Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So shouldn't the child be punished for something it wasn't responsible for?

How do you know that the process is punishment but rather a means to an end… a good end.  How many times is that repeated in the Bible.

[Edgarcito]

Let’s go ahead with the exercise.  Join in if you feel moved.  The facts are these.  He is homeless.  He’s drinks alcohol daily.  He has no job and spends the better part of each day under a highway overpass.   It’s 72 degrees F outside.  He has a dog that follows him.  His hair is turning gray.  Submit a description of his morals, potential faith, and how he came into these conditions… without messaging each other.  Then we will compare answers.  Thx

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I suppose that depends on the definition of getting anywhere, DB.

 

I reckon that I'll get nowhere when it comes to actually persuading Ed of anything in this thread.

 

But his responses do get the forum 'somewhere' because other members and the lurkers can see his antics and take note of them.

 

I submit that threads like these are therefore useful and fall in line with the purposes of the forum.

 

But, if the Prof thinks otherwise, I'll yield.

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

Dave needs the traffic and it’s therapy for me as well.  Take a chill pill and just enjoy the discussion.  Hopefully you’ve made your peace with your decision about Christianity.  Either you are comfortable with that or not.  If you aren’t, then taking your thoughts and pain out on an old guy that likes the exercise is good for clarity.   The older ExC members here don’t care about arguing anymore w me.  Maybe it just takes time.  Bad news though is you can’t crucify Christ again.  That’s rather scary to me, the outcome. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Eh.... i dunno really. I've met a few homeless people. I've seen one lady several times. One time begging beside walmart, the next she had thrown up after drinking to much alcohol and eating. The next in my favorite liquor store pulling change out of her pockets to buy whatever she could afford. Sounds somewhat like the same person. Except a woman. 

 

I wouldn't assume their morals were bad if that's what your going for. I did at first. Ill be honest. But now I know more. I think a little differently now. Anyone and everyone is a stones throw away from a like situation. Because let's face it. We don't have an all loving God to keep us from living under a bridge. Not being Christian has helped me understand this. 

 

I would wager she made some mistakes like all of us. Or she just had a run of bad luck. Maybe she was beaten, maybe she was molested. Maybe she has ghosts that no one would ever want to know. As far as morals. I imagine most are good people with bad luck. I don't know. Last I saw her I wanted to give the guy at the liquor store 20 dollars so she could get a halfway decent bottle of whiskey if she wanted. I know all to well the need to forget about your troubles from time to time. 

 

I saw one homeless guy that was young and had a dog. I thought he was cool as shit. I gave him pizza. Sure I think he should have had a job. But he seemed like a good guy. 

 

Drawing from my past experiences this is my answer:

 

I'm going to say he is good and for the most part, good morals. Maybe bad work ethic.

 

His faith. I dunno. Probably Christian because he may be hoping God will save him. Their are a lot of ministries that cater to the homeless. Maybe thats his only ray of hope to get out of this situation. 

 

But according to how bad his situation was. If he does believe in God. He might hate him. 

 

As far as how he came into these conditions?  He was raised in a group home because his home life was bad. Parents on drugs. But the group home did their best to raise him. He was troubled and unruly at times because he never trusted his foster parents. He had been molested twice by two foster parents. So he would rather be in a group home. It seemed safer. But because of his past troubles he gets in trouble at school frequently. He ages out at the home at 18 but he's still in high-school. He decided to quit. Did a number of part time jobs but because of his emotuonal damage he liked to drink. This eventually led to other addictions. He wasn't a reliable employee so he kept getting fired. Now no one will hire him. His work record is to checkered and his run ins with the law are in his background checks. So he is now homeless and depends on the local thrift store ministry to house him when needed. 

 

 

Is this good enough? 

 

DB

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I've thought that so many times since my deconversion. I almost want to slap myself sometimes. How could I not have seen these issues. 

 

But when your in the faith I guess the last thing you want to do is question your Gods actions. 

 

Maybe that is whats going on with Ed. He could be fearful to even question those actions because after all he does have all power and authority. I think he sees the reasoning. But he can't completely let go of God. He's almost there. He just can't take that last step. 

 

DB

Ok well try to walk through the fear while still a Christian of actually having the gonads to ask the hard questions and the faith required to do so. 
 

Do you know how many times I’ve walked into these questions only to have an answer given to me over and over and over.  It doesn’t even give me much pause anymore, but makes my faith that much stronger.  Im not almost there anything. I just happen to have a dad as an analytical chemist and I’ve had a good bit of experience running analytical instruments… hence allowing a mental comparison to the Bible.  The truly amazing thing is that all the  resident intellectuals here know the correct position is at least agnosticism yet plow on with conclusions with limited data.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Eh.... i dunno really. I've met a few homeless people. I've seen one lady several times. One time begging beside walmart, the next she had thrown up after drinking to much alcohol and eating. The next in my favorite liquor store pulling change out of her pockets to buy whatever she could afford. Sounds somewhat like the same person. Except a woman. 

 

I wouldn't assume their morals were bad if that's what your going for. I did at first. Ill be honest. But now I know more. I think a little differently now. Anyone and everyone is a stones throw away from a like situation. Because let's face it. We don't have an all loving God to keep us from living under a bridge. Not being Christian has helped me understand this. 

 

I would wager she made some mistakes like all of us. Or she just had a run of bad luck. Maybe she was beaten, maybe she was molested. Maybe she has ghosts that no one would ever want to know. As far as morals. I imagine most are good people with bad luck. I don't know. Last I saw her I wanted to give the guy at the liquor store 20 dollars so she could get a halfway decent bottle of whiskey if she wanted. I know all to well the need to forget about your troubles from time to time. 

 

I saw one homeless guy that was young and had a dog. I thought he was cool as shit. I gave him pizza. Sure I think he should have had a job. But he seemed like a good guy. 

 

Drawing from my past experiences this is my answer:

 

I'm going to say he is good and for the most part, good morals. Maybe bad work ethic.

 

His faith. I dunno. Probably Christian because he may be hoping God will save him. Their are a lot of ministries that cater to the homeless. Maybe thats his only ray of hope to get out of this situation. 

 

But according to how bad his situation was. If he does believe in God. He might hate him. 

 

As far as how he came into these conditions?  He was raised in a group home because his home life was bad. Parents on drugs. But the group home did their best to raise him. He was troubled and unruly at times because he never trusted his foster parents. He had been molested twice by two foster parents. So he would rather be in a group home. It seemed safer. But because of his past troubles he gets in trouble at school frequently. He ages out at the home at 18 but he's still in high-school. He decided to quit. Did a number of part time jobs but because of his emotuonal damage he liked to drink. This eventually led to other addictions. He wasn't a reliable employee so he kept getting fired. Now no one will hire him. His work record is to checkered and his run ins with the law are in his background checks. So he is now homeless and depends on the local thrift store ministry to house him when needed. 

 

 

Is this good enough? 

 

DB

 

Certainly, thx.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Ok well try to walk through the fear while still a Christian of actually having the gonads to ask the hard questions and the faith required to do so. 
 

Do you know how many times I’ve walked into these questions only to have an answer given to me over and over and over.  It doesn’t even give me much pause anymore, but makes my faith that much stronger.  Im not almost there anything. I just happen to have a dad as an analytical chemist and I’ve had a good bit of experience running analytical instruments… hence allowing a mental comparison to the Bible.  The truly amazing thing is that all the  resident intellectuals here know the correct position is at least agnosticism yet plow on with conclusions with limited data.

I'm agnostic or as I prefer now. Non-theist. I just realize all of earths descriptions of what God is are false and just humanities best guesses thousands of years ago. 

 

Now we know more. And odds are that there is no God. But certainly if there is a God they don't really affect our lives positively or negatively. We would be more like the fish in their aquarium than cherished children. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

Just to add DB.  I’ve tried once or twice to return to the evangelical, fundamental church…. “Sunday school “. And when you interject any of these type discussions into the fundamental mix, they are not welcome.  It’s very difficult to return.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

42 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Just to add DB.  I’ve tried once or twice to return to the evangelical, fundamental church…. “Sunday school “. And when you interject any of these type discussions into the fundamental mix, they are not welcome.  It’s very difficult to return.

 

Thats understandable. I imagine a lot of it feels like a threat to faith. I mean ya gotta admit. It is the logical and most reasonable conclusion. 

[mwc]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is covered here, mwc.    https://iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/ 

 

Moral evil. This is evil that results from the misuse of free will on the part of some moral agent in such a way that the agent thereby becomes morally blameworthy for the resultant evil. Moral evil therefore includes specific acts of intentional wrongdoing such as lying and murdering, as well as defects in character such as dishonesty and greed.

 

Natural evil. In contrast to moral evil, natural evil is evil that results from the operation of natural processes, in which case no human being can be held morally accountable for the resultant evil. Classic examples of natural evil are natural disasters such as cyclones and earthquakes that result in enormous suffering and loss of life, illnesses such as leukemia and Alzheimer’s, and disabilities such as blindness and deafness.

 

What you seem to be describing is natural evil.

     I'd normally be inclined to agree with you on this (especially since you're citing from a source I provided  ) but the reason I brought it up here was because Adam seems to be a special case.  At this point in time, when god is supposedly quite literally present on Earth, what is the separation between all of these things?  God and nature seem very intertwined as well as god and morality for that matter.

 

     To paraphrase a natural evil is one that no human can be held morally accountable.  There's just a single human at this point.  So just Adam and then there's god.  From Adam's point of view god is the one responsible for creating things.  This is clear from Genesis 2:19a "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them" except the NIV is a mistranslation which hides the truth from us (in bold) and tries to preserve the creation order laid out in Genesis 1 (avoiding a contradiction).

 

     From "Genesis 1-11 : a handbook on the Hebrew text" by Barry Bandstra:

"19 And YHVH deity formed from the ground all of the living kind of the
field and all of the fowl of the heavens. And he brought to the human to
see what he will call it. And all which the human will call a living being,
that is its name"
 

     We can see that the Hebrew says that it was at this point in time, not before, that all these creatures were formed and then presented to Adam as potential mates.  This tells us that Adam was totally alone in this version except for god.  Then god creates to help rectify the situation. 

 

     Going a few verses back we see this:

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

The natural condition doesn't seem to apply here.  If something happens to or for Adam god is always involved.  God places Adam in the garden.  God makes the trees grow *after* Adam is placed there.  God creates other creatures, including Eve, *after* Adam is in the garden.  So from the very start of Adam's existence it is god that does all things including what we'd call the natural.  He is a direct witness for all these things.  If he were to become injured would he consider it to be something other than god?

 

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

But the apostle Paul says that death came into the world through the actions of one man, Adam.  So, it looks as if scripture is telling us that both natural and moral evil didn't exist before the Fall.

 

Romans 8 : 20 & 21.

 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

Romans 5 : 12 - 14

 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

     I suppose we could use Paul as the authority on this.  Is that what we should be doing?

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I'd normally be inclined to agree with you on this (especially since you're citing from a source I provided  ) but the reason I brought it up here was because Adam seems to be a special case.  At this point in time, when god is supposedly quite literally present on Earth, what is the separation between all of these things?  God and nature seem very intertwined as well as god and morality for that matter.

 

     To paraphrase a natural evil is one that no human can be held morally accountable.  There's just a single human at this point.  So just Adam and then there's god.  From Adam's point of view god is the one responsible for creating things.  This is clear from Genesis 2:19a "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them" except the NIV is a mistranslation which hides the truth from us (in bold) and tries to preserve the creation order laid out in Genesis 1 (avoiding a contradiction).

 

     From "Genesis 1-11 : a handbook on the Hebrew text" by Barry Bandstra:

"19 And YHVH deity formed from the ground all of the living kind of the
field and all of the fowl of the heavens. And he brought to the human to
see what he will call it. And all which the human will call a living being,
that is its name"
 

     We can see that the Hebrew says that it was at this point in time, not before, that all these creatures were formed and then presented to Adam as potential mates.  This tells us that Adam was totally alone in this version except for god.  Then god creates to help rectify the situation. 

 

     Going a few verses back we see this:

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

The natural condition doesn't seem to apply here.  If something happens to or for Adam god is always involved.  God places Adam in the garden.  God makes the trees grow *after* Adam is placed there.  God creates other creatures, including Eve, *after* Adam is in the garden.  So from the very start of Adam's existence it is god that does all things including what we'd call the natural.  He is a direct witness for all these things.  If he were to become injured would he consider it to be something other than god?

 

     I suppose we could use Paul as the authority on this.  Is that what we should be doing?

 

          mwc

 

 

Hello again mwc.

 

If you don't mind I'd just like to apply myself to two points in your post.  The first being the highlighted one. 

 

According to Jewish tradition god created two humans out of the dust, Adam and Lilith.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith I won't be mentioning her in my discussion with Edgarcito or anyone else in this thread because she is not specifically mentioned in the Eden narrative.  Widening the focus of the discussion to include things that might have happened in Eden is, in my opinion, not helpful and risks carrying the discussion off down blind alleys.  If we start debating the whys and wherefores of what might have happened to Adam I believe that we run the same risk.  Of course, this is just my opinion. I hope that my expressing it doesn't put your nose out of joint.

 

The second point I'd like to address are covered by your last two sentences.

 

Whenever I've explored scripture in this forum I've done so from the orthodox and standard Christian viewpoint that ALL scripture comes from god and therefore any passage of the bible, no matter which testament it is in, can be used to throw light on another passage, no matter what testament that one is in.  That's what I've been doing in this thread. 

 

I can't specifically answer your question mwc (Is that what we should be doing?) but this is what I have done so far.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

So shouldn't the child be punished for something it wasn't responsible for?

How do you know that the process is punishment but rather a means to an end… a good end.  How many times is that repeated in the Bible.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You've got the wrong end of the stick here, Ed.  This is what I asked you.

 

When the rattlesnake comes into your garden and bites your child, is it the child's fault?

Please declare whether or not it is the child's fault that the snake bit them.

You replied... No, the parent is responsible for the child.

 

 

Therefore, when I asked you, So shouldn't the child be punished for something it wasn't responsible for? I was asking if you (not god) should punish your child for an evil that was your responsibility to prevent.

 

The responsibility was yours, so do you punish your child for something you were responsible for?

 

That is the question you need to answer.

 

Please do so.

 

 

 

[mwc]

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Hello again mwc.

 

If you don't mind I'd just like to apply myself to two points in your post.  The first being the highlighted one. 

 

According to Jewish tradition god created two humans out of the dust, Adam and Lilith.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith I won't be mentioning her in my discussion with Edgarcito or anyone else in this thread because she is not specifically mentioned in the Eden narrative.  Widening the focus of the discussion to include things that might have happened in Eden is, in my opinion, not helpful and risks carrying the discussion off down blind alleys.  If we start debating the whys and wherefores of what might have happened to Adam I believe that we run the same risk.  Of course, this is just my opinion. I hope that my expressing it doesn't put your nose out of joint.

     I understand but if you can clear up one bit of confusion on this matter then I think I'll be good with it.  I'm not sure where I brought Jewish tradition into the mix.  I did quote from a Hebrew translation in order to point out issues with NIV but this is not the same as tradition.  Maybe this isn't what caused you to bring this up but it's all I can think of?

 

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

The second point I'd like to address are covered by your last two sentences.

 

Whenever I've explored scripture in this forum I've done so from the orthodox and standard Christian viewpoint that ALL scripture comes from god and therefore any passage of the bible, no matter which testament it is in, can be used to throw light on another passage, no matter what testament that one is in.  That's what I've been doing in this thread. 

 

I can't specifically answer your question mwc (Is that what we should be doing?) but this is what I have done so far.

     I suppose the issue you raise with Lilith is similar to the one I'm having here.  Lilith is mentioned in Isaiah (albeit not in relation to the creation).  Using this tradition to understand Genesis seems more like it might cloud the issue instead of clarify it.  Likewise using Paul to clarify Genesis seems, let's say, unhelpful?  But I may be wrong?  Which is why I'm being a general nuisance on all these things.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     I understand but if you can clear up one bit of confusion on this matter then I think I'll be good with it.  I'm not sure where I brought Jewish tradition into the mix.  I did quote from a Hebrew translation in order to point out issues with NIV but this is not the same as tradition.  Maybe this isn't what caused you to bring this up but it's all I can think of?

 

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     I suppose the issue you raise with Lilith is similar to the one I'm having here.  Lilith is mentioned in Isaiah (albeit not in relation to the creation).  Using this tradition to understand Genesis seems more like it might cloud the issue instead of clarify it.  Likewise using Paul to clarify Genesis seems, let's say, unhelpful?  But I may be wrong?  Which is why I'm being a general nuisance on all these things.

 

          mwc

 

 

I see what you are saying mwc.

 

However, if we start the process of eliminating certain parts of the bible from our enquiry of Genesis, where do we stop?  If Paul is off limits, then why not Peter and John too?  Why not anyone; patriarch, prophet or apostle who has anything to say about Genesis?  And on what basis should we conduct this elimination?  By vote, so that if more than 50% of us agree to eliminate something, it is duly eliminated from our discussion about Eden? 

 

I'm sorry mwc, but in my opinion if we start eliminating parts of the bible from this thread that would cause more problems than it solves.

 

Therefore, I'm happy to proceed as I have normally done in Ex-C, to treat the bible as one integrated whole, where any one part can be used to illuminate the meaning of another.  I should also like to point out that this approach has the added advantage of agreeing with the generally-accepted, orthodox view of most Christians - that all scripture is god-breathed.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[mwc]

34 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

I see what you are saying mwc.

 

However, if we start the process of eliminating certain parts of the bible from our enquiry of Genesis, where do we stop?  If Paul is off limits, then why not Peter and John too?  Why not anyone; patriarch, prophet or apostle who has anything to say about Genesis?  And on what basis should we conduct this elimination?  By vote, so that if more than 50% of us agree to eliminate something, it is duly eliminated from our discussion about Eden? 

 

I'm sorry mwc, but in my opinion if we start eliminating parts of the bible from this thread that would cause more problems than it solves.

 

Therefore, I'm happy to proceed as I have normally done in Ex-C, to treat the bible as one integrated whole, where any one part can be used to illuminate the meaning of another.  I should also like to point out that this approach has the added advantage of agreeing with the generally-accepted, orthodox view of most Christians - that all scripture is god-breathed.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

     Okay.

 

     But, I guess then I have another follow-up question that then needs to be addressed.  The scriptures being god-breathed is from 2 Timothy 3:16 (here's a bit more for context):

 

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

 

     If we actually accept that Paul actually wrote this letter (it's generally accepted that he did not) then was Paul referring to himself when he said this?  That seems a little odd they would have all the NT writings from infancy, does it not?  It's not impossible I suppose but it seems highly unlikely.

 

     It would seem that we're actually saying that Paul has the authority to declare that anything that becomes, at any point, scriptures, is god-breathed simply because Paul's letters are now scripture making them, according to Paul, god-breathed.  Ignoring the minor clause that this person he's writing to could not have had this letter informing him of this fact as an infant which excludes this very letter as scripture.

 

     In a (hopefully) less complicated way we would need to know what the term "holy scriptures" actually meant here since there was no new testament canon until much later and a lot of early xian writings floating around (depending on the time period).  The Jews were much closer to having a canon around this same period making the reference make a lot more sense.  Assuming that "holy scriptures" just means whatever ultimately is scripture will provide you with different answers over time (and sect).

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

16 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Okay.

 

     But, I guess then I have another follow-up question that then needs to be addressed.  The scriptures being god-breathed is from 2 Timothy 3:16 (here's a bit more for context):

 

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

 

     If we actually accept that Paul actually wrote this letter (it's generally accepted that he did not) then was Paul referring to himself when he said this?  That seems a little odd they would have all the NT writings from infancy, does it not?  It's not impossible I suppose but it seems highly unlikely.

 

     It would seem that we're actually saying that Paul has the authority to declare that anything that becomes, at any point, scriptures, is god-breathed simply because Paul's letters are now scripture making them, according to Paul, god-breathed.  Ignoring the minor clause that this person he's writing to could not have had this letter informing him of this fact as an infant which excludes this very letter as scripture.

 

     In a (hopefully) less complicated way we would need to know what the term "holy scriptures" actually meant here since there was no new testament canon until much later and a lot of early xian writings floating around (depending on the time period).  The Jews were much closer to having a canon around this same period making the reference make a lot more sense.  Assuming that "holy scriptures" just means whatever ultimately is scripture will provide you with different answers over time (and sect).

 

          mwc

 

 

My answer is No, mwc.

 

That is, Paul was not referring to himself when he said this.  Instead he was referring exclusively to what we have come to call the Old Testament scriptures.  When Paul was Saul he was noted as being a Pharisee of Pharisees, who was trained under tutelage of the highly respected Gamaliel.  

 

Acts 22 : 1 - 5  (Paul's account of his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus)

 

1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defence.”

2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.  Then Paul said: 

3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 

4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 

5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

 

Therefore, Paul's understanding of god would have been grounded in a deep knowledge of Mosaic Law and complete familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures. 

 

 

It would seem that we're actually saying that Paul has the authority to declare that anything that becomes, at any point, scriptures, is god-breathed simply because Paul's letters are now scripture making them, according to Paul, god-breathed. 

 

This is not the thrust of my argument, mwc.

Instead what I am arguing is that in this forum it has been the accepted norm to treat the bible as an integrated whole, not because it necessarily is an integrated whole, but because that is the most widely-accepted, orthodox and standard view of scripture adopted by most Christians.  Therefore, it serves the purposes of this forum well to make our counter-apologetic arguments from the same position as most Christians.   

 

Indeed, adopting a position that you do not necessarily agree with is the very basis of playing Devil's Advocate.  This is what I do.  I do not agree with the orthodox and standard tenets of Christian belief, but I do adopt them to make my counter-apologetic arguments.  Therefore, I treat the bible as an integrated whole, even though I do not necessarily believe that it is.

 

If anything, I couldn't care less if the bible were an integrated whole or not.  I have no emotional investment in that outcome.  But to serve this forum to the best of my ability I make the entirely pragmatic decision to make my counter-apologetic arguments relevant to the greatest possible number of visiting Christians and the lurkers.  And this means treating the scriptures as one integrated whole.

 

Sorry if I've waffled and repeated some points, mwc.  I hope you follow what I mean.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good lord.  It's like Nicean Council 2.0 up in here today.

[Edgarcito]

There is the admonition in Revelation not to add or subtract from that specific book.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

There is the admonition in Revelation not to add or subtract from that specific book.  

I think like the serpent mentioned in revelations is interpreted to mean the serpent all the way back in genesis. Permanently tying the devil and Satan in with the serpent. 

 

This scripture also indicates to most churches that the whole of the Bible is not to be added to or taken away from. From that point forward. 

 

At least thats how the Baptist churches and assembly churches I attended interpreted it. 

 

That kind of sealed the Bible off from being modified. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

There is the admonition in Revelation not to add or subtract from that specific book.  

Would that include disregarding what that specific book actually says so that you can add your own personal interpretation/speculation to it?

 

Rhetorical question, of course.  No need to answer.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

There is the admonition in Revelation not to add or subtract from that specific book.  

 

And there is also Proverbs 30 : 5 & 6.

 

5 “Every word of God is flawless;
    he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
    or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

 

This is a specific warning not to add to any part of the bible.

[walterpthefirst]

But, if someone is prepared to carry on adding to god's Word, even though they have been warned, then Hebrews 10 : 26 & 27 would seem to apply.

 

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 

27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

 

If I were still a Christian I wouldn't risk my salvation by persistently adding my own spin to scripture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

But, if someone is prepared to carry on adding to god's Word, even though they have been warned, then Hebrews 10 : 26 & 27 would seem to apply.

 

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 

27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

 

If I were still a Christian I wouldn't risk my salvation by persistently adding my own spin to scripture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess you weren't a once saved always saved christian either?

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Guess you weren't a once saved always saved christian either?

 

Nope.

 

And there's no way that I want to jump down that particular rabbit hole in this thread, DB.

 

Hmmm... perhaps I should never have posted those quotes.

 

Too late now.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Nope.

 

And there's no way that I want to jump down that particular rabbit hole in this thread, DB.

 

Hmmm... perhaps I should never have posted those quotes.

 

Too late now.

 

I wouldn't want to either. When I was a believer it was probably my favorite subject. It was one of the first and biggest contradictions I saw in Baptist doctrine. Although Its also one of the worst doctrines of the Bible

. IMO.