I tended to use PFAL's definitions of the characteristics of God-breathed scripture, as they were the only ones for which we all had a common frame of reference. Whether a scripture can be "God-breathed" and not have those characteristics is a whole other issue.
I think if anyone is going to make a case that a work is God-breathed, it's incumbent on that person to define it in a way that's falsifiable. You don't get to just say "It's God-breathed and you can't prove it's not." You have to prove it IS. That's how burden of proof works. If you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Give PFAL credit for defining the characteristics of the God-breathed word, even if you don't agree with it. PFAL does not live up to those characteristics. Neither does the Bible.
If you have an alternate set of characteristics, I'm happy to entertain them. If you have a definition of God-breathed we can explore, I'm happy to explore it.
If many people came up with PFAL, this is a huge problem. VPW is off the hook, somewhat.
The evolution of thought included the influences of The Bible and its numerous sources.
To suggest The Bible is on equal footing with the brainchild of a Corn-husker, this has many issues. We would have to rebuild all of society to escape. But how?
You derail threads with a skill that puts Mike to shame by trying to reduce everything to definitions that YOU accept, many of which have NOTHING to do with how the rest of the world defines those terms. It is exhausting and has derailed EVERY SINGLE conversation you and I have had. I'm not putting up with it again.
"Rebuild all of society" to escape that I just wrote? That's absurd. And I will not have this thread derailed before it's even had a chance to start just because you aqre determined to make every thread about your inability to draw a straight line from one concept to the next. Enough. If you don't understand the points being raised, sit back and enjoy the conversation among those of us who do.
You derail threads with a skill that puts Mike to shame by trying to reduce everything to definitions that YOU accept, many of which have NOTHING to do with how the rest of the world defines those terms. It is exhausting and has derailed EVERY SINGLE conversation you and I have had. I'm not putting up with it again.
"Rebuild all of society" to escape that I just wrote? That's absurd. And I will not have this thread derailed before it's even had a chance to start just because you aqre determined to make every thread about your inability to draw a straight line from one concept to the next. Enough. If you don't understand the points being raised, sit back and enjoy the conversation among those of us who do.
Somebody had to say it.
No, we understand God-Breathed into Adam and understand Adam didn't really exist.
I can't believe this needs to be said to someone with a measurable IQ, but I'll try:
The role of the Bible in the development of Western Civilization is not in any way, shape or form dependent on the Bible being "God-breathed" by any definition. It is therefore IRRELEVANT to this discussion, which, I assume, is the reason it enthralls you so much, because there is NOTHING you enjoy more than exploring an issue to death that is completely UNRELATED TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.
While we're at it, "God-breathed" in the sense of the Genesis account of the creation of Adam, is not related to God-breathed in the discussion of inspiration of Scripture, but since you so thoroughly enjoy derailing conversations so that we exhaust ourselves chasing your red herrings to your satisfaction, it has to be discussed here and now.
Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.
First, your burden of proof is off. If I were to claim Saint Vic was a Keebler elf that made snicker doodles in a hollow tree. The burden of proof would be on me to produce a Keebler time card or a snicker doodle with his signature or a photo of him smoking outside the hollow tree. The burden is not on you to prove me wrong.
Second, on the basis of the statement you made in the quote, would Mein Kopf be God breathe? How would you know?
I think if anyone is going to make a case that a work is God-breathed, it's incumbent on that person to define it in a way that's falsifiable. You don't get to just say "It's God-breathed and you can't prove it's not." You have to prove it IS. That's how burden of proof works. If you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Your terms seem random and out of thin air. If there are no rules defining derailment, I am left to feel targeted.
Your opening post is written in the negative, I presented some points, your solution is to scream "Waaa . . . . derailment" . . . which leads me to think there's another game.
If someone claims "I didn't know VPW was sex predator" where's the burden of proof? If you can't prove you didn't know, then you knew?
I cant say I have a dog in the race between you and Bolshevik but if it's any merit the way he posts is pretty much how he is. I can say for a fact that hes not trolling. Bolsh is both highly educated and intelligent so I think you guys may be doing the dosy do over a personality conflict or something along those lines.
Bolshevik, Everyone understands my terms but you. Stop derailing the thread.
If someone says they didn't know VPW was a sex predator, the burden would be on me to prove that person DID know. Otherwise the best I could do is demonstrate that the person could have or should have known.
Which has nothing to do with scripture being God-breathed. Again you are derailing the conversation with a tangent to satisfy your obsession with defining the terms of a discussion to the point of making said discussion impossible.
You're not being targeted. Your bulls hit tactic of derailing every damn thread is being called out
I cant say I have a dog in the race between you and Bolshevik but if it's any merit the way he posts is pretty much how he is. I can say for a fact that hes not trolling. Bolsh is both highly educated and intelligent so I think you guys may be doing the dosy do over a personality conflict or something along those lines.
Bolshevik obsesses over definitions and alternative definitions and esoteric definitions to which he and only he subscribes in order to make a reasonable duscussion impossible. By the time you're done chasing his red herrings the original point of the thread and conversation are long lost.
I cant say I have a dog in the race between you and Bolshevik but if it's any merit the way he posts is pretty much how he is. I can say for a fact that hes not trolling. Bolsh is both highly educated and intelligent so I think you guys may be doing the dosy do over a personality conflict or something along those lines.
I come from the perspective The Way International brought people together. It's my source whether I like it or not.
I feel there there is a place for logic and reason, and sometimes it simply does not apply.
This use of "god-breathed" is using Way goggles on the world. I feel the rigidity.
Finding a teapot or a unicorn or a purple dragon is one thing.
You can't prove The Bible doesn't exist. You can prove that it does. It has had a real affect on the real world. A world infinitely bigger than The Way International.
Is it being implied rejecting PFAL has the same impact as rejecting the Bible? Are neither escapable?
If something is God-breathed, it is without error or contradiction by definition. PFAL and the Bible both have errors and contradictions. Therefore, neither PFAL nor the Bible is God-breathed.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
80
37
33
25
Popular Days
Feb 17
51
Feb 16
36
Feb 27
26
Mar 10
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 80 posts
Bolshevik 37 posts
OldSkool 33 posts
Nathan_Jr 25 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2023
51 posts
Feb 16 2023
36 posts
Feb 27 2023
26 posts
Mar 10 2023
24 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I can certainly see and appreciate the parallells. The way you sound to me...the way Mike sounds to me...you guys both sound like me. Ive stumbled at wierwille's doctrines and was blinded from scriptu
waysider
The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest
sirguessalot
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children. Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed… Most of us m
Bolshevik
More riddles.
Which canon? Is this multiple choice?
PFAL rejects tradition. Scripture was intended to be read alongside tradition.
PFAL was not written out of self-reflection or an observation of human nature.
Fine.
There is no basis for rejecting Hitler that does not equally apply to any human being.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Is God-Breathed one of those Mike definitions? Cause google can't agree on anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I tended to use PFAL's definitions of the characteristics of God-breathed scripture, as they were the only ones for which we all had a common frame of reference. Whether a scripture can be "God-breathed" and not have those characteristics is a whole other issue.
I think if anyone is going to make a case that a work is God-breathed, it's incumbent on that person to define it in a way that's falsifiable. You don't get to just say "It's God-breathed and you can't prove it's not." You have to prove it IS. That's how burden of proof works. If you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Give PFAL credit for defining the characteristics of the God-breathed word, even if you don't agree with it. PFAL does not live up to those characteristics. Neither does the Bible.
If you have an alternate set of characteristics, I'm happy to entertain them. If you have a definition of God-breathed we can explore, I'm happy to explore it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If many people came up with PFAL, this is a huge problem. VPW is off the hook, somewhat.
The evolution of thought included the influences of The Bible and its numerous sources.
To suggest The Bible is on equal footing with the brainchild of a Corn-husker, this has many issues. We would have to rebuild all of society to escape. But how?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Bolshevik, I'm going to try to be polite here:
You derail threads with a skill that puts Mike to shame by trying to reduce everything to definitions that YOU accept, many of which have NOTHING to do with how the rest of the world defines those terms. It is exhausting and has derailed EVERY SINGLE conversation you and I have had. I'm not putting up with it again.
"Rebuild all of society" to escape that I just wrote? That's absurd. And I will not have this thread derailed before it's even had a chance to start just because you aqre determined to make every thread about your inability to draw a straight line from one concept to the next. Enough. If you don't understand the points being raised, sit back and enjoy the conversation among those of us who do.
Somebody had to say it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No, we understand God-Breathed into Adam and understand Adam didn't really exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I made a serious statement. The Bible was alongside the development of the West.
PFAL was not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can't believe this needs to be said to someone with a measurable IQ, but I'll try:
The role of the Bible in the development of Western Civilization is not in any way, shape or form dependent on the Bible being "God-breathed" by any definition. It is therefore IRRELEVANT to this discussion, which, I assume, is the reason it enthralls you so much, because there is NOTHING you enjoy more than exploring an issue to death that is completely UNRELATED TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.
While we're at it, "God-breathed" in the sense of the Genesis account of the creation of Adam, is not related to God-breathed in the discussion of inspiration of Scripture, but since you so thoroughly enjoy derailing conversations so that we exhaust ourselves chasing your red herrings to your satisfaction, it has to be discussed here and now.
Stop. Derailing. This. Thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're transplanting demands for "burden of proof" into areas you have not shown even apply.
People were moved and wrote scriptures. Prove it?
If you see a painting, someone was inspired to paint it. Prove it?
What's the game here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The game is you babbling to derail the thread and me refusing to participate in it.
Stop. Derailing. The. Thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You built the cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Stop derailing the thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
First, your burden of proof is off. If I were to claim Saint Vic was a Keebler elf that made snicker doodles in a hollow tree. The burden of proof would be on me to produce a Keebler time card or a snicker doodle with his signature or a photo of him smoking outside the hollow tree. The burden is not on you to prove me wrong.
Second, on the basis of the statement you made in the quote, would Mein Kopf be God breathe? How would you know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your comment appears to be directed at me and I am pretty sure that is in error
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
How?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Looks like we agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Your terms seem random and out of thin air. If there are no rules defining derailment, I am left to feel targeted.
Your opening post is written in the negative, I presented some points, your solution is to scream "Waaa . . . . derailment" . . . which leads me to think there's another game.
If someone claims "I didn't know VPW was sex predator" where's the burden of proof? If you can't prove you didn't know, then you knew?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
God-breathed = inspired by God. Right?
Or does it literally mean written by God?
All scripture is God-breathed? All without exception? Or distinctly Judeo-Christian scripture?
Says who? The writer of scripture says so himself about himself. Oh... well that settles it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I cant say I have a dog in the race between you and Bolshevik but if it's any merit the way he posts is pretty much how he is. I can say for a fact that hes not trolling. Bolsh is both highly educated and intelligent so I think you guys may be doing the dosy do over a personality conflict or something along those lines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Bolshevik, Everyone understands my terms but you. Stop derailing the thread.
If someone says they didn't know VPW was a sex predator, the burden would be on me to prove that person DID know. Otherwise the best I could do is demonstrate that the person could have or should have known.
Which has nothing to do with scripture being God-breathed. Again you are derailing the conversation with a tangent to satisfy your obsession with defining the terms of a discussion to the point of making said discussion impossible.
You're not being targeted. Your bulls hit tactic of derailing every damn thread is being called out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Bolshevik obsesses over definitions and alternative definitions and esoteric definitions to which he and only he subscribes in order to make a reasonable duscussion impossible. By the time you're done chasing his red herrings the original point of the thread and conversation are long lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I come from the perspective The Way International brought people together. It's my source whether I like it or not.
I feel there there is a place for logic and reason, and sometimes it simply does not apply.
This use of "god-breathed" is using Way goggles on the world. I feel the rigidity.
Finding a teapot or a unicorn or a purple dragon is one thing.
You can't prove The Bible doesn't exist. You can prove that it does. It has had a real affect on the real world. A world infinitely bigger than The Way International.
Is it being implied rejecting PFAL has the same impact as rejecting the Bible? Are neither escapable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Can we clarify this?
If something is God-breathed, it is without error or contradiction by definition. PFAL and the Bible both have errors and contradictions. Therefore, neither PFAL nor the Bible is God-breathed.
Is this the proposition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.