Superiority Complex.

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What do you think of the following statement. It is a quote from a blog where they are discussing whether or not people should quote scripture in a moral debate. One person said that Christians shouldn't quote scripture when debating with non-Christians because it would be no different than quoting Dr.Seuss. Then someone agrees and says this:


"Plus the unbeliever can't understand the Scripture like the believer does since the unbeliever does not have the Spirit of God to illumine him."

This kind of sentence is common in Christian philosophy. I find it makes any unbeliever automatically inferior. It irritates me.

What do people think of the comment and what do people think of using scripture in moral debate?

(If you want to see the whole discussion here's the link: http://www.revelife.com/722660966/in-moral-debate-should-we-quote-scripture/)

 

[scraparcs]

What do you think of the following statement. It is a quote from a blog where they are discussing whether or not people should quote scripture in a moral debate. One person said that Christians shouldn't quote scripture when debating with non-Christians because it would be no different than quoting Dr.Seuss. Then someone agrees and says this:


"Plus the unbeliever can't understand the Scripture like the believer does since the unbeliever does not have the Spirit of God to illumine him."

This kind of sentence is common in Christian philosophy. I find it makes any unbeliever automatically inferior. It irritates me.

What do people think of the comment and what do people think of using scripture in moral debate?

(If you want to see the whole discussion here's the link: http://www.revelife.com/722660966/in-moral-debate-should-we-quote-scripture/)

I think a moral debate using only Dr. Seuss would be interesting.

 

[razeontherock]

I think a moral debate using only Dr. Seuss would be interesting.

That's great! Question back for the OP: I see your Christian icon; do you not feel you have the Spirit of Truth leading and guiding you in all things, especially His Holy word? If you do, why would you be "irritated" at the contents of your OP?

Myself, a very long time ago when I was a new Christian (I think dinosaurs had almost stopped roaming the Earth by then) I couldn't say anything w/o having a direct quote. Now, I try to never use a direct quote unless I either know I'm conversing w/ a believer, or I have some reason to expect the individual will recognize it and show some respect for what it is. Otherwise, I feel like I'm using His Name in vain. But a big part of that is now I know it well enough to be conversant in it, which takes a lot more than verbatim recitation.

However, I would not, could not with a goat.

 

[ephraimanesti]

What do you think of the following statement. It is a quote from a blog where they are discussing whether or not people should quote scripture in a moral debate. One person said that Christians shouldn't quote scripture when debating with non-Christians because it would be no different than quoting Dr.Seuss. Then someone agrees and says this:

"Plus the unbeliever can't understand the Scripture like the believer does since the unbeliever does not have the Spirit of God to illumine him."

This kind of sentence is common in Christian philosophy. I find it makes any unbeliever automatically inferior. It irritates me.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

It really has nothing to do with "inferiority" or "superiority." What you describe is similar to someone handing me a book written in Russian and i speak/read only English. i'm not "inferior" because i can't read the book, i just lack the capability to understand the language.

Same with an unbeliever and the Bible. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and can only be fully understood under the same inspiration.

Personally, however, i believe that an unbeliever can, even with his/her unspiritual mind, understand enough of the meaning of Scriptures to attain salvation if they so choose--i.e., if the are honestly seeking the Truth. At least it worked for me.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[xDenax]

"Plus the unbeliever can't understand the Scripture like the believer does since the unbeliever does not have the Spirit of God to illumine him."

I find it irritating. It effectively ends the conversation because I cannot compete with their belief that they posses a supernatural power that I do not have.

 

[razeontherock]

A little Freudian slip showing there?

EDIT: drat - now my post makes no sense

 

[xDenax]

hehe...

a few minutes ago I wrote "passion" instead of accomplish..or something totally ridiculous like that. i've lost my marbles.

 

[razeontherock]

It's that mood thing. Ah, to be young again ... (LOL)

 

[Glass*Soul]

Someone claiming that they have the Holy Spirit does nothing to convince me that they know the scriptures better than I do or that they understand them more fully.
I do, on the other hand, respect good scholarship and have been shut up more than once in debate by someone who clearly demonstrated a superior mastery of the material. I have noticed that those who are able to do so rarely brag about it.

I don't mind Christians quoting scripture in debate. It helps me see your work. I don't particularly enjoy Prooftexting, particularly when a string of verses has been pulled from various sources and presented as if they provide a coherent argument, but quoting something apropos and doing a good exegesis is fine with me.

It also sort of irks me when I quote scripture and am told I have no right to because I am a non-Christian.

 

[Glass*Soul]

MY DEAR FRIEND,

It really has nothing to do with "inferiority" or "superiority." What you describe is similar to someone handing me a book written in Russian and i speak/read only English. i'm not "inferior" because i can't read the book, i just lack the capability to understand the language.

Same with an unbeliever and the Bible. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and can only be fully understood under the same inspiration.

Personally, however, i believe that an unbeliever can, even with his/her unspiritual mind, understand enough of the meaning of Scriptures to attain salvation if they so choose--i.e., if the are honestly seeking the Truth. At least it worked for me.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

I suppose I would be more apt to believe this claim if those who supposed themselves to have the Holy Spirit were more prone to demonstrate a preternatural clarity regarding the scriptures, but I so often find them saying rather banal and mean things and disagreeing with one another.

I am not saying this of you in particular. I enjoy your posts and feel you and I have had some good discussions.

I'm just not falling, trembling to my knees at anyone's insight though.

 

[razeontherock]

It also sort of irks me when I quote scripture and am told I have no right to because I am a non-Christian.

The main thing to watch out for there, is there's a difference between the carnal mind and the Spiritual. I have no idea how to differentiate between the 2 w/o knowing the author personally. Many a so-called Bible "scholar" doesn't either, and it's perfectly obvious. Where this trips people up mostly, is comparing Spiritual things (or meaning) to natural. Sometimes that just does not work. (Other times the 2 are inseparable) Yet many people claiming the "C" label do that horrifically, so I don't put much stock in labels. It's also true that crazy wards have a lot of people than can quote Scripture very well.

Unbelievers that claim they "can't understand the Bible?" I think that's just a cop-out, but a good translation helps a lot. I'd much rather converse with an unbeliever that at least makes an honest go of it. A BIG problem across the board and again independent of labels, is 2 people can be saying essentially the same thing, and because they don't realize it they argue senselessly.

Or they each see substantially different meanings both of which are valid, but want to pretend the other's perspective for some reason has no validity. I bet lots of people have died over such pettiness. Personally, given that the author is an infinite being, I see no reason to claim there's only one possible meaning to any set of words in the Bible. It makes far more sense to claim infinite meaning.

And the real catch 22? The best way to increase understanding is to approach it with humility.

 

[morningstar2651]

Didn't Paul say something about ministering to people in their own language?

I don't speak Evangelese, so it's a good idea to translate your messages so I can understand them.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The main thing to watch out for there, is there's a difference between the carnal mind and the Spiritual. I have no idea how to differentiate between the 2 w/o knowing the author personally. Many a so-called Bible "scholar" doesn't either, and it's perfectly obvious. Where this trips people up mostly, is comparing Spiritual things (or meaning) to natural. Sometimes that just does not work. (Other times the 2 are inseparable) Yet many people claiming the "C" label do that horrifically, so I don't put much stock in labels. It's also true that crazy wards have a lot of people than can quote Scripture very well.

Unbelievers that claim they "can't understand the Bible?" I think that's just a cop-out, but a good translation helps a lot. I'd much rather converse with an unbeliever that at least makes an honest go of it. A BIG problem across the board and again independent of labels, is 2 people can be saying essentially the same thing, and because they don't realize it they argue senselessly.

Or they each see substantially different meanings both of which are valid, but want to pretend the other's perspective for some reason has no validity. I bet lots of people have died over such pettiness. Personally, given that the author is an infinite being, I see no reason to claim there's only one possible meaning to any set of words in the Bible. It makes far more sense to claim infinite meaning.

And the real catch 22? The best way to increase understanding is to approach it with humility.

I have essentially been told on this site today that my role is to wait quietly to be asked questions.

I am also regularly told that it is laughable when I quote scripture. Apparently it is pitifully amusing that I, who cannot comprehend its meaning would presume to hold it up to examination. How can I? I don't have the Holy Spirit. If I did I would understand that the insults the Good Christians of the world are casting my way are entirely justified and that they themselves are justified beings.

They are possessors of pearls and I am swine. I get that one a lot.

You seem like a reasonable person, but I am very tired.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I do find it quite odd that many Christians would say that I can't understand scripture now, when if they'd met me 5 years ago they would have said I could. I still have the same interpretation then as I do now, but it's somehow now magically less valid.

What also amuses me is that many of these Christians who say that non-Christians cannot understand the Bible then go on to criticise the Qur'an and various other religious texts. I guess either they can't cope with debate or they haven't spotted the hypocrisy yet.

 

[JasperJackson]

I don't know if it's because I'm NOT a walking Bible or if it's actually a good idea but I find that paraphrasing (or translating) scripture to be quite effective.

 

[Delphiki]

"When I read this book, I can understand it and you can't because I posses magical powers as a result of reading this book and you don't. You need these magical powers to understand the book, and the only way to get these magical powers is to read it."

"Uh, yeah. I don't think I need a rebuttal, Mr. Moderator."

 

[hikersong]

"When I read this book, I can understand it and you can't because I posses magical powers as a result of reading this book and you don't. You need these magical powers to understand the book, and the only way to get these magical powers is to read it."

"Uh, yeah. I don't think I need a rebuttal, Mr. Moderator."

But the bottom line is that you don't really want to understand it Delphiki. Haven't you grasped that yet. What you really want is to go to Hell and be tortured for ever (demonstrated by the fact that you haven't accepted the Truth), and by making this so, God is demonstrating how much he loves you. It's quite simple.

And, for the record, this sarcastic attitude I am exhibiting is evidence that I am a child of Satan, rather than someone who is desperately trying to find a way of demonstrating that the idea of a God who punishes far in excess of any crime is erroneous, dangerous, and in opposition to Love. For those who have ears to hear, it is not too late to repent of this un-Christlike attitude. Even to do so on your death bed, would be better than not doing so at all.

And for the further record this post is a promotion of the Value Of Not Torturing People Who Don't Believe In You religion which I strongly believe is something that the whole world should follow. I accept, with sadness, that this is against CF policy. Sometimes you just got to speak out.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Actually, I find that some of the worst interpretations of Scripture come from Christians who have NO grounding whatsoever in history, cultural studies or scriptural exegesis whatsoever, yet feel that having been "born again from above" somehow turns them into uber-scholars by default.
The theological stances they take are usually akin to what we find in that "Jesus loves you"-thread. It gets worse when they belong to the "King James only"-crowd, while simultaneously reading Early Modern English as if the language hadn't changed at all between the 17th and 21st century.

Most theology students I've met so far, on the other hand, have always been quite engaging discussion partners, on account of being supplied with sufficient background knowledge to *really* make sense of the texts.

 

[razeontherock]

the Value Of Not Torturing People Who Don't Believe In You religion

You realize all this really says is to stop the barbaric practices of the dark ages?
Seems those stopped, some time back.

This is rather different than the way you presented it. Just sayin'

 

[ephraimanesti]

You realize all this really says is to stop the barbaric practices of the dark ages?
Seems those stopped, some time back.

This is rather different than the way you presented it. Just sayin'

WAY DIFFERENT, actually!

"Those who suggest that religion is the primary source of human conflict and bloodshed are not looking closely enough. If we examine the history of violence in modern times we will often find rationales rooted in science.

"We need a wall of separation between science and morality every bit as much as we need one between church and state."

--from IN DEFENSE OF FAITH by David Brog​