Raf

No one is suggesting otherwise.

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

Deep into the first video and looking forward to getting into the one on JWs. As a survivor of both groups, I'm really having fun with it.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Trying to decide which is a more absurd tangent to derail the thread: The Little Engine That Could or an exploration of a clan of anti-religious zealots during the French Revolution with a view toward discrediting reason as common ground on which to stand while having a conversation or debate about a particular topic in the 21st century. Do I now get to use the Spanish Inquisition to discredit faith as a reliable indicator of morality? I'll bet no one would expect THAT.

Because this is the first time I've encountered this proposition. It's a silly, desperate attempt by religious people to equate faith and reason as values. It's the same "atheism is a religion" argument that religious people make to show that people who reject religion are just as religious as people who embrace it. "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. It's like when VPW said there's no such thing as an atheist because atheists belueve in nothing, but that's a belief, so they believe in something after all! Checkmate, atheists! Hardy-har-har. If it were not such a stupid argument it would be brilliant.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

"Reason is a cult..." . . . . I got nothing, guys. Anyone? Bueller? Frye?

Deadpool Ryan Reynolds The Proposal

Nathan presents us with a more subjective approach, which is fine. I could answer that someone could subjectively accept PFAL as theopnuestos and declare that they know theopneustos when they see it and that they see it in PFAL. If you can't agree on a common frame of reference [for example, a set of criteria against which you can weigh a claim of divine inspiration], then you can't persuade each other using reason. So PFAL is bullshonta. So is Job! Satan asking for God's permission to kill innocent people and God granting that permission to win a dollar bet? Please. Oh, but Job is different! No, really, it's not. Neither is the story of Noah, which didn't happen. And Babel, which didn't happen. And Exodus, which didn't happen. It's all bullshonta. Bulls hit. [Great name for a bar, I just realized]. See, once you go down the path of explaining why PFAL is NOT theopneustos, you automatically establish criteria against which the Bible can also be judged. Still, there's a quality to the Bible, its imperfections aside, that leads you to accept at least part of the Bible as theopneustos. No one said it's perfect. A cowpie doesn't disqualify grass on the other side of the pasture. OK. But why can't the same be said for PFAL? As Capt. America would say, I could do this all day. Without agreeing with me, do you see my point?

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.

For those wondering what's taking place here, the term is Sea Lioning, and this is a textbook example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

With all due respect, Nathan, how many times and in how many ways do I have to explain how we are using God-breathed in this conversation? And roping in the Magna Carta and the Little Engine that Could: you think that's an attempt at exploring the nuances of the topic? It's not cryptic. It's attention-seeking bulls hit designed to shut down the conversation, not contribute to it. Everyone who has participated in this thread has been able to see exactly the point that was being made. You asked multiple questions that demonstrated a firm grasp of the issues being raised. Bolshevik wants you to think "theopneustos" is a word VPW made up and there's something nefarious about applying it to the Bible as countless denominations do. If you'd like mebto expand on the opening post, again, I will. If you believe PFAL is not theopneustos, ask yourself why you've reached that conclusion. [Imperfections, errors and contradictions were ONE MANNER of exploring that issue, but if your definition of theopneustos does not connote or denote "perfection," then identifying imperfections does nothing. Fine. What DOES theopneustos mean TO YOU? Why does PFAL not qualify? I submit that whatever criteria you use to disqualify PFAL as theopneustos, the same criteria will end up disqualifying the Bible as theopneustos. Errors? Check. Contradictions? Check. Self-serving accounts of personal encounters with God? Check. [Read Jonah again one of these days. It's remarkable in its utter shamelessness. Makes VPW's snow on the gas pumps look like it was better documented than the Kennedy assassination]. I spent years tearing Mike's thesis on PFAL to shreds only to come to realize his idolatrous adoration of PFAL was no different from my "healthy respect" for the Bible. The only difference was time. Did that answer your question?

That is a whole other level of discussion. Thanks for the contribution.

I swear guys, I tried. But the utterly moronic arguments are too much to suffer through.

It would have been nice if you had asked these questions at the beginning instead of making demonstrably false assumptions accompanied by multiple tangents that took us far away from the subject matter at hand. "If you reject PFAL as God-breathed on any basis," vs. "If you reject PFAL on any basis." You can reject PFAL as God-breathed without rejecting PFAL. I dare say many of us found ourselves in that position most of the time. I certainly did. I thought PFAL was quite valuable in attempting to understand the Bible and God. But I never thought it was God-breathed, and certainly not by its own "definition." So yes, there is an enormous difference between "rejecting PFAL as God-breathed" and "rejecting PFAL." In this thread I am specifically focusing on the idea that PFAL is God-breathed, and the basis on which we reject that thesis. Do we have to define God-breathed to continue the conversation? Sort of. If you're going to accept one document as God-breathed and reject another, then it's axiomatic that you are using some criterion (or criteria) to make that assessment, some standard that you apply to both documents to find one worthy and the other wanting. You, for example, do not consider either "God-breathed" in any sense defined by PFAL. You do find the Bible historically valuable in a way that you do not find PFAL. I could go through your posts and explain how you inadvertently proved my point more than once. Do you believe in a being called God? Do you believe He is a person, or an idea? Do you believe in Him as Creator? A Father of Jesus Christ? Do you believe He inspired the writing of the Bible? If so, what does "inspired" mean to you? Do you reject PFAL as similarly "inspired"? Why? History does nothing to address the question because the Quran shaped history. The Iliad and the Odyssey shaped history. Lots of books shaped history. The claim that the Bible is inspired by God has to do with its origin and integrity, not its role in history. The Magna Carta had a profound effect on history. No one is arguing that it's therefore God-breathed or inspired of God. My position: If you are going to reject PFAL as "inspired of God" or "God-breathed," and you are going to say the Bible is uniquely inspired of God, I submit it's incumbent on you to explain the basis of your reasoning. And I submit that if you apply the same scrutiny to the Bible that you apply to PFAL, you would be compelled to some to the conclusion that neither is God-breathed, however you define it. Do YOU believe the Bible is God-breathed? If not, there is nothing to discuss. If so, how do YOU define God-breathed? And on what basis do you reject PFAL? I'm not going to presume what you believe about divine inspiration.

"God breathed" does not mean perfect unless you want it to. Of course, if it means perfect, it is as easy to show the Bible is not God breathed as it is to show PFAL is not God breathed. But I submit that if you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis, that basis, when applied to the Bible, will disqualify it as well.

Good heavens, mark the time. He won't be right again for another 12 hours.

Is it multisyllabic words? Is that what stumps you? When you hear "Good morning," do you get upset because it's not morning in Japan? Unless it is morning in Japan? When you watch Law & Order, do you get worked up because police departments aren't necessarily "law" and courts are not necessarily "order"? Do you park on parkways and drive on driveways because that's what they're named dammit!?

Seriously guys. Seriously. How the F!@! am i supposed to have an intelligent conversation with someone showing such a deliberate lack of intelligence. How? HOW?

I would sincerely like to know, Bolshevik, why you are so passionate about derailing every damn concersation we have. People accept the Bible as God-breathed and don't accept PFAL as the same. Not one person accepts the Magna Carta as God-breathed, but dammit you HAD to ask about the Magna Carta to make some esoteric point that the document exists WHICH WAS NEVER IN QUESTION. You SERIOUSLY need to get the flip off threads I start because you clearly lack the skill to engage without going off on irrelevant tangents. eNOUGH already. Damn.

Again with the f'ing babbling. Dude, enough.