Raf

You guys prefer Orviĺle Redenbacher, Jiffy Pop or Pop Secret?

oh kaaaaaayyyy

Not as impressed as I hoped I would be with that first video. Part of the reason was "to whom addressed." As a follower of TWI, I would have been wholly unimpressed with the argument that Wierwille was wrong about Christology because there's a word someone made up that defines away Wierwille's point by fiat. So you see, Wierwille is wrong because of hocuscadabra! I did like how he documented Wierwille's cursory [at best] grasp of early church history, but he inadvertently exposed some of his own. To hear him tell it, the early church comprised nothing but orthodox trinitarians occasionally pestered by heretical wannabes. In reality there were a whole bunch of competing Christologies in the early church with orthodoxy winning out. Veering off topic. Veering back. As a message to a general audience, I'd give this video a B. As a message to a Christian audience, an A. As a message to a scholarly audience, a C-.

Wrong wizard, WW

Geena Davis

Once again, I am not advocating "perfect" as a definition.

lol

I apologize for my initial response to this post, but I DID just comment about the number of times I addressed it. Quickest summary: It means what YOU think it means. However you answer that question, if you include the Bible as theopneustos but exclude PFAL, why? What criteria are you using? I submit that someone else can use the same criteria to exclude the Bible as theopneustos, regardless of how YOU define that term. PFAL's definition was easiest to refute, as both PFAL and the Bible have actual errors and contradictions that disqualify them as theopneustos by PFAL's definition.. But I contend that it doesn't matter how you define theopneustos. Once you define it, explicitly or implicitly, you face the problem of deciding what to include and what to exclude, using some explicit or implicit criteria, which I contend can be used just as easily to disqualify the Bible as it can to exclude PFAL.

There is a correct answer. We may not like it.

Oh come on. How many times do I have to go pver this?

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