Being fair and logical, I'd acknowledge that you've acknowledged that you need to support claims and statements, and not just toss them out baldly. In any discussion, that's necessary. However, you didn't fulfill the minimum REASONABLE requirement. You dumped a bunch of verse citations, and said that they cover "the central message."
Anyone reasonable would expect the following.
[claim made] "This matches Hekekiah 8:42, which says "[verse quoted.]
If it's a single verse, people might give you a pass on posting the text of the verse, especially if the meaning of the verse is obvious. If there's anything contestable, they're free to post the verse, point out the problem, and point out that failing to post the verse looks like you were trying to pretend there was a Scriptural basis for a non-Scriptural point, and used an irrelevant verse to conceal that, hoping nobody would check it. (vpw did that quite a bit when text-dumping- just look at his stuff on the manifestations in the Advanced Class, and you'll find a bunch without looking hard.)
Even if I might agree with your points, or might match your thinking if I saw their basis, if you just make bald claims, then make bald claims that they have a Scriptural basis, I'm NOT going to take you seriously- and neither would most people. Don't think that's specific to either you, us, or this subject. That's pretty much what you find in MOST of cyberspace- providing it's a place of actual discussions. (Places where people trade insults and places where people just pat each other on the back won't look that way, either one.
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures. But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong. This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway. Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
I don't feel we are trading insults. Just don't agree on some things.There's a difference.
If I'm trying to eat healthy I don't purchase junk food and keep it in the house. Then I'm not tempted late at night. Or at least I'm forced to eat something healthier. I think about the problem beforehand and consider how future-me will think. Not how idealized me would think.
Because "thought-life" varies throughout the day and days.
If there are weapons available to kill many in a short time, that should have been thought of beforehand.
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures. But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong. This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway. Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
I don't feel we are trading insults. Just don't agree on some things.There's a difference.
Proverbs 22:3 might be a better application than what you proposed from the Bible.
This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that
O.K... Here ya go..from the original post...
"The quality of life of a society is ultimately determined by the thoughts that each individual in that society holds in their mind. Those thoughts in turn are dependant on the things each individual is told by sources outside of ourselves."
There are types of mental health problems that simply don't respond favorably to this approach.
1. Rrobs clearly cares more about lifting himself up (and failing) with what he feels is correct, true, righteous, et cetera (I agree with others in that it's repackaged dogma) versus actually having an intellectual conversation on the proposed social problem. Which, as others have stated, was clearly his failed attempt at disguising other motives with a current topic of the week.
2. As my students stay, don't feed the troll. All he cares about is the attention we are giving him. He is condescending and not a leader or a teacher. He most likely sees himself as both. But no rational person could read his responses and think he is either.
3. Academia does not dismiss the bible, it is the bible that dismisses academia. What does that tell you? So again, I will talk to you (and not at you) when you learn how to have a conversation of give and take. You currently do not. You are ethnocentric to a degree I haven't seen in awhile. Is this part of your corps training or something?
4. He reminds me specifically of this clip from Good Will Hunting. He is the blonde in a ponytail who thinks he knows more than Matt Damon but finds out that he does not. Seriously, watch this clip and tell me it's not a replication of what is happening in rrobs posts.
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures. But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong. This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway. Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
I don't feel we are trading insults. Just don't agree on some things.There's a difference.
rrobs:
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures.
T-Bone:
I’m not aware of any approved posting procedures for Grease Spot…But I think the issue may be that you’re unaware of a typical debate format: someone puts forth a premise, idea, assertion, etc. and provides some kind of evidence or fact that they hope will convince their opponent and/or the audience.
== == == ==
rrobs:
But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong.
T-Bone:
It’s not a matter of your post being off the mark – when no mark was ever established by you in the first place – if by “mark” you mean being way off the intended target, inaccurate, incorrect, misguided, etc…You’re right, there is no obligation for other posters to correct you – but you did NOT set up a specific "target", nor did you introduce an arguable point for discussion…it looks to me like you introduced an assumption you have (and in my humble opinion there were really quite a few very vague assumptions in your first post).
Honestly, how is anyone (other than God almighty) even capable of proving you wrong if we can’t read your mind to see how all your assumptions and Bible knowledge fit together to make your point unassailable? And maybe in your mind the point is unassailable – but you have to give others something of substance (specific appropriate scriptures and logical arguments) to consider in order to test if your point is unassailable.
Your post may have some good points and find common ground with others here – but I tend to think folks will shy away from any of that if your points are unfounded – i.e. having no scriptural basis or justification; I was willing to give you a half-a$$ed benefit of a doubt by engaging you on this thread – but wanted something concrete that I could mull over.
== == == ==
rrobs:
This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway.
T-Bone:
Three pages ago this thread would have gone in a more interesting and thought-provoking direction if you would have started off with a clear premise, arguable point, or some such debatable issue.
Funny you should use the analogy of a prosecuting attorney – that’s how I felt on this thread. But I was not accusing you of asserting a bunch unbiblical stuff – if you recall I selected portions out of your first post that needed proof of some kind, biblical references! I guess you were assuming everything you said was biblically based – and then you wanted others to find passages to prove it wasn’t.
That’s like saying you can prove God exists by using only the Bible – “see, it says right here in Genesis, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Perhaps I’m a little more liberal in my thought process but I think even Paul drew arguments for the existence of God from other sources like in Romans 1 & 2 – appealing to the existence of the conscience and the order of the cosmos. This isn’t a commercial for the existence of God – I’m merely suggesting Paul may have had a wider audience in mind besides Israel… and perhaps that is something some folks miss when coming to Grease Spot. This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum. If a person wants to preach perhaps they should look for another website. But if one genuinely wants to discuss ideas and the thinking process behind those ideas and be willing to present logical arguments for their viewpoint and listen to counterpoints and debate them – then hey have we got a forum for you!
== == == == ==
rrobs:
Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
T-Bone:
You ask if the message of the Bible carries any weight – I believe I already answered that – see my previous paragraph – i.e. this is not a Christian website. But perhaps you want to mull over the fine art of debate and read some other threads in doctrinal and questioning faith. Here it may not be so much the status of a work that you reference (that it may or may not be perceived as a holy book) but if one can prove from that text by quoting it or by logical argument that it supports your point.
As for your last remarks , “I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?” I would have to say you’re referring to a hypothetical situation that’s loaded with assumptions. Better as compared to what? Better – like superior? Better – like preferred?
1. Rrobs clearly cares more about lifting himself up (and failing) with what he feels is correct, true, righteous, et cetera (I agree with others in that it's repackaged dogma) versus actually having an intellectual conversation on the proposed social problem. Which, as others have stated, was clearly his failed attempt at disguising other motives with a current topic of the week.
2. As my students stay, don't feed the troll. All he cares about is the attention we are giving him. He is condescending and not a leader or a teacher. He most likely sees himself as both. But no rational person could read his responses and think he is either.
3. Academia does not dismiss the bible, it is the bible that dismisses academia. What does that tell you? So again, I will talk to you (and not at you) when you learn how to have a conversation of give and take. You currently do not. You are ethnocentric to a degree I haven't seen in awhile. Is this part of your corps training or something?
4. He reminds me specifically of this clip from Good Will Hunting. He is the blonde in a ponytail who thinks he knows more than Matt Damon but finds out that he does not. Seriously, watch this clip and tell me it's not a replication of what is happening in rrobs posts.
What? A lot of unproven claims there.
I "clearly" lift myself up? You know my motives (1 Sam 16:7)? What other motives am I hiding? Did you see the post where I said I've learned something from GSC, where I said I do indeed need to provide documentation for what I say? Is that not trying to go half way and trying to discuss things lioke adults? I know it's from VP (I think), but I can't help thinking that when you point a finger at me you are pointing 3 back at yourself. VP or the devil, that's pretty true (Rom 2:1). I've not once attacked anybody personally here. I've never questioned anybody's motives as you question mine. What is your proof for saying the Bible does not dismiss academia? I gave proof it does. Here it is again, 1 Cor 2:5 (academia = wisdom of men).
No corps, no WOW, just staff. I even skipped most Sunday services. Wasn't even in a twig at HQ. So you got that wrong also. How about you? When I worked there I said on more than one occasion that the way corps was fairly robotic. It got back to LCM and I saw flames from his eyes after he threw his sunglasses onto the ground and broke them. I was surprised I didn't get fired, but I didn't. I guess they needed a pilot that bad.
So if I don't know more than you (which I never claimed I did)? Then you must know more than me? No ego there!
I'm ethnocentric? Are the cultures of Florida and California that different?
All I care about is attention? Really, you are sure of that? I sure as hell don't need attention/approval from GSC. Definitely you are barking up the wrong tree there.
I've failed? (Is 55:11). Just too much crap to even answer!
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures. But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong. This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway. Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
I don't feel we are trading insults. Just don't agree on some things.There's a difference.
Actually, it's not a dubious claim at all. It's a declaration that your argument is faulty. Which is fundamental to whether or not you have anything that can be responded to.
What general message of the Bible? You've made specific claims about the specific meaning of specific messages of the Bible apparently without understanding how to make a valid argument. If you'd like to bone up on the subject, you could start here. Or somewhere else, but it's important to understand the basics of logic and argument.
1. Rrobs clearly cares more about lifting himself up (and failing) with what he feels is correct, true, righteous, et cetera (I agree with others in that it's repackaged dogma) versus actually having an intellectual conversation on the proposed social problem. Which, as others have stated, was clearly his failed attempt at disguising other motives with a current topic of the week.
2. As my students stay, don't feed the troll. All he cares about is the attention we are giving him. He is condescending and not a leader or a teacher. He most likely sees himself as both. But no rational person could read his responses and think he is either.
3. Academia does not dismiss the bible, it is the bible that dismisses academia. What does that tell you? So again, I will talk to you (and not at you) when you learn how to have a conversation of give and take. You currently do not. You are ethnocentric to a degree I haven't seen in awhile. Is this part of your corps training or something?
4. He reminds me specifically of this clip from Good Will Hunting. He is the blonde in a ponytail who thinks he knows more than Matt Damon but finds out that he does not. Seriously, watch this clip and tell me it's not a replication of what is happening in rrobs posts.
Actually, it's not a dubious claim at all. It's a declaration that your argument is faulty. Which is fundamental to whether or not you have anything that can be responded to.
What general message of the Bible? You've made specific claims about the specific meaning of specific messages of the Bible apparently without understanding how to make a valid argument. If you'd like to bone up on the subject, you could start here. Or somewhere else, but it's important to understand the basics of logic and argument.
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does. All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11).Theysearched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
Just curious, how long did it take you to complete that course on arguments you mentioned?
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does. All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11).Theysearched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
Just curious, how long did it take you to complete that course on arguments you mentioned?
"Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics."
You are in a DISCUSSION forum. We DISCUSS things here. You can either dump links, post a bunch of bald claims then storm off indignant when asked to support them, or you can DISCUSS. If you can't tell the difference between those 3, you're going to have a rough time in most DISCUSSIONS online. (Places where everyone just pats each other on the back for agreeing with each other don't really discuss- and IMHO aren't very healthy for a growing spiritual life.)
"Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, "
A)THAT'S the "general message of the Bible"?
B) The Bible has a "general message"? It's a codex, and I think each book of the book of books has a general purpose (message?) and there's general points made. If there is a single, GENERAL message OVERALL, I'd be rather disappointed it was that one. I think proponents of The Red Thread make a better "argument" for a "general message" that actually means something- and I'm sure you've heard at least a little of their supporting verses.
"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not."
You have the full text of what they discussed the whole time, and can prove that Paul made a bunch of claims and didn't support them from Scripture?
It seems to me that Paul was used to actually supporting his claims when he preached.
Acts 17:1-4. (KJV)
"17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."
Acts 17:1-4. (NASB)
"17 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
That was in Thessalonica. (17:1). The main problem in Thessalonica was when the religious authorities stirred up a mob.
Acts 17:4-8 (NASB)
"4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things."
"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up."
A) You INFERRED that Paul didn't back up his claims when in Berea. Paul suddenly changed his presentation style radically? And that without a verse saying so, and you just happen to know that anyway?
B) The mob was the problem. There were respectable Christians in Thessalonica as a result of Paul preaching and making sense to the Thessalonians. Why do you think there ARE letters (plural) to the saints at Thessalonica? Some believed- and The Word says so-we just read that.
"I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike. "
I can only speak for myself. Everyone else can see the difference with what I just posted, and what you posted and I replied to (which now, at least, actually addressed some verses, which was, again, an improvement.) Now you have a basis of comparison. Compare them side-by-side if needed.
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does. All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment.I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11).Theysearched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
Just curious, how long did it take you to complete that course on arguments you mentioned?
On 10/6/2017 at 10:29 AM, rrobs said:
The statements I made need no clarification. Excuse me for saying it, but "they say what they mean, and they mean what they say," but that is really the best way I can put it. There are two kinds of people, those who believe what I said and those who don't. I do, others don't. Not much more to say about it.
23 hours ago, rrobs said:
I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...
rrobs:
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
T-Bone:
Yet you persist in trying to persuade others that you have made a valid point by your vague sweeping generalization of the Bible...at best this is vague apologetics.
== == == ==
rrobs:
…are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible?
T-Bone:
I was going to ask you what is your idea of the general message of the Bible – but I see you answered that in the next sentence.
== == ==
rrobs:
I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does.
T-Bone:
It seems you have a rather rigid and legalistic viewpoint of the Bible – perhaps you could give specific passages to back up your assertion; since your claim “it says” refers to the whole Bible – I think you’ll have to provide an exhaustive list of passages rather than proof-texting to establish what you are proposing…
...another thing that came to mind after I read your statement is Matthew 5:45 speaking of the benevolence of God to all – For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust....my point is - Matthew 5:45 seems to go counter to your idea of the general message of the Bible.
== == == = =
rrobs:
All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
T-Bone:
Perhaps you need to try a little harder to see the difference between your methods and many others here - because there is a BIG difference!.... Besides making vague sweeping generalizations and proof-texting (as mentioned above - although you very rarely provide any texts to prove a point) - you frequently appeal to ignorance by attempting to use other folks supposed inability to disprove your “conclusions” as proof of the validity of your conclusion.
I don’t recall that being a popular way to debate around here...once again the onus is on the one making a claim to provide scriptural support for the claim - then the ball goes back into the opponent's court to argue whether or not the passages cited are relevant to supporting the claim.
Another thing is the all-or-nothing tactic that you resort to when challenged. Case in point: in your reply to Twinky on October 6th you said “The statements I made need no clarification. Excuse me for saying it, but "they say what they mean, and they mean what they say," but that is really the best way I can put it. There are two kinds of people, those who believe what I said and those who don't. I do, others don't. Not much more to say about it.”
You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty – besides the fact that you refused to give scripture references for your assertions…and I could go on…but maybe you should think about these obvious differences between your methods and the others that you refer to.
== == == ==
rrobs:
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
T-Bone:
I think Paul’s usual strategy was to appeal to the Old Testament passages that proved Jesus is the Messiah. granted, everyone didn't have a printed version of their own Old Testament - and being aware of Paul's knowledge and retention of scripture he probably referred to Old Testament passages that spoke of the Messiah...if hearers wanted to check on the veracity of Paul's claims - they probably would head to a local synagogue or someplace where scrolls of the Old Testament "books" were kept - so they could review the passages that Paul referred to. in effect, Paul provided scripture to back up his claims given what was available at the time - although for us having printed Bibles, Internet, eBooks of Bibles on devices, etc. - our approach to checking on a reference is by far much quicker....My point is that the standards for arguments, teaching, etc. back then were probably similar to those of modern day academics.
It seems kind of silly for you to suggest that we should let you off the hook so you don’t have to provide scripture references because the Bereans didn’t demand that of Paul. You sabotage your own argument by admitting the Bereans did indeed search the scriptures (the Old Testament) to see for themselves if what Paul said about Jesus the Messiah was true.
I dare say the Bereans are perhaps a good model of how to study the Bible…as The Moody Bible Commentary puts it – they approached Paul’s teaching with some open-mindedness, they were objective in their evaluation of his message, and they judged his message by the standard of scripture rather than preconceived prejudices.
Your posts have been a far cry from Paul’s method of argument as well…and I think it’s fair to say many posters here have tried to help you to clarify your message a-la-Berean style but you have consistently short-circuited the process by dodging simple requests for supporting scripture.
And another thing – when I said “This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum.” You replied with “I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...” …Yet you continue to make the same mistake by expecting us to respond like an adoring congregation to a consummate preacher - - or to cut you some slack because you claim Paul’s Berean audience made no demands of him?....yeah and on that note - again it makes me wonder about those supposed two Christian websites that you said you posted the same paper - if you even did that...and if you did indeed post the same paper there I am curious about the responses....I am curious to see what kind of "Christian standards" those posters used in evaluating your paper.
"Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics."
You are in a DISCUSSION forum. We DISCUSS things here. You can either dump links, post a bunch of bald claims then storm off indignant when asked to support them, or you can DISCUSS. If you can't tell the difference between those 3, you're going to have a rough time in most DISCUSSIONS online. (Places where everyone just pats each other on the back for agreeing with each other don't really discuss- and IMHO aren't very healthy for a growing spiritual life.)
"Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, "
A)THAT'S the "general message of the Bible"?
B) The Bible has a "general message"? It's a codex, and I think each book of the book of books has a general purpose (message?) and there's general points made. If there is a single, GENERAL message OVERALL, I'd be rather disappointed it was that one. I think proponents of The Red Thread make a better "argument" for a "general message" that actually means something- and I'm sure you've heard at least a little of their supporting verses.
"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not."
You have the full text of what they discussed the whole time, and can prove that Paul made a bunch of claims and didn't support them from Scripture?
It seems to me that Paul was used to actually supporting his claims when he preached.
Acts 17:1-4. (KJV)
"17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."
Acts 17:1-4. (NASB)
"17 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
That was in Thessalonica. (17:1). The main problem in Thessalonica was when the religious authorities stirred up a mob.
Acts 17:4-8 (NASB)
"4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things."
"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up."
A) You INFERRED that Paul didn't back up his claims when in Berea. Paul suddenly changed his presentation style radically? And that without a verse saying so, and you just happen to know that anyway?
B) The mob was the problem. There were respectable Christians in Thessalonica as a result of Paul preaching and making sense to the Thessalonians. Why do you think there ARE letters (plural) to the saints at Thessalonica? Some believed- and The Word says so-we just read that.
"I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike. "
I can only speak for myself. Everyone else can see the difference with what I just posted, and what you posted and I replied to (which now, at least, actually addressed some verses, which was, again, an improvement.) Now you have a basis of comparison. Compare them side-by-side if needed.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I learned something from it. I left out the details that makes all the difference. Acts 17 is indeed not a valid basis for my argument. I'll always remember this post in my future studies. Sometimes I go too fast. Gotta slow down, especially in handling God's word. I wondered at myself for coming back to GSC when I was obviously the square peg. Now I think it was to learn what you just taught me. That's great! Thanks again! God bless....
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
T-Bone:
Yet you persist in trying to persuade others that you have made a valid point by your vague sweeping generalization of the Bible...at best this is vague apologetics.
== == == ==
rrobs:
…are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible?
T-Bone:
I was going to ask you what is your idea of the general message of the Bible – but I see you answered that in the next sentence.
== == ==
rrobs:
I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does.
T-Bone:
It seems you have a rather rigid and legalistic viewpoint of the Bible – perhaps you could give specific passages to back up your assertion; since your claim “it says” refers to the whole Bible – I think you’ll have to provide an exhaustive list of passages rather than proof-texting to establish what you are proposing…
...another thing that came to mind after I read your statement is Matthew 5:45 speaking of the benevolence of God to all – For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
== == == = =
rrobs:
All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
T-Bone:
Perhaps you need to try a little harder to see the difference between your methods and many others here - because there is a BIG difference!.... Besides making vague sweeping generalizations and proof-texting (as mentioned above - although you very rarely provide any texts to prove a point) - you frequently appeal to ignorance by attempting to use other folks supposed inability to disprove your “conclusions” as proof of the validity of your conclusion.
I don’t recall that being a popular way to debate around here...once again the onus is on the one making a claim to provide scriptural support for the claim - then the ball goes back into the opponent's court to argue whether or not the passages cited are relevant to supporting the claim.
Another thing is the all-or-nothing tactic that you resort to when challenged. Case in point: in your reply to Twinky on October 6th you said “The statements I made need no clarification. Excuse me for saying it, but "they say what they mean, and they mean what they say," but that is really the best way I can put it. There are two kinds of people, those who believe what I said and those who don't. I do, others don't. Not much more to say about it.”
You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty – besides the fact that you refused to give scripture references for your assertions…and I could go on…but maybe you should think about these obvious differences between your methods and the others that you refer to.
== == == ==
rrobs:
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
T-Bone:
I think Paul’s usual strategy was to appeal to the Old Testament passages that proved Jesus is the Messiah. It seems kind of silly for you to suggest that we should let you off the hook so you don’t have to provide scripture references because the Bereans didn’t demand that of Paul. You sabotage your own argument by admitting the Bereans did indeed search the scriptures (the Old Testament) to see for themselves if what Paul said about Jesus the Messiah was true.
I dare say the Bereans are perhaps a good model of how to study the Bible…as The Moody Bible Commentary puts it – they approached Paul’s teaching with some open-mindedness, they were objective in their evaluation of his message, and they judged his message by the standard of scripture rather than preconceived prejudices.
Your posts have been a far cry from Paul’s method of argument as well…and I think it’s fair to say many posters here have tried to help you to clarify your message a-la-Berean style but you have consistently short-circuited the process by dodging simple requests for supporting scripture.
And another thing – when I said “This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum.” You replied with “I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...” …Yet you continue to make the same mistake by expecting us to respond like an adoring congregation to a consummate preacher - - or to cut you some slack because you claim Paul’s Berean audience made no demands of him?....yeah and on that note - again it makes me wonder about those supposed two Christian websites that you said you posted the same paper - if you even did that...and if you did indeed post the same paper there I am curious about the responses....I am curious to see what kind of "Christian standards" those posters used in evaluating your paper.
got links ?
I give up. Thanks for your insights.
Real quick though; one thing you say is definitely wrong. "You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty" I guess it must look that way (or you wouldn't have said it), but the fact is I have learned from things you've said. My thinking has evolved from all of this. Sorry if I've ruffled any feathers in the process. God bless.
Real quick though; one thing you say is definitely wrong. "You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty" I guess it must look that way (or you wouldn't have said it), but the fact is I have learned from things you've said. My thinking has evolved from all of this. Sorry if I've ruffled any feathers in the process. God bless.
sorry - you're right right - I should have said "you have often refused to negotiate...etc."...I can tell your thought process is changing...speaking for myself - you've never ruffled any of my feathers...and quite frankly we've all laid a few eggs here.
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does. All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11).Theysearched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
Just curious, how long did it take you to complete that course on arguments you mentioned?
I'm telling you that I believe your vague claim that all you've really been trying to get at is "the general message of the Bible" is dubious. You've made specific claims about specific things in the Bible while at no time offering either an actual argument about those specific claims. What difference does it make how long it took me to complete any course?
Here's an example, "The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11)." That's a specific claim about a specific message in the Bible. There's a lot of background we're not getting about that situation... either from you or from a plain reading of the verse you cited. Before I take any claims from the Bible at face value, I want to critically evaluate them.
PFLAP was intended to do just the opposite -- get people to believe VPee's claims without critically evaluating them. In fact, criticism was stifled by way of peer pressure and leadership direction.
"I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike. "
I can only speak for myself. Everyone else can see the difference with what I just posted, and what you posted and I replied to (which now, at least, actually addressed some verses, which was, again, an improvement.) Now you have a basis of comparison. Compare them side-by-side if needed.
That is a great post and IMO an excellent demonstration of the issue at hand. Thanks WW.
What did Jesus say? Wasn't it something about those who have eyes to see and ears to hear?
It is his divine power and his alone that gives us all things that pertain to life and godliness. We can realize that power only by having a knowledge of God. It sure won’t come via the TV, computer screen, or radio. Only God tells us how life should be. If you really want to do something positive to change the course of our world, study the Bible and start believing the things it says instead of believing all you hear on CBS. With a scripture centered change of mind, the quality of your individual life will take a turn for the better. The more individuals that do that, the better life becomes for society as a whole.
The Bible is an expression of our collective evolutionary wiring over generations. God is the sum of many abstracted ideal concepts haggled over millennia.
That you think in such an absolute view about God is a misguided but practical survival skill for a group.
The media you have cited is propaganda. To be used over the short-term. Not the long-term no-guarantee-but-best-bet that a god embodies.
So you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Which is why I don't think there's a great point in your statement. You can't contrast the two like that, media and religion.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
36
31
53
Popular Days
Oct 6
38
Oct 31
13
Oct 12
12
Oct 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 26 posts
T-Bone 36 posts
Bolshevik 31 posts
rrobs 53 posts
Popular Days
Oct 6 2017
38 posts
Oct 31 2017
13 posts
Oct 12 2017
12 posts
Oct 7 2017
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Twinky, your post got me thinking a little more on dystopian societies… and by the way The Handmaid's Tale sounds so interesting – I keep telling myself I’ll have a lot more time to catch up o
Beguiled
I am a sociologist/professor/researcher and your argument is definitely "null and void." I know what the peer reviewed research and paradigms say about every major social problem. We can discuss them
Bolshevik
You can't think of other factors that affect quality of life? (and of a society? how is that measured?) You can't think of other sources of thought? You think reactions to words are comp
Posted Images
rrobs
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures. But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong. This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway. Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
I don't feel we are trading insults. Just don't agree on some things.There's a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If I'm trying to eat healthy I don't purchase junk food and keep it in the house. Then I'm not tempted late at night. Or at least I'm forced to eat something healthier. I think about the problem beforehand and consider how future-me will think. Not how idealized me would think.
Because "thought-life" varies throughout the day and days.
If there are weapons available to kill many in a short time, that should have been thought of beforehand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Proverbs 22:3 might be a better application than what you proposed from the Bible.
Does that work?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
O.K... Here ya go..from the original post...
"The quality of life of a society is ultimately determined by the thoughts that each individual in that society holds in their mind. Those thoughts in turn are dependant on the things each individual is told by sources outside of ourselves."
There are types of mental health problems that simply don't respond favorably to this approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beguiled
1. Rrobs clearly cares more about lifting himself up (and failing) with what he feels is correct, true, righteous, et cetera (I agree with others in that it's repackaged dogma) versus actually having an intellectual conversation on the proposed social problem. Which, as others have stated, was clearly his failed attempt at disguising other motives with a current topic of the week.
2. As my students stay, don't feed the troll. All he cares about is the attention we are giving him. He is condescending and not a leader or a teacher. He most likely sees himself as both. But no rational person could read his responses and think he is either.
3. Academia does not dismiss the bible, it is the bible that dismisses academia. What does that tell you? So again, I will talk to you (and not at you) when you learn how to have a conversation of give and take. You currently do not. You are ethnocentric to a degree I haven't seen in awhile. Is this part of your corps training or something?
4. He reminds me specifically of this clip from Good Will Hunting. He is the blonde in a ponytail who thinks he knows more than Matt Damon but finds out that he does not. Seriously, watch this clip and tell me it's not a replication of what is happening in rrobs posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
rrobs:
OK. So I at least got half way to approved posting procedures.
T-Bone:
I’m not aware of any approved posting procedures for Grease Spot…But I think the issue may be that you’re unaware of a typical debate format: someone puts forth a premise, idea, assertion, etc. and provides some kind of evidence or fact that they hope will convince their opponent and/or the audience.
== == == ==
rrobs:
But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark? I know there is no obligation to do so, but if it's that bad, somebody could easily proved me wrong.
T-Bone:
It’s not a matter of your post being off the mark – when no mark was ever established by you in the first place – if by “mark” you mean being way off the intended target, inaccurate, incorrect, misguided, etc…You’re right, there is no obligation for other posters to correct you – but you did NOT set up a specific "target", nor did you introduce an arguable point for discussion…it looks to me like you introduced an assumption you have (and in my humble opinion there were really quite a few very vague assumptions in your first post).
Honestly, how is anyone (other than God almighty) even capable of proving you wrong if we can’t read your mind to see how all your assumptions and Bible knowledge fit together to make your point unassailable? And maybe in your mind the point is unassailable – but you have to give others something of substance (specific appropriate scriptures and logical arguments) to consider in order to test if your point is unassailable.
Your post may have some good points and find common ground with others here – but I tend to think folks will shy away from any of that if your points are unfounded – i.e. having no scriptural basis or justification; I was willing to give you a half-a$$ed benefit of a doubt by engaging you on this thread – but wanted something concrete that I could mull over.
== == == ==
rrobs:
This could have been settled 3 pages ago had somebody did that. A prosecutor can't just say, "He committed murder," and then have the jury declare the guy guilty. There has to be proof of some kind. I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree instead of just saying I offered no proof which is really a dubious claim at best anyway.
T-Bone:
Three pages ago this thread would have gone in a more interesting and thought-provoking direction if you would have started off with a clear premise, arguable point, or some such debatable issue.
Funny you should use the analogy of a prosecuting attorney – that’s how I felt on this thread. But I was not accusing you of asserting a bunch unbiblical stuff – if you recall I selected portions out of your first post that needed proof of some kind, biblical references! I guess you were assuming everything you said was biblically based – and then you wanted others to find passages to prove it wasn’t.
That’s like saying you can prove God exists by using only the Bible – “see, it says right here in Genesis, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Perhaps I’m a little more liberal in my thought process but I think even Paul drew arguments for the existence of God from other sources like in Romans 1 & 2 – appealing to the existence of the conscience and the order of the cosmos. This isn’t a commercial for the existence of God – I’m merely suggesting Paul may have had a wider audience in mind besides Israel… and perhaps that is something some folks miss when coming to Grease Spot. This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum. If a person wants to preach perhaps they should look for another website. But if one genuinely wants to discuss ideas and the thinking process behind those ideas and be willing to present logical arguments for their viewpoint and listen to counterpoints and debate them – then hey have we got a forum for you!
== == == == ==
rrobs:
Doesn't the general message of the Bible carry any weight? Does that general message align with my post or not? So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter. As it stands now, I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?
T-Bone:
You ask if the message of the Bible carries any weight – I believe I already answered that – see my previous paragraph – i.e. this is not a Christian website. But perhaps you want to mull over the fine art of debate and read some other threads in doctrinal and questioning faith. Here it may not be so much the status of a work that you reference (that it may or may not be perceived as a holy book) but if one can prove from that text by quoting it or by logical argument that it supports your point.
As for your last remarks , “I still think the Bible says that a society that believes God is better than one does not believe in God. That is all I was trying to say. True or not true?” I would have to say you’re referring to a hypothetical situation that’s loaded with assumptions. Better as compared to what? Better – like superior? Better – like preferred?
Edited by T-Boneclarity and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
What? A lot of unproven claims there.
I "clearly" lift myself up? You know my motives (1 Sam 16:7)? What other motives am I hiding? Did you see the post where I said I've learned something from GSC, where I said I do indeed need to provide documentation for what I say? Is that not trying to go half way and trying to discuss things lioke adults? I know it's from VP (I think), but I can't help thinking that when you point a finger at me you are pointing 3 back at yourself. VP or the devil, that's pretty true (Rom 2:1). I've not once attacked anybody personally here. I've never questioned anybody's motives as you question mine. What is your proof for saying the Bible does not dismiss academia? I gave proof it does. Here it is again, 1 Cor 2:5 (academia = wisdom of men).
No corps, no WOW, just staff. I even skipped most Sunday services. Wasn't even in a twig at HQ. So you got that wrong also. How about you? When I worked there I said on more than one occasion that the way corps was fairly robotic. It got back to LCM and I saw flames from his eyes after he threw his sunglasses onto the ground and broke them. I was surprised I didn't get fired, but I didn't. I guess they needed a pilot that bad.
So if I don't know more than you (which I never claimed I did)? Then you must know more than me? No ego there!
I'm ethnocentric? Are the cultures of Florida and California that different?
All I care about is attention? Really, you are sure of that? I sure as hell don't need attention/approval from GSC. Definitely you are barking up the wrong tree there.
I've failed? (Is 55:11). Just too much crap to even answer!
Edited by rrobsContent
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Wait - where’re you going? i was going to make espresso
Edited by T-BoneAccuracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Actually, it's not a dubious claim at all. It's a declaration that your argument is faulty. Which is fundamental to whether or not you have anything that can be responded to.
What general message of the Bible? You've made specific claims about the specific meaning of specific messages of the Bible apparently without understanding how to make a valid argument. If you'd like to bone up on the subject, you could start here. Or somewhere else, but it's important to understand the basics of logic and argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yep, that pretty much nails it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I've called him a troll before too.
But logic doesn't encompass reality. Not enough to describe TWI. IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does. All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
Just curious, how long did it take you to complete that course on arguments you mentioned?
Edited by rrobsContent
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics."
You are in a DISCUSSION forum. We DISCUSS things here. You can either dump links, post a bunch of bald claims then storm off indignant when asked to support them, or you can DISCUSS. If you can't tell the difference between those 3, you're going to have a rough time in most DISCUSSIONS online. (Places where everyone just pats each other on the back for agreeing with each other don't really discuss- and IMHO aren't very healthy for a growing spiritual life.)
"Come on now Rocky, are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible? I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, "
A)THAT'S the "general message of the Bible"?
B) The Bible has a "general message"? It's a codex, and I think each book of the book of books has a general purpose (message?) and there's general points made. If there is a single, GENERAL message OVERALL, I'd be rather disappointed it was that one. I think proponents of The Red Thread make a better "argument" for a "general message" that actually means something- and I'm sure you've heard at least a little of their supporting verses.
"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not."
You have the full text of what they discussed the whole time, and can prove that Paul made a bunch of claims and didn't support them from Scripture?
It seems to me that Paul was used to actually supporting his claims when he preached.
Acts 17:1-4. (KJV)
"17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."
Acts 17:1-4. (NASB)
"17 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
That was in Thessalonica. (17:1). The main problem in Thessalonica was when the religious authorities stirred up a mob.
Acts 17:4-8 (NASB)
"4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things."
"The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up."
A) You INFERRED that Paul didn't back up his claims when in Berea. Paul suddenly changed his presentation style radically? And that without a verse saying so, and you just happen to know that anyway?
B) The mob was the problem. There were respectable Christians in Thessalonica as a result of Paul preaching and making sense to the Thessalonians. Why do you think there ARE letters (plural) to the saints at Thessalonica? Some believed- and The Word says so-we just read that.
"I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike. "
I can only speak for myself. Everyone else can see the difference with what I just posted, and what you posted and I replied to (which now, at least, actually addressed some verses, which was, again, an improvement.) Now you have a basis of comparison. Compare them side-by-side if needed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
rrobs:
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think the Bible needs to be argued over. I'm not into apologetics.
T-Bone:
Yet you persist in trying to persuade others that you have made a valid point by your vague sweeping generalization of the Bible...at best this is vague apologetics.
== == == ==
rrobs:
…are you telling me you don't know the general message of the Bible?
T-Bone:
I was going to ask you what is your idea of the general message of the Bible – but I see you answered that in the next sentence.
== == ==
rrobs:
I think it says things generally go better when aligned with the Bible as opposed to going against it, which society for the most part, does.
T-Bone:
It seems you have a rather rigid and legalistic viewpoint of the Bible – perhaps you could give specific passages to back up your assertion; since your claim “it says” refers to the whole Bible – I think you’ll have to provide an exhaustive list of passages rather than proof-texting to establish what you are proposing…
...another thing that came to mind after I read your statement is Matthew 5:45 speaking of the benevolence of God to all – For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust....my point is - Matthew 5:45 seems to go counter to your idea of the general message of the Bible.
== == == = =
rrobs:
All IMO, but I doubt I'm alone in my assessment. I'm also trying real hard to see how the methods of argument people make here are much different than mine. Other than being on flip sides of the coin, they seem pretty much alike.
T-Bone:
Perhaps you need to try a little harder to see the difference between your methods and many others here - because there is a BIG difference!.... Besides making vague sweeping generalizations and proof-texting (as mentioned above - although you very rarely provide any texts to prove a point) - you frequently appeal to ignorance by attempting to use other folks supposed inability to disprove your “conclusions” as proof of the validity of your conclusion.
I don’t recall that being a popular way to debate around here...once again the onus is on the one making a claim to provide scriptural support for the claim - then the ball goes back into the opponent's court to argue whether or not the passages cited are relevant to supporting the claim.
Another thing is the all-or-nothing tactic that you resort to when challenged. Case in point: in your reply to Twinky on October 6th you said “The statements I made need no clarification. Excuse me for saying it, but "they say what they mean, and they mean what they say," but that is really the best way I can put it. There are two kinds of people, those who believe what I said and those who don't. I do, others don't. Not much more to say about it.”
You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty – besides the fact that you refused to give scripture references for your assertions…and I could go on…but maybe you should think about these obvious differences between your methods and the others that you refer to.
== == == ==
rrobs:
The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true or not. They were more noble than the Thessalonians who wanted to string him up.
T-Bone:
I think Paul’s usual strategy was to appeal to the Old Testament passages that proved Jesus is the Messiah. granted, everyone didn't have a printed version of their own Old Testament - and being aware of Paul's knowledge and retention of scripture he probably referred to Old Testament passages that spoke of the Messiah...if hearers wanted to check on the veracity of Paul's claims - they probably would head to a local synagogue or someplace where scrolls of the Old Testament "books" were kept - so they could review the passages that Paul referred to. in effect, Paul provided scripture to back up his claims given what was available at the time - although for us having printed Bibles, Internet, eBooks of Bibles on devices, etc. - our approach to checking on a reference is by far much quicker....My point is that the standards for arguments, teaching, etc. back then were probably similar to those of modern day academics.
It seems kind of silly for you to suggest that we should let you off the hook so you don’t have to provide scripture references because the Bereans didn’t demand that of Paul. You sabotage your own argument by admitting the Bereans did indeed search the scriptures (the Old Testament) to see for themselves if what Paul said about Jesus the Messiah was true.
I dare say the Bereans are perhaps a good model of how to study the Bible…as The Moody Bible Commentary puts it – they approached Paul’s teaching with some open-mindedness, they were objective in their evaluation of his message, and they judged his message by the standard of scripture rather than preconceived prejudices.
Your posts have been a far cry from Paul’s method of argument as well…and I think it’s fair to say many posters here have tried to help you to clarify your message a-la-Berean style but you have consistently short-circuited the process by dodging simple requests for supporting scripture.
And another thing – when I said “This is NOT a Christian or religious website/doctrinal forum.” You replied with “I guess that is the crux of the matter. My mistake. Take care...” …Yet you continue to make the same mistake by expecting us to respond like an adoring congregation to a consummate preacher - - or to cut you some slack because you claim Paul’s Berean audience made no demands of him?....yeah and on that note - again it makes me wonder about those supposed two Christian websites that you said you posted the same paper - if you even did that...and if you did indeed post the same paper there I am curious about the responses....I am curious to see what kind of "Christian standards" those posters used in evaluating your paper.
got links ?
Edited by T-Boneformatting & clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I learned something from it. I left out the details that makes all the difference. Acts 17 is indeed not a valid basis for my argument. I'll always remember this post in my future studies. Sometimes I go too fast. Gotta slow down, especially in handling God's word. I wondered at myself for coming back to GSC when I was obviously the square peg. Now I think it was to learn what you just taught me. That's great! Thanks again! God bless....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I give up. Thanks for your insights.
Real quick though; one thing you say is definitely wrong. "You refuse to negotiate or even acknowledge there’s other alternatives, options or the possibility that your idea is faulty" I guess it must look that way (or you wouldn't have said it), but the fact is I have learned from things you've said. My thinking has evolved from all of this. Sorry if I've ruffled any feathers in the process. God bless.
Edited by rrobsspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Evolution doesn't work by donning more armor.
You're thinking of pokemon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
You might be right, but I'm not sure. Ask an armadillo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
sorry - you're right right - I should have said "you have often refused to negotiate...etc."...I can tell your thought process is changing...speaking for myself - you've never ruffled any of my feathers...and quite frankly we've all laid a few eggs here.
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Armadillo eggs it is. Bacon wrapped. This is the internet.
Eat at your own risk. I never check my source.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm telling you that I believe your vague claim that all you've really been trying to get at is "the general message of the Bible" is dubious. You've made specific claims about specific things in the Bible while at no time offering either an actual argument about those specific claims. What difference does it make how long it took me to complete any course?
Here's an example, "The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11)." That's a specific claim about a specific message in the Bible. There's a lot of background we're not getting about that situation... either from you or from a plain reading of the verse you cited. Before I take any claims from the Bible at face value, I want to critically evaluate them.
PFLAP was intended to do just the opposite -- get people to believe VPee's claims without critically evaluating them. In fact, criticism was stifled by way of peer pressure and leadership direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That is a great post and IMO an excellent demonstration of the issue at hand. Thanks WW.
What did Jesus say? Wasn't it something about those who have eyes to see and ears to hear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Bible is an expression of our collective evolutionary wiring over generations. God is the sum of many abstracted ideal concepts haggled over millennia.
That you think in such an absolute view about God is a misguided but practical survival skill for a group.
The media you have cited is propaganda. To be used over the short-term. Not the long-term no-guarantee-but-best-bet that a god embodies.
So you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Which is why I don't think there's a great point in your statement. You can't contrast the two like that, media and religion.
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.