On God-Breathed Scriptures

[OldSkool]

2 minutes ago, Raf said:

"Your criteria that the Bible is a cow patty..."

Not what I said and cannot be inferred from what I said.

You are not "endeavoring to show that reason alone is not the supreme answer."

You are seeking to discredit reason as a method of seeking resolution to disagreements.

 

Fair enough on the cow patty.

Now you are telling me what I am doing, when I am not. I provided links and a video. Those who want to take investigate what I am saying can do so.

In the meantime carry on. I really don't have a dog in the race when it comes to proving the Bible is whatever you wanna say it is or isnt. I approach scripture from an attitude of reverence and faith because to me it is God's Word. That its not that for you is up to you really, scripture states of itself it is spiritually discerned. So naturally scripture becomes foolishness without God to teach. Do you believe there is a God? Or that he is capable of communicating with his creation?

Anywho. Ive derailed you guys enough. Peace!

[oldiesman]

7 hours ago, Raf said:

The challenge for me, now, is to reply to Oldiesman and Nathan without being disrespectful of their faith.

I will do my best.

Oldiesman: You did not present a set of criteria that includes the Bible as theopneustos while excluding PFAL. I would go a step further and suggest, based on your post and our prior interactions, that you do not necessarily exclude PFAL as theopneustos, though I suspect you agree that it falls short of its own "perfect without a preposition out of place" criteria. 

I'm not clear on how you DEFINE theopneustos, but it doesn't really matter because the issue I'm raising in this thread only applies if you accept one as theopneustos and reject the other. You appear to accept both, each in its own way. It'sca whole different discussion.

Agreed.

[oldiesman]

1 hour ago, OldSkool said:

Ahh...yes....reason. We have been taught since grade school to revere reason above all else. Well, our founding fathers essentially reasoned God out of the equation. Reason is a cult in it's own right and during the french revolution deists made an idol to the goddess of reason. Its not conspiracy, it's history. Anywho: Here's a link for those interested. Peace!

 

OldSkool, I watched the video a while back... it is VERY interesting but I don't think it's entirely accurate.    We must view other sources and takes on it.    But it's good "stuff" for another thread.   Thanks.

[Raf]

14 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

scripture states of itself it is spiritually discerned. So naturally scripture becomes foolishness without God to teach. Do you believe there is a God? Or that he is capable of communicating with his creation?

I've come to realize that this verse, and others like it, are designed specifically to get readers to think there's something wrong with people who look at Christian doctrine and conclude it makes no sense. How humbling it must be to know that the Creator of the Universe has conferred upon you the ability to see the truth while all those people who rely on the "senses" and "reason" can't see it. Oh well, their loss. 

The fool says in his heart, there is no God. They are like dogs that eat their own vomit. And they really should show respect for people who do believe in God.

Yuh ok.

[OldSkool]

13 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

OldSkool, I watched the video a while back... it is VERY interesting but I don't think it's entirely accurate.    We must view other sources and takes on it.    But it's good "stuff" for another thread.   Thanks.

Most def. YW!

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, Raf said:

"Reason is a cult..."

.

.

.

.

I got nothing, guys. Anyone? Bueller? Frye?

Well, according to generally accepted academic definitions of cults, I disagree with the claim REASON is a cult.

 

1 hour ago, OldSkool said:

Well, our founding fathers essentially reasoned God out of the equation.

Neither this claim nor a three hour YouTube clip reasonably or rationally assert reason is a cult.

 

49 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

So I am endeavoring to show that reason alone is not the supreme answer.

That's a heavy load to bare. I don't see you being able to make such a case on an internet forum thread of any kind. Supreme answer to which question, I now ask you.  

 

1 hour ago, Raf said:

"Reason is a cult" is the kind of absurd statement that sounds clever but actually requires a certain suspension of critical thinking skills to embrace

Wikipedia says the cult of reason was a French state-sponsored atheistic religion. I'm not sure of the significance of such history to this discussion.

However, for good measure, I submit for your (all thread readers') consideration The Age of Reason.

Commentators these days seem to believe Paine, a Deist, specifically criticized and denounced Christianity. Which he may have done. However, my view is him having specifically denounced superstition.

 

[OldSkool]

34 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Commentators these days seem to believe Paine, a Deist, specifically criticized and denounced Christianity. Which he may have done. However, my view is him having specifically denounced superstition.

Then the three hour video should interest you. I was showing historically where reason was elevated above all else and by whom. Yes it was a cult during the French revolution and yes they had a idol made to the goddess of reason.

Deism is anti-Christian as was Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin.

Look, I took this topic left and out of respect for Raf and the on topic discussion I'm bowing out with my off topic discourse. I'm happy to banter onwards in another thread. Meanwhile, I was enjoying reading along as the topic was developing so let's get back to that. 

We can rip to shreds the video I posted elsewhere.

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by OldSkool

[Rocky]

14 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Then the three hour video should [but doesn't]  interest you. I was showing historically where reason was elevated above all else and by whom. Yes it was a cult during the French revolution and yes they had a idol made to the goddess of reason. I've studied Tom Paine for more than 25 years. I'm not going to spend three hours rehashing the subject.

Deism is anti-Christian as was Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin. But NOT anti-God.

Look, I took this topic left and out of respect for Raf and the on topic discussion I'm bowing out with my off topic discourse. I'm happy to banter onwards in another thread. Meanwhile, I was enjoying reading along as the topic was developing so let's get back to that. 

We can rip to shreds the video I posted elsewhere. Not with me. I don't believe reason is a cult. It's not trying to coerce me into following the dictates of a MOGFODAT or anything/anyone like it.

 

But thank you for the invitation.

[cman]

On 2/16/2023 at 4:06 PM, Raf said:

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.

Paul was writing to Timothy and they both knew what it was saying I would think.

I don't have a definition of God-Breathed, but I tend to recognize it more when he does.

[cman]

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

comes to mind....

[chockfull]

After reading this thread my thoughts are there is a lot of fundamentalism hidden in the thoughts of all those who experienced the PFLAPppy definitions.

Im feeling like asking if anyone wants to really intensely debate whether congruent angles in geometry are really congruent or if they just like each other.

I also concur that theopneustos is referring to  a muse like inspiration rather than another new math from a dead language.

[chockfull]

Bolsh talks like he thinks and his mind goes to different places than many.  

I would rather celebrate the difference and have it augment my understanding rather than attack it for being different.

Cults want the cookie cutter person.  Movements want diversity.

[Raf]

Chockfull, you and I have had our differences, and I questioned your logic. But I never doubted your desire to seriously explore the issues we were raising.

The kind of trolling that I'm calling out here is of a different class. I already posted a link to the article on SeaLioning, and I stand by it. There is no desire to engage in the conversation or explore the issue. The desire is to derail while appearing to be unbiased and reasonable. 

But there's nothing reasonable or relevant about invoking the Magna Carta or The Little Engine That Could. 

Note that every other poster has been able to engage without that quality. OldSkool came close to duplicating it, but he recognized he was off topic and backed off. That's the difference. 

I've spent a lot of time exploring different methods of trolling so that I can recognize it when it happens.

But thank you for your views and I'll be careful not to moderate just because I'm frustrated.

[chockfull]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Chockfull, you and I have had our differences, and I questioned your logic. But I never doubted your desire to seriously explore the issues we were raising.

The kind of trolling that I'm calling out here is of a different class. I already posted a link to the article on SeaLioning, and I stand by it. There is no desire to engage in the conversation or explore the issue. The desire is to derail while appearing to be unbiased and reasonable. 

But there's nothing reasonable or relevant about invoking the Magna Carta or The Little Engine That Could. 

Note that every other poster has been able to engage without that quality. OldSkool came close to duplicating it, but he recognized he was off topic and backed off. That's the difference. 

I've spent a lot of time exploring different methods of trolling so that I can recognize it when it happens.

But thank you for your views and I'll be careful not to moderate just because I'm frustrated.

Yes cool.  I read the article on sealioning.  What I think I see is instead of the purpose and intent being to obscure, like I feel with Mike, the vibe from Bolsh to me is trying on different tangents to help define and solidify his own reality.   

I may be off base.  That’s just my read.

[cman]

yeah, applying creative thought is not a bad thing to add to an otherwise analytical type approach...words often .... fail till they can paint a picture using what we already have

[OldSkool]

15 minutes ago, cman said:

yeah, applying creative thought is not a bad thing to add to an otherwise analytical type approach...words often .... fail till they can paint a picture using what we already have

I agree. Ive known Bolsh for 23 years or so and we were on staff together in the same cabinet area. He's been treated pretty rough in his upbringing by folks who meant well but were using the TWI approach to child raising..I know I am still figuring out life post TWI and I wasnt raised in that mess thankfully so I had a frame of reference outside the cult. Folks raised in TWI don't have that vantage point so it can be much harder to get it sorted out.

Edited February 19, 2023 by OldSkool

[OldSkool]

20 hours ago, oldiesman said:

it is VERY interesting but I don't think it's entirely accurate

Im not sure too much of anything is entirely accurate. The video I shared is one in a long list of sources Im working on the topic. If theres no interest to discuss it here, I will likely just keep it pushing and keep my study to myself. I do with most topics anyways. Inaccuracies can be identified and worked further, but the video does provide verifiable sources and such. No I havent checked all the sources yet and many times I do. Cheers!

My goal isn't doctrinal perfection or perfection of anysort really. Those are fundamentalist ideals that don't mesh very well with most avenues in life, especially the Bible. I simply try to get a fairly accurate glimpse on a particular topic and keep it moving because I always learn more later on down the line.

Edited February 19, 2023 by OldSkool

[Raf]

There's nothing wrong with creative thought, but there is a HUGE difference between a fresh approach and "Do I believe the Bible is God-Breathed? Do I believe the Little Engine could?"

That wasn't a fresh approach. That wasn't a different perspective. That was a patronizing dismissal of the entire premise and value of the conversation.

If you would like I could go back over nearly every interaction I've had with Bolsh and demonstrate how he removes and distorts key points in order to undermine the quality of multiple discussions.

"God-breathed" is a term from a book which has been pulled out and applied willy nilly here."

Willy nilly? Seriously? That's a fresh perspective designed to stimulate further discussion?

How did Nathan handle the same position? I'll paraphrase: "Raf, I feel like I'm missing something. Can you elaborate?"

Not Bolsh.

"(comments about intelligence I understand as a reference to Loy Craig Martindale and his oldest daughter . . . that was a big topic in the late 90s)"

Now you tell  me, who the F!!! was talking about LCM's daughter, and how did bringing her up further the discussion we were having about the criteria we use to judge whether a written work is God-breathed?

And by the way, did anyone keep tabs on how many times I elaborated on the term God-breathed to clarify and expand its definition beyond the restrictions of PFAL's definition? Because I stopped counting at five. You know, before I was accused of taking the term and applying it Willy Nilly to The Magna Carta.

You guys can vouch for B all you want, but this thread has not been an example of his desire to engage in an honest discussion. Not by a longshot.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Raf

[WordWolf]

You can't have it both ways, guys.  Bol dismissed the entire fields of Psychology and Sociology, claiming he understood them and dismissed them but was ok to do that based on extensive background in the hard sciences (Physics, Chemistry, etc.)   

Then you come around and say he doesn't communicate better because he doesn't know better.  There's a continuity break between YOUR Bolsh and the Bolsh in his posts who lectures in a university and whose students seem to always understand him.

[cman]

Was this thread started to start an argument or discussion?

Boloshevik was adding what he thought, and I'm not defending his post, but that he can post.

like wow... chill out

[Raf]

This thread was intended to start a discussion. That effort was immediately derailed.

[Raf]

3 hours ago, cman said:

Boloshevik was adding what he thought, and I'm not defending his post, but that he can post.

No one is suggesting otherwise. 

[cman]

Sooooo are you saying that the definition of God-breathed from pfal should be applied to the bible itself? Is that the thesis?

What is the definition of god-breathed?

[Rocky]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:55 PM, Bolshevik said:

Is God-Breathed one of those Mike definitions?  Cause google can't agree on anything.

This DOES seem to be sealioning. Unrelated to the actual discussion.

[Rocky]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:52 PM, Bolshevik said:

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.

 

This really seems out of place in this thread.