waysider

Jargon is a common characteristic of cults and exclusive groups. It lets the participants feel they have special knowledge, an edge over the outsider. (If you had spent more time in S.I.T. with your lift list, you would have already realized this.)

Public humiliation. (or fear of it) It's powerful and it's effective.

I had never heard the terminology "plenary verbal inspiration" so I took a quick peek online. To my layman's mind it pretty much conveys the same thing as "God had a purpose for everything He said, where, how, why and so on." Maybe I'm missing something.... It wouldn't be the first (or last) time. From what you have posted, I deduce you: 1.) Accept the obvious reality that contradictions exist. 2.) Are of the opinion the contradictions don't negate the possibility of the scriptures being divinely inspired Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position. As to the matter of our current and most recent generation hearing/ignoring the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God: Though that is an interesting topic in an of itself, unless it relates to the broader topic at hand, I don't see the relevance. We're not talking about a divine connection in the present, we're talking about a divine connection from times that are long gone by. edit: darn fingers don't want to cooperate tonight.

The pneuma hagion concept presented in PLAF (The Wonder Class) is that God had a purpose for everything He said, where He said it, to whom He said it, yada, yada, ad infinitum. This makes it look more like it was hammered out by a bunch of ad hoc committee members or reddit regular posters, one upping each other with comments about OP's mom. ..................................... Edited because words are supposed to have spaces between them and stuff.

"There were probably occasional odd writers in Israel prior to the reign of Solomon, but it was only during his reign that the government became wealthy enough to establish an "industrial strength" scriptorium, where a full time staff was fed in order to crank out all sorts of material. It's almost certain that one of their first projects would be to produce a narrative confirming Solomon's legitimacy to the throne, hence 1 and 2 Samuel. The story of David and Goliath would be one of the cornerstones of that narrative, but there was only one problem. The time when David came to power was only a little over 40 years before the time Solomon's scriptorium began operating. The events of David's rise to power were still part of living memory, and Solomon's writers couldn't just throw all of that away. There were still plenty of people who could say "That just ain't the way it was!" So to compromise, the writers included the popular, glorious story of puny David's victory over the hulking Goliath... but they introduced it with the truth, about David coming to Saul to minister through music. And if that wasn't enough, the writers of the narrative revealed in 2 Samuel 21:19 that it wasn't David, but rather Elhanan who killed Goliath. Notice that the words the brother of in that verse are in italics. They aren't there in the Hebrew. And if it isn't enough to look at just a few contradictions in Samuel, there also seems to be an irreconcilable error. 1 Samuel 13:1 (KJV) reads "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel..." The verse literally reads "A son of one year was Saul when he became king, and two years he reigned over Israel" in the Hebrew. What does that mean? It makes for some interesting thinking! The earliest characters in the Tanakh are counter-mythological, to attack the myths of the sixth-century BCE Babylonians, among whom the descendants of Solomon's scribes had been exiled. The poetic truths these characters reveal are truths about who the LORD God is, and how he works. Beginning with Abraham, I think, and proceeding through characters like Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua, we have legendary characters. I think there were real people at the heart of these stories, but the characters took on exaggerated characteristics as the stories were told through generation after generation. It is very hard to read them as if they were the kind of people we know and are. But when we come to David, the writers can't get away with just foisting off the legends. They have to include the truth, too. From there, things become more and more concrete." Pardon me for saying so but you're not exactly strengthening your case for the pneuma hagion concept. Ya know what I mean, Vern?

I didn't say God shouldn't be able to use irony. What I did say is that there are plenty of examples of irony in secular writing. That means the Bible doesn't hold exclusive rights to irony or any other figure of speech.

Intentional contradiction does not equate with something being God-Breathed. We find this technique being used frequently in modern writing, as well. We call it irony.

:blink:

Modern Christianity is based largely on "what Paul said". So, it comes down to determining what Paul actually said. Did he say that all scripture is God-Breathed? The consensus among scholars would be that he did not. (Based on the assumption he did not write II Tim. 3:16, the verse that states that to be the case.) So, it might be God-Breathed and it might not. What we can be reasonably certain of, assuming Paul did not write the verse in question, is that II Tim. 3:16 should not be cited as the determining factor. I think we've extensively demonstrated on this and other threads that there are, indeed, contradictions in the scriptures. That much of it seems to be off the table. That leaves us with demonstrating that the scriptures are God-Breathed. The only indication we have that they are is a verse of scripture that appears to be a forgery. Why is it so important that they be God-Breathed? Is it because various men have told us they need to be? Maybe they're wrong. Maybe this idea that "It would all fall apart." is just a hyped up phrase that has no basis in reality.

I buried Paul. Sincerely, The Walrus

I apologize for ever being part of an organization that sanctioned this sort of behavior.

The bullying that went on in TWI was not the playground variety we hear so much about. It was a version of workplace bullying. Here's a snip from a helpful site that can help with understanding workplace bullying. "Unlike schoolyard bullying, you were not targeted because you were a "loner" without friends to stand up to the bullying gang. Nor are you a weakling. Most likely, you were targeted (for reasons the instigator may or may not have known) because you posed a "threat" to him or her. The perception of threat is entirely in his/her mind, but it is what he/she feels and believes. WBI research findings from our year 2000 study and conversations with thousands of targets have confirmed that targets appear to be the veteran and most skilled person in the workgroup. Targets are independent. They refuse to be subservient. Bullies seek to enslave targets. When targets take steps to preserve their dignity, their right to be treated with respect, bullies escalate their campaigns of hatred and intimidation to wrest control of the target's work from the target." SOURCE

Are you trying to say I'm not a real frog? It's not easy being green. Ya know?

"A bully only exists because it take others to allow them to be a bully - a bully is a result of other folks being whimps." This may be true for some types of bullies, the more blatant ones, such as you find on a school playground. But, the most skilled bullies I've encountered in my life are the ones who have people fooled into thinking they are "nice guys". They manipulate covertly and feign empathy. Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Being (or not being) a wimp isn't really a factor in those situations. In fact, the more you stand up to them, the more they turn up the heat. A negative response is what fuels them.

"But the whole things seems circular: How do we know scripture is God-breathed? It says so in scripture; How do we know that's correct? Well, it's in scripture, so it must be God-breathed." I like to say it has a "self-professed integrity". It sounds so much more academic. :B)

I wonder if there's a short synonym for sesquipedalian.

So...So...So..You're saying we were used as a sales force? Well, at least we were well paid.

And THIS is what we've been calling God Breathed? :blink: It sounds more like a writers' meeting for SNL.

I don't understand what you mean.

In order for that to be true, we would all have to agree his charisma is what drew us to The Way and kept us involved. We've already seen evidence to the contrary in less than 1 page of responses.

Maybe what we think of as charisma was really his ability to manipulate and bully people. He was good at it. People who never even met him were subjected to his manipulation through second and third hand sources. For example,during PLAF (The Wonder Class) we were manipulated into laughing at jokes we had heard many times before and didn't find amusing the first time. Certain sessions were hyped and we were to respond accordingly with excitement whether we were moved or not. The list goes on. Somehow, from far away, he was still able to evoke the sort of emotional responses and adulation he sought. That's charisma. Or at least a part of it.

He could be charismatic on stage. He knew how to evoke emotion. He could also be boring as hell when he would miss the emotional mark and just drone on and on. Much of what we think of regarding his charisma is a hype that was built around him. ""Wait until you hear session #5, Dr. is on fire!!" We bought it and we sold it. Did he really have it? Yes and no.

Where I live, public schools already use cameras extensively. Virtually every inch of a school can be seen, with the exception of areas where privacy is expected, such as restrooms, private counselling rooms and the like. They are not monitored "live" and captured data is recorded over after a certain amount of time. So, unless there are used to address a specific incident or matter of concern, their value is actually somewhat limited.

"God breathed the contradictions into the Tanakh in order to foil people who try to put him into a box (systematic theology)" Why that mischievous rascal. Who would have thought Him to be such a puckish rogue?