This IS in a doctrinal discussion forum, even were it in the "questioning faith" subset of it, and all doctrines (religious or not, questioned or not) are inherently built on certain premises that are recognizable presumptions, regardless of whether or not they are true. We ALL have premises that are presumed to be true, regardless of whether they are branded as being Christian or religious....(SNIP)
I understand what you’re saying here – but – that’s not the way you were talking about in your earlier post; you said
“Of course you don't. Yet, you are evidently compelled to denigrate anyone else that doesn't believe as you do, in a forum where such things are presumed to be true.” Those were your exact words “in a forum where such things (such things as what DWBH said:” I don't believe the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. I don't believe the Bible is perfect.”) are presumed to be true.” Presumed to be true by whom? Everyone who contributes in the doctrinal forum?
And can you be specific where DWBH denigrated…criticized…disparaged other posters on this thread who don’t believe as he does? Have you read Raf’s posts? That’s about as different as you can get – (belief-wise anyways) from most of the posters so far.
Your "presumed" statement implies that everyone that posts in the doctrinal forum - regardless of their belief system or doctrines they hold to (or reject ) – presume the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, that it is inerrant, that it is perfect…and what you’re talking about now (defining doctrine) has no continuity or even relates or excuses what you said previously “in a forum in a forum where such things are presumed to be true.” The “presumed to be true” is a grossly mistaken assumption whereas your more recent “doctrines, subset…premises” post is talking about something totally different – what is doctrine – which I already addressed in my previous post by giving the definition of doctrine…
maybe if you could understand the difference in your two posts – and review what everyone else said on this thread, consider some of the questions and suggestions I posted - you might be able to contribute something that’s relevant to this thread...just a thought anyway.
(SNIP)...The differences between what I believe and what you (or DWBH, or anyone else) believe(s), relates to: (1) what premises we are (or have been) willing to accept, and (2) whatever we have "mentally constructed" based on said premises. If you care to honestly think about it, my initial post to DWBH did not question, attack, or level any charge (however you want to say it) against what he (rather bluntly) stated as his premises. What difference does it make if you disagree with someone's premises? They accept it as being true, and you don't. Good luck going anywhere with that. However, I was probing for what sort of logic was (or might be) involved in his dissing of Paul's writings based on what he said he did accept as his personal "Canon" of the New Testament. Of course, he skirted the issue, by accusing me of needing excuses for believing something which he plainly doesn't, and never directly engaging with the question that was raised. In other words, he responded by attacking whatever he could presume to be my premises.
Why is it that you remain silent when DHBH openly (and for no reason) falsely accused me of "needing excuses," yet when I call him out on it, you are quick to come to his defense? Are you afraid of him, or are that impressed with his rhetoric? Or, maybe you simply agree with his premises, and are likewise quick to imagine fault with mine.
Yeah, similar (perhaps) to how CNN promotes freedom of thought. lol...
(No doubt they're convinced they do a good job of it.)
Not finished yet…there’s a few more details to look at…
DWBH doesn’t need anyone to come to his defense – he does just fine by himself…But funny you should put it that way…because I think you were looking for a fight
On 11/20/2017 at 8:19 PM, TLC said:
So, what good reason might you have for Jesus Christ's refusal to even speak to the Gentiles that sought to meet with him in John 12:20-22, and why did his apostles never conduct any outreach to the Gentiles after the day of Pentecost (as evidenced by Acts 11:19, and further attested to in Galatians 2:9)?
Essentially you started the fight – and for no reason –since this was not a doctrinal debate; I think the reason you picked this particular post is because it was by DWBH…I mean, line up all the ideas and comments every poster made about their current state of beliefs on this thread – and it seems rather odd you home in on DWBH’s personal “canon” of the New Testament and try challenging that. This doesn’t appear to be a random drive-by shooting – but some personal vendetta…I dunno…I could be wrong…but that’s the way it hits me.
I can go on as long as you want to keep rehashing whatever alleged slight has got you so upset – because I thrive on controversy – although I must admit dialogs with you are not very challenging – more frustrating really – in that I have to make an extra effort to wade through all the smoke and mirrors of insinuations, innuendoes, distractions, complaints of victimization, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of relevance, and personal ad hominem (like your CNN jab to me at the end of your post..…maybe I should also include your go-to tactic for intimidation – that patronizing or condescending manner – obvious in your posts to me here and elsewhere.) yeah - I have to wade through all that to figure out what you’re actually saying…well…I say I can go on as long as you – but that’s Grease Spot moderators permitting – if they don’t wind up shutting this thread down first.
Barbara Tuchman in “The Guns of August” (book about the beginning of WWI) made a thought-provoking statement about certain German high-command leaders observing how the conflict unfolded - started to consider alternative strategies as their confidence waned in the original battle plan:
“But once divinity of doctrine has been questioned there is no return to perfect faith.” (Page 243)
That resonated with me when I thought of the starting point in my journey away from fundamentalism...seeing how ineffective so much of Way-doctrine was in dealing with every day life and practical matters.
i do believe that there are numerous places in all the various Epistles of the Canonized New Testament which were authentically INSPIRED by God, or Christ. However, I do not equate "inspired by" with "God-breathed Word and Will of God"
DWBH,
This is so insightful!
After reading this I went to my bible and looked at the Greek word that was translated "given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim 3:16. Thayer, who I have more confidence in than Strong, defines it as inspired of God. I never really thought deeply on this before, but I can clearly see that this, in no way, equates to "dictated by God". This puts a radically different slant on the content and structure of the bible.
That said, I have always believed, and still do in spite of this epiphany, that the bible is the will of God. But now, it seems plausible to me that the letters from Paul could be much more inspired by God to write them, but relying on his own understanding of the Word - which he was an expert on from his training - and the truth of Christ.
This could easily extend to the old testament in areas other than where is states clearly, "God said" or "thus saith the Lord". The book of Proverbs is by Solomon, and doesn't say anything about "thus saith the Lord" in it. So this entire book can, clearly, just be Solomon's own understanding of life, not any specific revelation from God.
Now I've got a lot of work to do. I don't know if I should thank you or be miffed. LOL!
seeing how ineffective so much of Way-doctrine was in dealing with every day life and practical matters.
I think it's even worse now. At least in the past, each fellowship could teach on things that were more relevant to the people in that fellowship. But now, HQ dictates what is to be taught throughout the entire ministry. Like what I need to hear today is the same as some woman in Idaho, or some kid in Mississippi, or a family in France.
I think it's even worse now. At least in the past, each fellowship could teach on things that were more relevant to the people in that fellowship. But now, HQ dictates what is to be taught throughout the entire ministry. Like what I need to hear today is the same as some woman in Idaho, or some kid in Mississippi, or a family in France.
Just so bizarre.
Bizarre and sad in a way – I wonder if the local leadership even realizes how that would tend to disconnect them from the folks in their fellowship…I remember how excited I was to read through the entire Bible after taking the class - - and would “pester” my Twig coordinator with all these questions I had after reading the Old Testament and especially the Gospels…you know - - a lot of stuff not covered in the class or just skimmed over quickly... I was “encouraged” to keep reviewing the PFAL material…talk about a buzzkill on exploring the Christian faith.
I liked what you said in your other post keying off of Don’t Worry’s zeroing in on “inspired”. It got me thinking…A poet or musician watches a beautiful sunset and they are somehow inspired to write something. We don’t say the sunset dictated what they should write. I think it’s the personal unique experience that filled them with the urge to write something – they felt something and had a creative response to it…
so to with the biblical authors...instead of experiencing a sunset - - maybe it was a genuine epiphany - - some personal experience with God that drove folks to write about it. I especially get that feeling in reading the epistles of Paul - - his discourses on the law, the conscience, sin, redemption, the supremacy of Christ, etc. I believe they’re full of epiphanies – where Paul had enlightening realizations that enabled him to understand Old Testament theology from a new and deeper perspective.
I was “encouraged” to keep reviewing the PFAL material…talk about a buzzkill on exploring the Christian faith.
T, this is exactly what happens today. It's all becoming so robotic. I wonder where is the love of God for the people? They're all just so concerned with whether they are doing what HQ wants them to do.
Like the communion ritual. This year I just couldn't sit through that incredibly "solemn" ritual yet again - hold the bread in the right hand, wait until everyone has it, then when we say "take, eat" eat the bread. Then go home and reflect - there won't be refreshments. As I recall, when Jesus was talking about this, they were all eating, actively. And he said nothing about any of this nonsense!
At this point, if my fellowship coordinator didn't do such great teachings, I would probably be gone by now. But she does a great job, and everything, so far, lines up with the Word.
But now, it seems plausible to me that the letters from Paul could be much more inspired by God to write them, but relying on his own understanding of the Word - which he was an expert on from his training - and the truth of Christ.
for me, the inherent difficulty (or problem, if you prefer) with that is where or what it leads to.
namely:
If it came forth like that for Paul, then why should what he wrote be all that much more credible or important than what I believe God inspires within me?
(And if that doesn't strike a chord within you, perhaps it will when your own understanding of the Word is more... how shall I say it... lifted up?)
Besides, exactly how does that fit with Proverbs 3:5?
Being somewhat familiar with what some number of things are said and taught to be Paul's thorn in the flesh... I've found myself wondering at times why it might have been so painful for Paul. If you suppose it to be something outside of himself (i.e., other people), then I'd imagine the very most painful for Paul would be beloved Israelite brethren, who's zealousness for the law was continually perverting his gospel of grace. But, if you suppose it to be more subjective - something wrong or at odds within himself - then it's hard to imagine anything much more troublesome or painful than his being driven to break away from so many years of his own fanaticism for the law.
Think it was hard for some of you to... what's the word used here at GSC... "decompress" after your years in TWI? Well, multiply the worst you can imagine by 1000 fold... and I'm still inclined to think it doesn't come close to being comparable to what Paul probably had to deal with in his mind. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel. Profited above many of his equals. But counted as dung.
Rely on his own understanding of the Word?
Nah. Don't think so. Galatians 1:12 says it about as plainly and as clearly as it can get. Revelation is not inspiration. (And there's a whale of a difference.) There is no mistake, no guesswork whatsoever involved. It hits the mark so cleanly and so spot on, it's... well, it's perfect!
I completely agree. Maybe I should elaborate a bit on my point about Paul.
I believe that Paul did receive revelation, on more than one occasion. I also believe he had the most complete and thorough understanding of the Torah, except the red thread of Christ. Once he learned that missing piece, he was unstoppable. It turned his life around. I'm sure, at first, it was devastating to him to learn how off he had been in his actions, but he corrected that.
However, as for the letters he wrote, some, obviously, in response to reports of serious error, I am now leaning toward the point DWBH made - the letters were inspired to be written, not dictated to Paul. That certainly doesn't mean he was leaning unto his own understanding. On the contrary, he was leaning unto the Word he so clearly knew, understood, and lived.
There is, at one point in one of his letters beginning in 1 Cor 7:6, a section where he specifically states that he is giving his opinion rather than explaining a commandment of God. In other words, what he was saying absolutely was not based on the Word, but based on his own personal insight into the matter. Surely, that was NOT dictated to Paul, or it couldn't have been his own opinion. This actually lends credence to the "inspired vs dictated" viewpoint.
for me, the inherent difficulty (or problem, if you prefer) with that is where or what it leads to.
namely:
If it came forth like that for Paul, then why should what he wrote be all that much more credible or important than what I believe God inspires within me?
(And if that doesn't strike a chord within you, perhaps it will when your own understanding of the Word is more... how shall I say it... lifted up?)
Besides, exactly how does that fit with Proverbs 3:5?
Being somewhat familiar with what some number of things are said and taught to be Paul's thorn in the flesh... I've found myself wondering at times why it might have been so painful for Paul. If you suppose it to be something outside of himself (i.e., other people), then I'd imagine the very most painful for Paul would be beloved Israelite brethren, who's zealousness for the law was continually perverting his gospel of grace. But, if you suppose it to be more subjective - something wrong or at odds within himself - then it's hard to imagine anything much more troublesome or painful than his being driven to break away from so many years of his own fanaticism for the law.
Think it was hard for some of you to... what's the word used here at GSC... "decompress" after your years in TWI? Well, multiply the worst you can imagine by 1000 fold... and I'm still inclined to think it doesn't come close to being comparable to what Paul probably had to deal with in his mind. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel. Profited above many of his equals. But counted as dung.
Rely on his own understanding of the Word?
Nah. Don't think so. Galatians 1:12 says it about as plainly and as clearly as it can get. Revelation is not inspiration.(And there's a whale of a difference.) There is no mistake, no guesswork whatsoever involved. It hits the mark so cleanly and so spot on, it's... well, it's perfect!
I think you have something there…I tend to think inspiration is not as a direct a means as revelation ( just thinking out loud here – I’m not developing an in-depth word study or anything) …maybe it has something to do with content…inspiration could be influential…something that ignites imagination or innovation - - you see something in a totally new light, realize how to resolve a conflict, etc…
whereas revelation is something that is disclosed, uncovered or revealed – i.e. you didn’t figure this out on your own – you had outside help - - God! …so would it be wrong to think of scripture as being a combination of inspiration and revelation – without a big concern to split hairs on what’s what? Again just thinking out loud here.
I believe that Paul did receive revelation, on more than one occasion. I also believe he had the most complete and thorough understanding of the Torah, except the red thread of Christ. Once he learned that missing piece, he was unstoppable. It turned his life around. I'm sure, at first, it was devastating to him to learn how off he had been in his actions, but he corrected that.
hmmm...
although I'm actually not in disagreement with the lead in part, I'm concerned with where you might be headed with that. (Galatians 4:30 comes to mind.)
The Torah (as you call it) was given to Israel. Considering that it wasn't given nor intended for the Gentile nations, how much need or use of it might the apostle to the Gentiles actually have (aside from fending off other zealous adherents to it)?
8 hours ago, Taxidev said:
However, as for the letters he wrote, some, obviously, in response to reports of serious error, I am now leaning toward the point DWBH made - the letters were inspired to be written, not dictated to Paul.
Why suppose that for something to be written by revelation it was something "dictated" to him? I suppose it's just not how I see or think revelation works. Perhaps this isn't the best way to say it, but from my perspective... revelation is so sharp and specific (in the mind's eye) that one's view of reality is altered to such an extent that there is no other reality. Perhaps another way to say it is that his thoughts become our thoughts... and it happens so seamlessly that it* can easily be missed.
*i.e., the alteration (or extension, if you prefer) of what is known to be "real."
8 hours ago, Taxidev said:
There is, at one point in one of his letters beginning in 1 Cor 7:6, a section where he specifically states that he is giving his opinion rather than explaining a commandment of God. In other words, what he was saying absolutely was not based on the Word, but based on his own personal insight into the matter.
How or why did so many get into this thinking that everything that is of God, or is the "word of God," has to be some stinkin' rule or law or "commandment" of some sort? How else would you have or expect the Lord Jesus Christ (or God Himself) to communicate something to you, so that it wouldn't come across as such?
The Torah (as you call it) was given to Israel. Considering that it wasn't given nor intended for the Gentile nations, how much need or use of it might the apostle to the Gentiles actually have (aside from fending off other zealous adherents to it)?
Considering the new testament hadn't been written yet, I would say it was extremely useful, especially once he understood the truth about Jesus Christ.
1 hour ago, TLC said:
revelation is so sharp and specific (in the mind's eye) that one's view of reality is altered to such an extent that there is no other reality.
Exactly. I learned that God is the author, and there were many writers, implying that He determined what would be written. But the section in 1 Cor 7 where Paul talks about not being of commandment indicates to me that God wasn't telling him what should be written, in whatever manner that may be. I only used "dictate" to differentiate that from inspiration, which is more like, "Hey, you should write about love". Since Paul knows about love, that inspired suggestion would most probably be sufficient.
1 hour ago, TLC said:
How or why did so many get into this thinking that everything that is of God, or is the "word of God," has to be some stinkin' rule or law or "commandment" of some sort?
I wasn't thinking this, Paul said it. 1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
My view on scriptures is that "given by inspiration of God" or theo pneustos in the Greek is simply an expression. Greek as a language has a different flavor than Hebrew, different culture - Western vs. Eastern. It's like German vs. French/Spanish/Italian. It's easier to describe geometry in Greek. Greek was the educated language of the day, the Latin of today.
So an OCD attachment to grammatical minute details in a work that has been translated into different languages and miscopied, and original manuscripts are not much around and those that are introduce almost as many questions as answers is frankly illogical. It makes the Christian "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" It makes the Christian exactly as the Greek language word for "scribe" appears - grammeteis - grammatician. The sister to a Pharisee is a scribe.
How does God "reveal" things to me as I am a Christian have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Many different ways. The rays of sunshine at dawn. The weird unique phrasing a person uses I just met and am in conversation with. The sequence of things I see in a row.
How does it not happen? Like the Joseph Smith story of Mormonism. An angel named Moroni appeared to me and had me automatic write a series of text down without conscious knowledge. Then because it bypassed my brain it is just like the 10 Commandments God inscribed and I must write it down and spread it out for all other Christians to read and buy my books I published about it and I must start my own cult. That is not the meaning of "God breathed".
No that is not how "revelation" works to me in a normal relationship with my Lord and Savior and my God.
So scriptures to me have to work the same. 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration. I love to get my inspiration from scriptures. I have read through the entire Bible a few times at least purposefully, maybe more. There is a lot of whitespace in the Bible, meaning word content that doesn't seem to convey much in the essence of moral guidance, meaning, etc. How many geneology chapters are there? Name after name after name.
So to me Christianity is more about an ongoing relationship than it is about someone checking all the boxes on Levitical law for whatever reason.
I still don't feel that I have a proper concept of Jesus. At least - of Jesus now. I don't doubt the physical Jesus of two millennia ago.
It occurs to me that I don't have a big enough concept of "God," either. My view is far too parochial. God is the God of the universe, not of solely of Planet Earth, or even (merely) of our solar system. Who, then, or what, is God? An energy stream? Plasma? The bond that holds atoms and molecules together? And yet, some - entity - that possesses what we (in our minute and dust-like brains) might call thought processes - some discrete entity that occurs literally everywhere, always.
Sometimes I read a Bible and substitute every reference to "God" with "Love." It makes for an interestingly different read.
Try it with "Light" --- another interestingly different read. (Beware: As with "love', it's HUGH!
after mulling over your posts here and elsewhere- and especially the one on another thread (The Trinity) where you reminded me of your thought process - I feel I owe you an apology for the way I’ve come at you sometimes - basically overreacting.
I know you’re big on the Socratic method - which is considerably “destructive” in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination- which is one of the things I admire in your posts...maybe I use more of a dialectic approach so I tend to pursue a synthesis maybe even incorporating an opposing view or two from the discussion.
I don’t know enough about all this stuff to say if one method is better than the other - although I will admit the Socratic method is probably the cutting edge of any critical thinking...and frankly I don’t think I have the discipline and patience to pursue that route to the nth degree like some folks do at Grease Spot...if we were talking shop - I’d say I’m more of a systems integrator than a design engineer anyway
...One of the great things about Grease Spot is rather than there being something of a collective consciousness in the discussions - it’s more along the lines of divergent thinking - where a variety of possible solutions are proposed in an effort to find one or more solutions that can work...here it’s cool to QUESTION EVERYTHING and you’re FREE TO PICK AND CHOOSE what makes sense and works for you! That was some of my thinking in starting this thread - - and uhm...I seemed to have forgotten that.
...Anyway, sorry for the detour folks
but I thought that needed to be said...
and again I just wanted to apologize to TLC for the way I’ve gone at him sometimes...and for not really appreciating the detailed thought process he brings to topics...I think these “skirmishes” have been mostly my fault - thinking back, I believe I could have been more patient and be more articulate in my questions in sorting things out for clarification...I’ll try to do better from now on...TLC has always been respectful even when I’ve pounced on something he’s said...
Thanks for the kind words, T-bone. They were unexpected, but appreciated. I'm quite aware that my approach to things sometimes (unintentionally) comes off rather abrasively, and once that happens the most prudent (or at least, pragmatic) choice usually seems to be to simply shut down.
I suspect that my odd methods of reasoning and speaking are largely genetic (perhaps as much as 85%), and most of time that 15% or so that isn't has to work exceedingly hard at bridging the gap between that and what is more common or normal for most people. Though, I can't say that I've ever thought or heard of it described as being "destructive in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination." Frankly, I don't see it as breaking. Rather, it's a matter of very carefully taking things apart (dismantling, if you prefer) so as to be able to see and understand how, or in what other possible ways, things can, might, or should be put together to make better (or at least, some) sense of it. Although, through the process, things can and do get tested, rejected, tossed out, and/or broke. (BUT, the person themselves should be doing that within themselves, and not in or for somebody else... where it only lasts until they remember that it's not what they like or believe!)
Regardless... and as unsettling and uncomfortable as it might be to admit it... the way that God has fashioned intelligence, it just doesn't automatically translate into goodness, kindness, meekness, and a whole host of other attributes directly related to and associated with believing and loving God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or any of the rest of the brethren, mankind, or the world. In fact, it more often than not finds itself in opposition to genuine godliness or spirituality, being inextricably bound to the senses and in desperate need of understanding something before being able to believe it... whereas the person that knows love, simply believes as a result of it, and bypasses the long and arduous work of "taking apart and putting together" in order to understand and believe. The "wood, hay and stubble" of lots of very smart people just ain't going to make it through the fire...
So, there's a lot of "debatable" issues that don't inspire me to do much debating (like it once did.) I'd rather more selectively pick my way around the edge of something to see whether or not a few "issues of the heart" might surface. And if not, well... nothing ventured, nothing gained.
thanks for your thoughtful response and I am glad you appreciate what I said...and at least you’re more aware of how you come across to others...
for me it took a private message from WordWolf awhile back concerning this thread - and it was just a simple friendly comment of his - something along the lines of he thought my several posts to you were way overboard harsh and critical...good call on his part - and it took awhile of letting that percolate...so I started crafting an apology on my iPhone / notepad but i was gearing it to the “Trinity “ thread - -
but damn about the time I was going to post it there the Mods had locked that thread...I kept waiting and waiting ... but when it comes to doing “penance” this old catholic boy gets very impatient - I just wanted to get it over with and move on.
Well, it was more appropriate for this thread anyway since it was here where it “all went down”
You spoke of genetics...I don’t know how much of it is genetics and how much of it is attributable to a fundamentalist-mindset-hangover or other bad habits - but I seem to be especially gifted at being an azzhole.
I found a good definition of azzhole proposed by Aaron James:
“That got me thinking about what it would be for someone to qualify as an azzhole. Harry Frankfurt partly inspired this. I thought: Frankfurt put his finger on bull$hit and I am a philosopher, so I should define “.azzhole...”. After considerable tinkering and with the help friends, I settled on this definition: the azzhole.... is the guy who systematically allows himself special advantages in cooperative life out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunises him against the complaints of other people.”
(Note: I had to change words to “bull$hit” and “azzhole” to get by Grease Spot censorship)
Well anyway, we all have our shortcomings and long-suits...and with us all having a common experience of having been in a screwed up organization at some point in our lives - this seems to be a good place to work all that out...
...my wife came up with an alternate way of expressing love that we both use at times when one of us feels vulnerable or $hitty and it’s to say “thanks for putting up with me”. Which I’d like to now say to you and all the folks at Grease Spot - thanks for putting up with me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
35
22
6
Popular Days
Aug 8
16
Aug 7
9
Mar 13
8
Nov 8
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 7 posts
T-Bone 35 posts
TLC 22 posts
Taxidev 6 posts
Popular Days
Aug 8 2018
16 posts
Aug 7 2018
9 posts
Mar 13 2018
8 posts
Nov 8 2017
5 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I still don't feel that I have a proper concept of Jesus. At least - of Jesus now. I don't doubt the physical Jesus of two millennia ago. It occurs to me that I don't have a big enough concept
Twinky
I like to examine what I think, and ponder why I think it. I try to put Way doctrine out of my mind - after all, I had some Christian upbringing before I got involved with that - but TWI came along a
Raf
Ok, so, to sum up where I'm at now: I obviously don't believe there is such a thing as "god-breathed." Clearly these writings are not history. To the extent that they are sincere, they
Posted Images
T-Bone
I understand what you’re saying here – but – that’s not the way you were talking about in your earlier post; you said
“Of course you don't. Yet, you are evidently compelled to denigrate anyone else that doesn't believe as you do, in a forum where such things are presumed to be true.” Those were your exact words “in a forum where such things (such things as what DWBH said:” I don't believe the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. I don't believe the Bible is perfect.”) are presumed to be true.” Presumed to be true by whom? Everyone who contributes in the doctrinal forum?
And can you be specific where DWBH denigrated…criticized…disparaged other posters on this thread who don’t believe as he does? Have you read Raf’s posts? That’s about as different as you can get – (belief-wise anyways) from most of the posters so far.
Your "presumed" statement implies that everyone that posts in the doctrinal forum - regardless of their belief system or doctrines they hold to (or reject ) – presume the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, that it is inerrant, that it is perfect…and what you’re talking about now (defining doctrine) has no continuity or even relates or excuses what you said previously “in a forum in a forum where such things are presumed to be true.” The “presumed to be true” is a grossly mistaken assumption whereas your more recent “doctrines, subset…premises” post is talking about something totally different – what is doctrine – which I already addressed in my previous post by giving the definition of doctrine…
maybe if you could understand the difference in your two posts – and review what everyone else said on this thread, consider some of the questions and suggestions I posted - you might be able to contribute something that’s relevant to this thread...just a thought anyway.
Edited by T-Boneformatting & clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Not finished yet…there’s a few more details to look at…
DWBH doesn’t need anyone to come to his defense – he does just fine by himself…But funny you should put it that way…because I think you were looking for a fight
Typically when someone says “give me a good reason” or “give me one good reason” to another they are really saying “I don’t think you have a good reason so I’m throwing down a challenge.” the old "give me one good reason" thing according to MacMillan
Essentially you started the fight – and for no reason –since this was not a doctrinal debate; I think the reason you picked this particular post is because it was by DWBH…I mean, line up all the ideas and comments every poster made about their current state of beliefs on this thread – and it seems rather odd you home in on DWBH’s personal “canon” of the New Testament and try challenging that. This doesn’t appear to be a random drive-by shooting – but some personal vendetta…I dunno…I could be wrong…but that’s the way it hits me.
I can go on as long as you want to keep rehashing whatever alleged slight has got you so upset – because I thrive on controversy – although I must admit dialogs with you are not very challenging – more frustrating really – in that I have to make an extra effort to wade through all the smoke and mirrors of insinuations, innuendoes, distractions, complaints of victimization, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of relevance, and personal ad hominem (like your CNN jab to me at the end of your post..…maybe I should also include your go-to tactic for intimidation – that patronizing or condescending manner – obvious in your posts to me here and elsewhere.) yeah - I have to wade through all that to figure out what you’re actually saying…well…I say I can go on as long as you – but that’s Grease Spot moderators permitting – if they don’t wind up shutting this thread down first.
Edited by T-Boneformatting & clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC,
Simply put, you'e picking a fight with DWBH. Stop. Now.
Your premises regarding the thread and forum are wrong. They have been corrected in this thread. Deal with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Regarding "Questioning Faith"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Regarding Doctrinal:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Barbara Tuchman in “The Guns of August” (book about the beginning of WWI) made a thought-provoking statement about certain German high-command leaders observing how the conflict unfolded - started to consider alternative strategies as their confidence waned in the original battle plan:
“But once divinity of doctrine has been questioned there is no return to perfect faith.” (Page 243)
That resonated with me when I thought of the starting point in my journey away from fundamentalism...seeing how ineffective so much of Way-doctrine was in dealing with every day life and practical matters.
Edited by T-BoneDetails
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
DWBH,
This is so insightful!
After reading this I went to my bible and looked at the Greek word that was translated "given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim 3:16. Thayer, who I have more confidence in than Strong, defines it as inspired of God. I never really thought deeply on this before, but I can clearly see that this, in no way, equates to "dictated by God". This puts a radically different slant on the content and structure of the bible.
That said, I have always believed, and still do in spite of this epiphany, that the bible is the will of God. But now, it seems plausible to me that the letters from Paul could be much more inspired by God to write them, but relying on his own understanding of the Word - which he was an expert on from his training - and the truth of Christ.
This could easily extend to the old testament in areas other than where is states clearly, "God said" or "thus saith the Lord". The book of Proverbs is by Solomon, and doesn't say anything about "thus saith the Lord" in it. So this entire book can, clearly, just be Solomon's own understanding of life, not any specific revelation from God.
Now I've got a lot of work to do. I don't know if I should thank you or be miffed. LOL!
Edited by TaxidevLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I think it's even worse now. At least in the past, each fellowship could teach on things that were more relevant to the people in that fellowship. But now, HQ dictates what is to be taught throughout the entire ministry. Like what I need to hear today is the same as some woman in Idaho, or some kid in Mississippi, or a family in France.
Just so bizarre.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Bizarre and sad in a way – I wonder if the local leadership even realizes how that would tend to disconnect them from the folks in their fellowship…I remember how excited I was to read through the entire Bible after taking the class - - and would “pester” my Twig coordinator with all these questions I had after reading the Old Testament and especially the Gospels…you know - - a lot of stuff not covered in the class or just skimmed over quickly... I was “encouraged” to keep reviewing the PFAL material…talk about a buzzkill on exploring the Christian faith.
I liked what you said in your other post keying off of Don’t Worry’s zeroing in on “inspired”. It got me thinking…A poet or musician watches a beautiful sunset and they are somehow inspired to write something. We don’t say the sunset dictated what they should write. I think it’s the personal unique experience that filled them with the urge to write something – they felt something and had a creative response to it…
so to with the biblical authors...instead of experiencing a sunset - - maybe it was a genuine epiphany - - some personal experience with God that drove folks to write about it. I especially get that feeling in reading the epistles of Paul - - his discourses on the law, the conscience, sin, redemption, the supremacy of Christ, etc. I believe they’re full of epiphanies – where Paul had enlightening realizations that enabled him to understand Old Testament theology from a new and deeper perspective.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
T, this is exactly what happens today. It's all becoming so robotic. I wonder where is the love of God for the people? They're all just so concerned with whether they are doing what HQ wants them to do.
Like the communion ritual. This year I just couldn't sit through that incredibly "solemn" ritual yet again - hold the bread in the right hand, wait until everyone has it, then when we say "take, eat" eat the bread. Then go home and reflect - there won't be refreshments. As I recall, when Jesus was talking about this, they were all eating, actively. And he said nothing about any of this nonsense!
At this point, if my fellowship coordinator didn't do such great teachings, I would probably be gone by now. But she does a great job, and everything, so far, lines up with the Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
for me, the inherent difficulty (or problem, if you prefer) with that is where or what it leads to.
namely:
If it came forth like that for Paul, then why should what he wrote be all that much more credible or important than what I believe God inspires within me?
(And if that doesn't strike a chord within you, perhaps it will when your own understanding of the Word is more... how shall I say it... lifted up?)
Besides, exactly how does that fit with Proverbs 3:5?
Being somewhat familiar with what some number of things are said and taught to be Paul's thorn in the flesh... I've found myself wondering at times why it might have been so painful for Paul. If you suppose it to be something outside of himself (i.e., other people), then I'd imagine the very most painful for Paul would be beloved Israelite brethren, who's zealousness for the law was continually perverting his gospel of grace. But, if you suppose it to be more subjective - something wrong or at odds within himself - then it's hard to imagine anything much more troublesome or painful than his being driven to break away from so many years of his own fanaticism for the law.
Think it was hard for some of you to... what's the word used here at GSC... "decompress" after your years in TWI? Well, multiply the worst you can imagine by 1000 fold... and I'm still inclined to think it doesn't come close to being comparable to what Paul probably had to deal with in his mind. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel. Profited above many of his equals. But counted as dung.
Rely on his own understanding of the Word?
Nah. Don't think so. Galatians 1:12 says it about as plainly and as clearly as it can get. Revelation is not inspiration. (And there's a whale of a difference.) There is no mistake, no guesswork whatsoever involved. It hits the mark so cleanly and so spot on, it's... well, it's perfect!
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I completely agree. Maybe I should elaborate a bit on my point about Paul.
I believe that Paul did receive revelation, on more than one occasion. I also believe he had the most complete and thorough understanding of the Torah, except the red thread of Christ. Once he learned that missing piece, he was unstoppable. It turned his life around. I'm sure, at first, it was devastating to him to learn how off he had been in his actions, but he corrected that.
However, as for the letters he wrote, some, obviously, in response to reports of serious error, I am now leaning toward the point DWBH made - the letters were inspired to be written, not dictated to Paul. That certainly doesn't mean he was leaning unto his own understanding. On the contrary, he was leaning unto the Word he so clearly knew, understood, and lived.
There is, at one point in one of his letters beginning in 1 Cor 7:6, a section where he specifically states that he is giving his opinion rather than explaining a commandment of God. In other words, what he was saying absolutely was not based on the Word, but based on his own personal insight into the matter. Surely, that was NOT dictated to Paul, or it couldn't have been his own opinion. This actually lends credence to the "inspired vs dictated" viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think you have something there…I tend to think inspiration is not as a direct a means as revelation ( just thinking out loud here – I’m not developing an in-depth word study or anything) …maybe it has something to do with content…inspiration could be influential…something that ignites imagination or innovation - - you see something in a totally new light, realize how to resolve a conflict, etc…
whereas revelation is something that is disclosed, uncovered or revealed – i.e. you didn’t figure this out on your own – you had outside help - - God! …so would it be wrong to think of scripture as being a combination of inspiration and revelation – without a big concern to split hairs on what’s what? Again just thinking out loud here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
hmmm...
although I'm actually not in disagreement with the lead in part, I'm concerned with where you might be headed with that. (Galatians 4:30 comes to mind.)
The Torah (as you call it) was given to Israel. Considering that it wasn't given nor intended for the Gentile nations, how much need or use of it might the apostle to the Gentiles actually have (aside from fending off other zealous adherents to it)?
Why suppose that for something to be written by revelation it was something "dictated" to him? I suppose it's just not how I see or think revelation works. Perhaps this isn't the best way to say it, but from my perspective... revelation is so sharp and specific (in the mind's eye) that one's view of reality is altered to such an extent that there is no other reality. Perhaps another way to say it is that his thoughts become our thoughts... and it happens so seamlessly that it* can easily be missed.
*i.e., the alteration (or extension, if you prefer) of what is known to be "real."
How or why did so many get into this thinking that everything that is of God, or is the "word of God," has to be some stinkin' rule or law or "commandment" of some sort? How else would you have or expect the Lord Jesus Christ (or God Himself) to communicate something to you, so that it wouldn't come across as such?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Considering the new testament hadn't been written yet, I would say it was extremely useful, especially once he understood the truth about Jesus Christ.
Exactly. I learned that God is the author, and there were many writers, implying that He determined what would be written. But the section in 1 Cor 7 where Paul talks about not being of commandment indicates to me that God wasn't telling him what should be written, in whatever manner that may be. I only used "dictate" to differentiate that from inspiration, which is more like, "Hey, you should write about love". Since Paul knows about love, that inspired suggestion would most probably be sufficient.
I wasn't thinking this, Paul said it. 1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Am I looking at this slanted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
well, I'm inclined to think so...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
start off on crooked handlebars, and you'll think crooked is straight and straight is crooked...
so best be carefully fleshing out a doctrine focused (or based) on one verse alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Thanks. I will look at this some more and then come back to this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My view on scriptures is that "given by inspiration of God" or theo pneustos in the Greek is simply an expression. Greek as a language has a different flavor than Hebrew, different culture - Western vs. Eastern. It's like German vs. French/Spanish/Italian. It's easier to describe geometry in Greek. Greek was the educated language of the day, the Latin of today.
So an OCD attachment to grammatical minute details in a work that has been translated into different languages and miscopied, and original manuscripts are not much around and those that are introduce almost as many questions as answers is frankly illogical. It makes the Christian "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" It makes the Christian exactly as the Greek language word for "scribe" appears - grammeteis - grammatician. The sister to a Pharisee is a scribe.
How does God "reveal" things to me as I am a Christian have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Many different ways. The rays of sunshine at dawn. The weird unique phrasing a person uses I just met and am in conversation with. The sequence of things I see in a row.
How does it not happen? Like the Joseph Smith story of Mormonism. An angel named Moroni appeared to me and had me automatic write a series of text down without conscious knowledge. Then because it bypassed my brain it is just like the 10 Commandments God inscribed and I must write it down and spread it out for all other Christians to read and buy my books I published about it and I must start my own cult. That is not the meaning of "God breathed".
No that is not how "revelation" works to me in a normal relationship with my Lord and Savior and my God.
So scriptures to me have to work the same. 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration. I love to get my inspiration from scriptures. I have read through the entire Bible a few times at least purposefully, maybe more. There is a lot of whitespace in the Bible, meaning word content that doesn't seem to convey much in the essence of moral guidance, meaning, etc. How many geneology chapters are there? Name after name after name.
So to me Christianity is more about an ongoing relationship than it is about someone checking all the boxes on Levitical law for whatever reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Try it with "Light" --- another interestingly different read. (Beware: As with "love', it's HUGH!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Cool perspectives you two. I will give both a try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hey TLC,
after mulling over your posts here and elsewhere- and especially the one on another thread (The Trinity) where you reminded me of your thought process - I feel I owe you an apology for the way I’ve come at you sometimes - basically overreacting.
I know you’re big on the Socratic method - which is considerably “destructive” in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination- which is one of the things I admire in your posts...maybe I use more of a dialectic approach so I tend to pursue a synthesis maybe even incorporating an opposing view or two from the discussion.
I don’t know enough about all this stuff to say if one method is better than the other - although I will admit the Socratic method is probably the cutting edge of any critical thinking...and frankly I don’t think I have the discipline and patience to pursue that route to the nth degree like some folks do at Grease Spot...if we were talking shop - I’d say I’m more of a systems integrator than a design engineer anyway
...One of the great things about Grease Spot is rather than there being something of a collective consciousness in the discussions - it’s more along the lines of divergent thinking - where a variety of possible solutions are proposed in an effort to find one or more solutions that can work...here it’s cool to QUESTION EVERYTHING and you’re FREE TO PICK AND CHOOSE what makes sense and works for you! That was some of my thinking in starting this thread - - and uhm...I seemed to have forgotten that.
...Anyway, sorry for the detour folks
but I thought that needed to be said...
and again I just wanted to apologize to TLC for the way I’ve gone at him sometimes...and for not really appreciating the detailed thought process he brings to topics...I think these “skirmishes” have been mostly my fault - thinking back, I believe I could have been more patient and be more articulate in my questions in sorting things out for clarification...I’ll try to do better from now on...TLC has always been respectful even when I’ve pounced on something he’s said...
...peace to all.
sincerely T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Thanks for the kind words, T-bone. They were unexpected, but appreciated. I'm quite aware that my approach to things sometimes (unintentionally) comes off rather abrasively, and once that happens the most prudent (or at least, pragmatic) choice usually seems to be to simply shut down.
I suspect that my odd methods of reasoning and speaking are largely genetic (perhaps as much as 85%), and most of time that 15% or so that isn't has to work exceedingly hard at bridging the gap between that and what is more common or normal for most people. Though, I can't say that I've ever thought or heard of it described as being "destructive in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination." Frankly, I don't see it as breaking. Rather, it's a matter of very carefully taking things apart (dismantling, if you prefer) so as to be able to see and understand how, or in what other possible ways, things can, might, or should be put together to make better (or at least, some) sense of it. Although, through the process, things can and do get tested, rejected, tossed out, and/or broke. (BUT, the person themselves should be doing that within themselves, and not in or for somebody else... where it only lasts until they remember that it's not what they like or believe!)
Regardless... and as unsettling and uncomfortable as it might be to admit it... the way that God has fashioned intelligence, it just doesn't automatically translate into goodness, kindness, meekness, and a whole host of other attributes directly related to and associated with believing and loving God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or any of the rest of the brethren, mankind, or the world. In fact, it more often than not finds itself in opposition to genuine godliness or spirituality, being inextricably bound to the senses and in desperate need of understanding something before being able to believe it... whereas the person that knows love, simply believes as a result of it, and bypasses the long and arduous work of "taking apart and putting together" in order to understand and believe. The "wood, hay and stubble" of lots of very smart people just ain't going to make it through the fire...
So, there's a lot of "debatable" issues that don't inspire me to do much debating (like it once did.) I'd rather more selectively pick my way around the edge of something to see whether or not a few "issues of the heart" might surface. And if not, well... nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
TLC,
thanks for your thoughtful response and I am glad you appreciate what I said...and at least you’re more aware of how you come across to others...
for me it took a private message from WordWolf awhile back concerning this thread - and it was just a simple friendly comment of his - something along the lines of he thought my several posts to you were way overboard harsh and critical...good call on his part - and it took awhile of letting that percolate...so I started crafting an apology on my iPhone / notepad but i was gearing it to the “Trinity “ thread - -
but damn about the time I was going to post it there the Mods had locked that thread...I kept waiting and waiting ... but when it comes to doing “penance” this old catholic boy gets very impatient - I just wanted to get it over with and move on.
Well, it was more appropriate for this thread anyway since it was here where it “all went down”
You spoke of genetics...I don’t know how much of it is genetics and how much of it is attributable to a fundamentalist-mindset-hangover or other bad habits - but I seem to be especially gifted at being an azzhole.
I found a good definition of azzhole proposed by Aaron James:
“That got me thinking about what it would be for someone to qualify as an azzhole. Harry Frankfurt partly inspired this. I thought: Frankfurt put his finger on bull$hit and I am a philosopher, so I should define “.azzhole...”. After considerable tinkering and with the help friends, I settled on this definition: the azzhole.... is the guy who systematically allows himself special advantages in cooperative life out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunises him against the complaints of other people.”
(Note: I had to change words to “bull$hit” and “azzhole” to get by Grease Spot censorship)
See article here
Well anyway, we all have our shortcomings and long-suits...and with us all having a common experience of having been in a screwed up organization at some point in our lives - this seems to be a good place to work all that out...
...my wife came up with an alternate way of expressing love that we both use at times when one of us feels vulnerable or $hitty and it’s to say “thanks for putting up with me”. Which I’d like to now say to you and all the folks at Grease Spot - thanks for putting up with me.
Edited by T-BoneFormatting
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.