how illogical it may be. For me, if the Bible says, "Homosexuality is an abomination" without any supporting reasons, it holds no weight. If God can make logical arguments with support, than he should have put some in the Bible to back up what he said. When you quote scripture, especially in English, are you really quoting the Word? Or are you quoting the many-times retranslated, edited, changed, Word?

 

[Spaise]

I usually don't ignore scripture in a debate, but at the same time I don't give it much weight. Scripture isn't the lowest form of argument, because it's not an argument at all. It is what the other side of the debate believes is absolute Truth in verbal form, regardless of how illogical it may be. For me, if the Bible says, "Homosexuality is an abomination" without any supporting reasons, it holds no weight. If God can make logical arguments with support, than he should have put some in the Bible to back up what he said. When you quote scripture, especially in English, are you really quoting the Word? Or are you quoting the many-times retranslated, edited, changed, Word?

That makes so much sense. God really should added some logical reasoning behind these laws. I feel if it was truly written by God she would have.

It's like asking for something and the answers "No", just no. Thats it, no. Not no...because, but, no.

Now i know the counter arguement, 'God doesn't need an explanation'.

God can see everything, she should seen that a few of us aren't drones that follow everything we're told. Some of us need a little more. Believe me if i had some logical reasoning i would definitely accept.

 

[Amandine]

God can see everything, she should seen that a few of us aren't drones that follow everything we're told. Some of us need a little more. Believe me if i had some logical reasoning i would definitely accept.

That's why we were given apostolic sucession..the gift of the holy spirit to help the church give guidelines for the faithful (after all, who made up the bible?). Of course, you'd have to accept that on faith too, but after one does that it gets quite a bit better. ROFL
-Catherine

 

[Debi1967]

Personally my view point on this is short and sweet...
Why would I quote scripture to a nonbeliever? That seems useless to me.... and I was given the scriptures to learn so that I could then pass on the knowledge of them. Witnessing or preaching does not always have to be done with scripture.

Now have I used the scriptures when I and another started debating about bible pessages? Yes, but even then I try to limit the context I use it in. If the person sees my point of view then more often then not they will ask me.... then I will quote some scripture and give commentary with it so that they understand.

 

[dlamberth]

Just a thought.

Why do so many christians have the need to toss in bible verses whenever they feel they can't debate intelligently? This is not always the case, I know, but in many verbal skirmishes it is.

A Lover of God who has acquired true spiritual knowledge can be sensed by their being able to share their knowledge with out having to resort to Biblical passages to prove their point. That's not saying that they won't highlight their point with Biblical text. But there's a whole lot difference between highlighting a point and needing to prove a point with Scripture. Guess I better add, IMHO.

..

 

[Isaiah 53]

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:18)

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

 

[Skellybones]

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:18)

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

Well, when there's nothing we can say to really explain ourselves or clarify anything, let's use scripture!

BTW: that scripture actually proves my point: why use biblical scripture if it means nothing to the person you are speaking to? Because you believe it to be true? Right...

 

[Isaiah 53]

Well, when there's nothing we can say to really explain ourselves or clarify anything, let's use scripture!

BTW: that scripture actually proves my point: why use biblical scripture if it means nothing to the person you are speaking to? Because you believe it to be true? Right...

For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD ; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water. (Isaiah 32:6)


That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

PEACE IN CHRIST!!