You keep getting everything wrong, especially when talking about what i'm trying to say.
4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:
You've also, as others here do, take Mike too seriously
I take Mike too seripusly? Are you f-ing stoned?
See that calendar? Does it say 2003? No, dip. It's 2023. It's been decades since I took Mike remotely seriously. That's part of the point of this thread which you would know if you had the reading comprehension skills of a lemur.
7 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:
To put the Bible in the same discussion as PFAL, as if one produced or influenced the other, is nonsense.
Not one person said anything remotely approaching this. Please hire a lawyer and sue every school that gave you a passing grade in reading comprehension. You have a case. You will win. Use the proceeds to find a f'ing real school.
You keep getting everything wrong, especially when talking about what i'm trying to say.
I take Mike too seripusly? Are you f-ing stoned?
See that calendar? Does it say 2003? No, dip. It's 2023. It's been decades since I took Mike remotely seriously. That's part of the point of this thread which you would know if you had the reading comprehension skills of a lemur.
Not one person said anything remotely approaching this. Please hire a lawyer and sue every school that gave you a passing grade in reading comprehension. You have a case. You will win. Use the proceeds to find a f'ing real school.
2003???? VPW died long before that!! Everyone can go home!!! . . . if we're doing this . . ugh
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.
No, I did not. Posting a thought does not imply absolute knowledge.
You are well aware of what I'm trying to understand. You're obviously bitter about something.
Perhaps this website needs to rediscover its roots.
Sealioning refers tothe disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.
In this open forum format you are free to take Raf's obscure phrase, translate, and defend, if you wish.
Raf's phrase appears divisive, as is to push party's into camps of "pro-bible" or "bible is gibberish" camps. A bit black and white.
PFAL is clearly not related to the bible other than as a red herring. We know this.
Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.
Exactly. There are so many Christian religions around the world that claim their existence from the same book, the bible. None have any more claim to accuracy than Wierwille does.
Then throw in all the other world religions, that at least partially claim the bible as their authority, and the number keeps escalating.
What method or formula can a person use to determine which one, of thousands, has the true God-breathed truth? I am asking. What basis did you use to claim your religion was the accurate one over all the other world’s religions?
I have absolutely no problem believing TWI is as accurate as any of the other thousands of religions, when it comes to their canon. It’s just that most everyone on GSC comes ftom a TWI background, and pick PFAL apart verse by verse. Do you also dive into all the other religions and point out their supposed errors in interpretation, so you justify your chosen way to worship god?
In Stayed Too Long's post he mention "authority from the Bible".
Obviously, before the Bible existed, there was no such claim. After the Bible existed, not all make that claim. Might we trace a history of those who claim "authority of the scirptures"? What's really driving this idea? STL claims VPW and all Christianity are making the same claim. And therefore all religion makes the same claim. (It's easy therefore to further say all human beings are just like Victor Paul Wierwille - STL doesn't explicitly say this, that's just the trajectory, untempered)
The second paragraph uses "god-breathed truth" - Again, using PFAL vernacular as if it came from outside TWI. Did it?
Stayed Too Long's Third paragraph equates TWI with "thousands of others". My question is if he is simply discussing fundamentalism, or something broader?
Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.
Just wanted to parse some tangents I see
Regarding this starter post – I just wanted to point out – I believe there’s an assumption in the statement that one views God-breathed as being perfect in every way – no contradictions, no errors. In that regard I would have to agree, and I would reject both PFAL and the Scriptures as being God-breathed… and for those reasons I'm out
However as I expressed in my previous post on February 18th I lean toward another popular theory of God-inspired - the limited inspiration theory which holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom along with the limitations of drawing upon the fund of knowledge thus far (knowledge and skills derived from family and cultural background) this theory will influence how one interprets and applies Scripture…which in a very very broad sense refers to all who view the Bible as the sacred text accepted by the church as the standard that governs Christian belief and conduct.
3 hours ago, Stayed Too Long said:
Exactly. There are so many Christian religions around the world that claim their existence from the same book, the bible. None have any more claim to accuracy than Wierwille does.
Then throw in all the other world religions, that at least partially claim the bible as their authority, and the number keeps escalating.
What method or formula can a person use to determine which one, of thousands, has the true God-breathed truth? I am asking. What basis did you use to claim your religion was the accurate one over all the other world’s religions?
I have absolutely no problem believing TWI is as accurate as any of the other thousands of religions, when it comes to their canon. It’s just that most everyone on GSC comes ftom a TWI background, and pick PFAL apart verse by verse. Do you also dive into all the other religions and point out their supposed errors in interpretation, so you justify your chosen way to worship god?
I’m trying not to quibble over nuances – but your use of the term “accuracy” might be a deal breaker for me – as far as terms we can agree upon.
In theology - - and for that matter in understanding other religious or scared texts - - there are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible - - inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably. Infallibility means incapable of making a mistake, while inerrancy means the absence of any error.
These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy. When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
The term, “inerrancy” is more recent. While some Christians use inerrancy and infallible interchangeably, they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that are contradictory. Inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture.
Personally, I believe the Bible is infallible – authoritative and trustworthy on spiritual matters, but it is NOTinerrant – it DOES HAVE historical, geographical, worldview, and scientific errors…I guess if we could reframe the question to ask how many groups accept the Bible as infallible – that would be casting a wide net – you’d probably snag most if not all groups – since the Bible is the common denominator-being considered their sacred…authoritative and trustworthy . If we ask how many groups believe the Bible is inerrant – you’ll definitely cull out some groups – I for one do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant.
“Then throw in all the other world religions, that at least partially claim the bible as their authority , and the number keeps escalating”…yes – because you’ve changed the criteria – from talking about accuracy to authority in other words infallibility.
“What method or formula can a person use to determine which one, of thousands, has the true God-breathed truth? I am asking. What basis did you use to claim your religion was the accurate one over all the other world’s religions?” Well, you’re probably asking the wrong guy.But I’ll take a stab at it anyway – as long as I can figure out your terms.
I’m assuming a God-breathed truthis a metaphysical truth. Not sure if that’s what you mean. I’m not an authority on God-breathed anything, but going back to what I said earlier about how I believe the Bible was inspired (limited inspiration theory) in my opinion is not just limited to the Bible or any other sacred texts of the world, Shakespeare and other classics, philosophers past and present, poems, music, the arts, etc.
Since we’re talking about inspiration from a higher power – and as yet we have no technology that can detect the presence, activity and source of inspiration or even come up with a clear and concise definition of what it is – I would have to say there’s probably a lot of God-breathed truth ‘out there’ that’s been ‘happening’ since the beginning of humankind and perhaps even from agnostics and atheists.
Heck, I even said on your other threadReligion demands acceptance of the unprovable I’m interested in some of Christopher Hitchens’ books (put 3 of them on my Amazon wish list) – because I love the clarity and rationality in the way he puts things…yeah I’m probably not your typical TWI-believer, ex-TWI-believer, recovering cult-survivor Christian …I don’t know what I am…maybe Christian agnostic – I believe the Bible is infallible, other religions, agnostics and atheists are all cool too and helps keep me grounded – nobody has the whole picture…Like I said I’m probably the wrong guy to ask that question.
~ ~ ~ ~
To follow up on your other statements:
“It’s just that most everyone on GSC comes ftom a TWI background, and pick PFAL apart verse by verse. Do you also dive into all the other religions and point out their supposed errors in interpretation, so you justify your chosen way to worship god?”
I disparage PFAL for several reasons:
1. PFAL promotes the plenary verbal inspiration theory– the Bible is inerrant – I believe it’sNOT!
2.PFAL fails to prove the Bible is inerrant – offers up dubious doctrines like 4 crucified, Scripture interprets itself, law of believing, Jesus’ cry of triumph on the cross.
3.PFAL teaches students how to fake speaking in tongues which wierwille claims is true worship.
~ ~ ~ ~
I do have a habit of exploring other religions using the same criteria I use to explore theology – I have enough self-confidence in my cognitive skills to recognize what I think is God-inspired truth and enjoy reading up on Confucianism, Taoism, and lately Zoroastrianism…no one is perfect – I accept the fact that there’s probably some errors in how I interpret the Bible or anything else – that’s why my cognitive skills are always under development to improve ‘accuracy’ whatever that is.
As far as my chosen way to worship – I pray in my understanding – sometimes starting off reciting the Lord’s Prayer until something in it jumps out and bites me in the butt – something I’m worrying about or something I should be doing. Sometimes I get inspired by Psalms or Proverbs of a NT book and use a passage as a launching pad to commune with God…not sure how much of that qualifies as worship… I did a study on worship from Ecclesiastes 12 , Matthew 5, 6 & 7 , Mark 10 , Romans 12 , and select passages in Psalms and Proverbs and realize worship is about our attitude, our behavior and our service to others.
Regarding this starter post – I just wanted to point out – I believe there’s an assumption in the statement that one views God-breathed as being perfect in every way – no contradictions, no errors. In that regard I would have to agree, and I would reject both PFAL and the Scriptures as being God-breathed… and for those reasons I'm out
Your assumption is not correct. I will be as explicit as I can because this keeps coming up.
The statement I made in the opening post does not require any particular definition of God-breathed/theopneustos/given by inspiration of God. It simply does not matter how one defines those terms.
If you view theopneustos as perfect in every way, then you can rule out PFAL. You can also rule out the Bible. Neither is perfect in every way, and (in my view) neither even claims to be.
So far we are on the same page.
NOW, eliminate "perfect" as a definition or defining characteristic of theopneustos. Your new definition is "___." And with THAT definition, you rule out PFAL but include the Bible as God-breathed.
I contend you can't do it, no matter how you fill in that blank. The determination that something is theopneustos and something else is not is ultimately arbitrary, even capricious.
Whatever criteria you use to rule out PFAL as theopneustos can also be used to rule out the Bible, and how you define theopneustos ultimately does not matter.
Mike and I do have something in common in this regard: we both believe PFAL and the Bible belong on the same plane when it comes to divine inspiration. But where Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians revere or respect the Bible, I contend they are equally NOT inspired by anything supernatural.
That's not to say they are of equal quality. That's a different discussion. They are equally not God-breathed.
Wouldn't it be simpler to say that nothing is inspired by God?
That would be my belief. But a lot of energy has been spent across different threads and different decades trying to get one person to abandon the belief that PFAL is God-breathed while simultaneously maintaining that the Bible IS God-breathed. So we're not really addressing my beliefs here. We're addressing the fact that no one is ever going to win the Mike Wars because they are based on a faulty premise: that "God-breathed" is something anyone can define or demonstrate.
A number of people got this right, right from the beginning, by declining to engage in the "debate." They acknowledged that they're working from a position of faith and simply declined to engage in a discussion of why one book collection gets to be revered as theopneustos and another is not. And that's fine. It's really the only out.
I mean, besides trolling and being an immature idiot about it, but you do you.
Your assumption is not correct. I will be as explicit as I can because this keeps coming up.
The statement I made in the opening post does not require any particular definition of God-breathed/theopneustos/given by inspiration of God. It simply does not matter how one defines those terms.
If you view theopneustos as perfect in every way, then you can rule out PFAL. You can also rule out the Bible. Neither is perfect in every way, and (in my view) neither even claims to be.
So far we are on the same page.
NOW, eliminate "perfect" as a definition or defining characteristic of theopneustos. Your new definition is "___." And with THAT definition, you rule out PFAL but include the Bible as God-breathed.
I contend you can't do it, no matter how you fill in that blank. The determination that something is theopneustos and something else is not is ultimately arbitrary, even capricious.
Whatever criteria you use to rule out PFAL as theopneustos can also be used to rule out the Bible, and how you define theopneustos ultimately does not matter.
Mike and I do have something in common in this regard: we both believe PFAL and the Bible belong on the same plane when it comes to divine inspiration. But where Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians revere or respect the Bible, I contend they are equally NOT inspired by anything supernatural.
That's not to say they are of equal quality. That's a different discussion. They are equally not God-breathed.
No - I think you misunderstood my points.
To reiterate what I said, there are a number of ways that scholars theorize on what God-inspired means.
I mentioned only 2 of those theories - the plenary verbal = every word is inspired = includes historical, scientific, and cultural worldviews references = perfect because the source (God) is perfect. I stated that is also PFAL’s view of the Bible - and Mike's view of PFAL too. In THAT regard the Bible and PFAL are on the SAME PLANE….
....what I am confused about is you saying that your opening post does not require any particular definition of God-breathed/theopneustos/given by inspiration of God - It simply does not matter how one defines those terms.
Huh?!?!
I’m sorry but that makes no sense. BECAUSE your post reveals something you ASSUME about the essential nature of God-breathed - that there is no such thing - as you expressed thusly:
"Mike and I do have something in common in this regard: we both believe PFAL and the Bible belong on the same plane when it comes to divine inspiration. But where Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians revere or respect the Bible, I contend they are equally NOT inspired by anything supernatural."
Basically you rule out the supernatural. So then - duh -yeah what you just said is there is nothing in existence that is God-breathed because God does not exist! So why even have the word "God" in your statement? Why not say both The Bible and PFAL are inspired by little pink unicorns?
I do agree with you on Mike's view - to use the terms of my previous post Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians view the class as inerrant and infallible.
Maybe you missed where I mentioned other theories to define God-breathed -like limited inspiration - and that’s how I view the Bible.
If I may - to rephrase what you said by saying:
Depending on how you define God-breathed will determine how to classify a book, a class, whatever. The definition DOES MATTER.
How do you define the shape of a circle?
Is a square a circle? No
Is an egg a circle? No - it’s more like an oval - elliptical.
Is the sun a circle? Yes
Is the pupil of your eye a circle? Yes
If we define God-breathed as perfect - without error - then I believe the Bible and PFAL are NOT God-breathed.
If we define God-breathed as limited inspiration (a divine/human combo) then I believe the Bible is God-breathed BUT PFAL is not because plagiarizing and emulsifying the works of others (even if some PARTS of those works were God-inspired) is counterfeiting the God-inspired process.
like making counterfeit money - it could LOOK genuine in every way - except it was not legitimately made - from a government’s treasury department “ printing press” - or to apply the metaphor to how PFAL was made, it was not God-inspired .
In my statements I'm assuming that God as a supernatural being - a higher power DOES EXIST and is capable of inspiring human beings.
Please let me know if you understand what I'm saying - I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I thought we were going to discuss what is God-breathed. Don't tell me this is an atheist's trap camouflaged as a theological question...fine...if that's all this is then you win - cuz if God doesn't exist then nothing is God-inspired...congrats
In Stayed Too Long's post he mention "authority from the Bible".
Obviously, before the Bible existed, there was no such claim. After the Bible existed, not all make that claim. Might we trace a history of those who claim "authority of the scirptures"? What's really driving this idea? STL claims VPW and all Christianity are making the same claim. And therefore all religion makes the same claim. (It's easy therefore to further say all human beings are just like Victor Paul Wierwille - STL doesn't explicitly say this, that's just the trajectory, untempered)
The second paragraph uses "god-breathed truth" - Again, using PFAL vernacular as if it came from outside TWI. Did it?
Stayed Too Long's Third paragraph equates TWI with "thousands of others". My question is if he is simply discussing fundamentalism, or something broader?
Why do you want to limit the discussion to fundamentalism or something broader? I said thousands of others because there are thousands of others. My statement encompasses ALL RELIGIONS. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
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
Raf
Demoniations?
WTF is this guy babbling about?
You are making no g-dang sense.
You keep getting everything wrong, especially when talking about what i'm trying to say.
I take Mike too seripusly? Are you f-ing stoned?
See that calendar? Does it say 2003? No, dip. It's 2023. It's been decades since I took Mike remotely seriously. That's part of the point of this thread which you would know if you had the reading comprehension skills of a lemur.
Not one person said anything remotely approaching this. Please hire a lawyer and sue every school that gave you a passing grade in reading comprehension. You have a case. You will win. Use the proceeds to find a f'ing real school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
2003???? VPW died long before that!! Everyone can go home!!! . . . if we're doing this . . ugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Does someone want to take him aside, intervention style, and help him stop making a total Balaam's Donkey out of himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I had this cucumber fermenting, I think there's a message on it now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I dunno, I just finished belly laughing at your responses and Bolsh obviously being a knucklehead. This $!i7 has mass entertainment value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No, I did not. Posting a thought does not imply absolute knowledge.
You are well aware of what I'm trying to understand. You're obviously bitter about something.
Perhaps this website needs to rediscover its roots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Then I take your response as an implied understanding between yourself and other posters but not all posters.
As I said later, it sounds like nonsense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling#:~:text=Sealioning refers to the disingenuous,questions of the other commenter.
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.
In this open forum format you are free to take Raf's obscure phrase, translate, and defend, if you wish.
Raf's phrase appears divisive, as is to push party's into camps of "pro-bible" or "bible is gibberish" camps. A bit black and white.
PFAL is clearly not related to the bible other than as a red herring. We know this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
2 Tim 3:16 is referring to the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible, right?
It is certainly not referring to all without exception scripture. Or is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Exactly. There are so many Christian religions around the world that claim their existence from the same book, the bible. None have any more claim to accuracy than Wierwille does.
Then throw in all the other world religions, that at least partially claim the bible as their authority, and the number keeps escalating.
What method or formula can a person use to determine which one, of thousands, has the true God-breathed truth? I am asking. What basis did you use to claim your religion was the accurate one over all the other world’s religions?
I have absolutely no problem believing TWI is as accurate as any of the other thousands of religions, when it comes to their canon. It’s just that most everyone on GSC comes ftom a TWI background, and pick PFAL apart verse by verse. Do you also dive into all the other religions and point out their supposed errors in interpretation, so you justify your chosen way to worship god?
Edited by Stayed Too LongLink to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Edited by Stayed Too LongLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
In Stayed Too Long's post he mention "authority from the Bible".
Obviously, before the Bible existed, there was no such claim. After the Bible existed, not all make that claim. Might we trace a history of those who claim "authority of the scirptures"? What's really driving this idea? STL claims VPW and all Christianity are making the same claim. And therefore all religion makes the same claim. (It's easy therefore to further say all human beings are just like Victor Paul Wierwille - STL doesn't explicitly say this, that's just the trajectory, untempered)
The second paragraph uses "god-breathed truth" - Again, using PFAL vernacular as if it came from outside TWI. Did it?
Stayed Too Long's Third paragraph equates TWI with "thousands of others". My question is if he is simply discussing fundamentalism, or something broader?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It seems to come down to the question: Says who?
Victor says so of himself. If he says so...
The author of 2 Timothy says so about what he himself writes. If he says so...
Did God create man or did man create God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just wanted to parse some tangents I see
Regarding this starter post – I just wanted to point out – I believe there’s an assumption in the statement that one views God-breathed as being perfect in every way – no contradictions, no errors. In that regard I would have to agree, and I would reject both PFAL and the Scriptures as being God-breathed… and for those reasons I'm out
However as I expressed in my previous post on February 18th I lean toward another popular theory of God-inspired - the limited inspiration theory which holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom along with the limitations of drawing upon the fund of knowledge thus far (knowledge and skills derived from family and cultural background) this theory will influence how one interprets and applies Scripture…which in a very very broad sense refers to all who view the Bible as the sacred text accepted by the church as the standard that governs Christian belief and conduct.
I’m trying not to quibble over nuances – but your use of the term “accuracy” might be a deal breaker for me – as far as terms we can agree upon.
In theology - - and for that matter in understanding other religious or scared texts - - there are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible - - inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably. Infallibility means incapable of making a mistake, while inerrancy means the absence of any error.
These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy. When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
The term, “inerrancy” is more recent. While some Christians use inerrancy and infallible interchangeably, they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that are contradictory. Inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture.
From: What Is the Difference Between the Inerrancy of Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture? by Don Stewart
Personally, I believe the Bible is infallible – authoritative and trustworthy on spiritual matters, but it is NOT inerrant – it DOES HAVE historical, geographical, worldview, and scientific errors…I guess if we could reframe the question to ask how many groups accept the Bible as infallible – that would be casting a wide net – you’d probably snag most if not all groups – since the Bible is the common denominator- being considered their sacred…authoritative and trustworthy . If we ask how many groups believe the Bible is inerrant – you’ll definitely cull out some groups – I for one do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant.
“Then throw in all the other world religions, that at least partially claim the bible as their authority , and the number keeps escalating”…yes – because you’ve changed the criteria – from talking about accuracy to authority in other words infallibility.
“What method or formula can a person use to determine which one, of thousands, has the true God-breathed truth? I am asking. What basis did you use to claim your religion was the accurate one over all the other world’s religions?” Well, you’re probably asking the wrong guy.
But I’ll take a stab at it anyway – as long as I can figure out your terms.
I’m assuming a God-breathed truth is a metaphysical truth. Not sure if that’s what you mean. I’m not an authority on God-breathed anything,
but going back to what I said earlier about how I believe the Bible was inspired (limited inspiration theory) in my opinion is not just limited to the Bible or any other sacred texts of the world, Shakespeare and other classics, philosophers past and present, poems, music, the arts, etc.
Since we’re talking about inspiration from a higher power – and as yet we have no technology that can detect the presence, activity and source of inspiration or even come up with a clear and concise definition of what it is – I would have to say there’s probably a lot of God-breathed truth ‘out there’ that’s been ‘happening’ since the beginning of humankind and perhaps even from agnostics and atheists.
Heck, I even said on your other thread Religion demands acceptance of the unprovable I’m interested in some of Christopher Hitchens’ books (put 3 of them on my Amazon wish list) – because I love the clarity and rationality in the way he puts things…yeah I’m probably not your typical TWI-believer, ex-TWI-believer, recovering cult-survivor Christian …I don’t know what I am…maybe Christian agnostic – I believe the Bible is infallible, other religions, agnostics and atheists are all cool too and helps keep me grounded – nobody has the whole picture…Like I said I’m probably the wrong guy to ask that question.
~ ~ ~ ~
To follow up on your other statements:
“It’s just that most everyone on GSC comes ftom a TWI background, and pick PFAL apart verse by verse. Do you also dive into all the other religions and point out their supposed errors in interpretation, so you justify your chosen way to worship god?”
I disparage PFAL for several reasons:
1. PFAL promotes the plenary verbal inspiration theory – the Bible is inerrant – I believe it’s NOT!
2. PFAL fails to prove the Bible is inerrant – offers up dubious doctrines like 4 crucified, Scripture interprets itself, law of believing, Jesus’ cry of triumph on the cross.
3. PFAL teaches students how to fake speaking in tongues which wierwille claims is true worship.
~ ~ ~ ~
I do have a habit of exploring other religions using the same criteria I use to explore theology – I have enough self-confidence in my cognitive skills to recognize what I think is God-inspired truth and enjoy reading up on Confucianism, Taoism, and lately Zoroastrianism…no one is perfect – I accept the fact that there’s probably some errors in how I interpret the Bible or anything else – that’s why my cognitive skills are always under development to improve ‘accuracy’ whatever that is.
As far as my chosen way to worship – I pray in my understanding – sometimes starting off reciting the Lord’s Prayer until something in it jumps out and bites me in the butt – something I’m worrying about or something I should be doing. Sometimes I get inspired by Psalms or Proverbs of a NT book and use a passage as a launching pad to commune with God…not sure how much of that qualifies as worship… I did a study on worship from Ecclesiastes 12 , Matthew 5, 6 & 7 , Mark 10 , Romans 12 , and select passages in Psalms and Proverbs and realize worship is about our attitude, our behavior and our service to others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your assumption is not correct. I will be as explicit as I can because this keeps coming up.
The statement I made in the opening post does not require any particular definition of God-breathed/theopneustos/given by inspiration of God. It simply does not matter how one defines those terms.
If you view theopneustos as perfect in every way, then you can rule out PFAL. You can also rule out the Bible. Neither is perfect in every way, and (in my view) neither even claims to be.
So far we are on the same page.
NOW, eliminate "perfect" as a definition or defining characteristic of theopneustos. Your new definition is "___." And with THAT definition, you rule out PFAL but include the Bible as God-breathed.
I contend you can't do it, no matter how you fill in that blank. The determination that something is theopneustos and something else is not is ultimately arbitrary, even capricious.
Whatever criteria you use to rule out PFAL as theopneustos can also be used to rule out the Bible, and how you define theopneustos ultimately does not matter.
Mike and I do have something in common in this regard: we both believe PFAL and the Bible belong on the same plane when it comes to divine inspiration. But where Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians revere or respect the Bible, I contend they are equally NOT inspired by anything supernatural.
That's not to say they are of equal quality. That's a different discussion. They are equally not God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wouldn't it be simpler to say that nothing is inspired by God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Or that YOU believe nothing is inspired by God? Or, rather that any given person could choose to look at the situation in that particular way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The human brain is different than the animal brain in some ways, but that would be a different topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Inspiring.
Wait,
So instead of God inspired we focus on inspired. Another thread.
That idea was not theopneustos or whatever that does or doesn't mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's clear that you do not take this discussion seriously, as is your right.
Derailing the thread is not.
It ends now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"The Bible" can clearly be replaced in your staeltement with anything if nothing is theopneustos.
Say nothing is God inspired and it removes the confusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That would be my belief. But a lot of energy has been spent across different threads and different decades trying to get one person to abandon the belief that PFAL is God-breathed while simultaneously maintaining that the Bible IS God-breathed. So we're not really addressing my beliefs here. We're addressing the fact that no one is ever going to win the Mike Wars because they are based on a faulty premise: that "God-breathed" is something anyone can define or demonstrate.
A number of people got this right, right from the beginning, by declining to engage in the "debate." They acknowledged that they're working from a position of faith and simply declined to engage in a discussion of why one book collection gets to be revered as theopneustos and another is not. And that's fine. It's really the only out.
I mean, besides trolling and being an immature idiot about it, but you do you.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - I think you misunderstood my points.
To reiterate what I said, there are a number of ways that scholars theorize on what God-inspired means.
I mentioned only 2 of those theories - the plenary verbal = every word is inspired = includes historical, scientific, and cultural worldviews references = perfect because the source (God) is perfect. I stated that is also PFAL’s view of the Bible - and Mike's view of PFAL too.
In THAT regard the Bible and PFAL are on the SAME PLANE….
....what I am confused about is you saying that your opening post does not require any particular definition of God-breathed/theopneustos/given by inspiration of God - It simply does not matter how one defines those terms.
Huh?!?!
I’m sorry but that makes no sense. BECAUSE your post reveals something you ASSUME about the essential nature of God-breathed - that there is no such thing - as you expressed thusly:
"Mike and I do have something in common in this regard: we both believe PFAL and the Bible belong on the same plane when it comes to divine inspiration. But where Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians revere or respect the Bible, I contend they are equally NOT inspired by anything supernatural."
Basically you rule out the supernatural. So then - duh -yeah what you just said is there is nothing in existence that is God-breathed because God does not exist! So why even have the word "God" in your statement? Why not say both The Bible and PFAL are inspired by little pink unicorns?
I do agree with you on Mike's view - to use the terms of my previous post Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians view the class as inerrant and infallible.
Maybe you missed where I mentioned other theories to define God-breathed -like limited inspiration - and that’s how I view the Bible.
If I may - to rephrase what you said by saying:
Depending on how you define God-breathed will determine how to classify a book, a class, whatever. The definition DOES MATTER.
How do you define the shape of a circle?
Is a square a circle? No
Is an egg a circle? No - it’s more like an oval - elliptical.
Is the sun a circle? Yes
Is the pupil of your eye a circle? Yes
If we define God-breathed as perfect - without error - then I believe the Bible and PFAL are NOT God-breathed.
If we define God-breathed as limited inspiration (a divine/human combo) then I believe the Bible is God-breathed BUT PFAL is not because plagiarizing and emulsifying the works of others (even if some PARTS of those works were God-inspired) is counterfeiting the God-inspired process.
like making counterfeit money - it could LOOK genuine in every way - except it was not legitimately made - from a government’s treasury department “ printing press” - or to apply the metaphor to how PFAL was made, it was not God-inspired .
In my statements I'm assuming that God as a supernatural being - a higher power DOES EXIST and is capable of inspiring human beings.
Please let me know if you understand what I'm saying - I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I thought we were going to discuss what is God-breathed. Don't tell me this is an atheist's trap camouflaged as a theological question...fine...if that's all this is then you win - cuz if God doesn't exist then nothing is God-inspired...congrats
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Why do you want to limit the discussion to fundamentalism or something broader? I said thousands of others because there are thousands of others. My statement encompasses ALL RELIGIONS. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
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.