This is a meta-reply that is kind of off-topic but speaks to the larger point of Mike's thesis, which hasbeen the undercurrent of multiple threads. I'll make the point here, but it A. deserves its own thread and B. that thread belongs in Questioning Faith or whatever we're calling the Oh Shinola corner of GSC these days.
The point is this:
There is no basis for rejecting PFAL as God-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have been considered God-breathed since there was a canon.
That is why you'll never get through to Mike any more than Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or I will ever get through to you.
Mike, you're welcome to leave, you're welcome to stay.
I realized after my change of heart that there was probably a shred of difference, if that, between the arguments we had and the arguments they had when the first believers had the audacity to suggest that Paul's letters were God-breathed. And those arguments no doubt preceded the endless debates about what gets in the cannon [sic] and what gets preserved as The Word of God. No doubt some wiseass completely dismissed Matthew and Luke for their painfully obvious plagiarism of Mark, and Mark got raked over the coals for knowing as much about Palestinian geography as Craig Martindale knew about celibacy and humility.
And I'm sure lists of contradictions were compiled.
How dare you put Paul's writings on the same level as Moses? Or John's writings on the same level as David's?
Funny thing is, I now put them ALL on the same plane, but not because they're divine. I put them on thecsame plane because they all contain massive errors that disqualify them from being anything other than the scribblings of ignorant men who could have guided us away from people owning each other but instead made damn sure cheeseburgers were not on the menu. Maybe throw in that rape is a violent crime against a woman, not a property crime against her husband or father.
But hey, go ahead and keep dodging and distracting and refusing to call an error an error. You won't be the first or the last. They did it with the 66 books, with the Quran, with the Book of Mormon. JWs refuse to admit their errors.
It's the same old lie.
Thanks, again, Raf. ...even for the parts I would disagree with, because I saved them for vacation reading, on the beach under a shade umbrella.
You might someday like to hear about the parts I agreed with.
I feel welcome to return, hearing it from you.
So thanks, specifically, for that also.
Because I am SO not a troller, I'm seriously considering setting up one thread in the Doctrinal Dungeon where I can discuss one main topic, and if I see things in “About the Way” that I want to take a tangential swerve into, I’ll do that, and keep it in that one Doctrinal thread.That way I don’t stimulate a derailment to any of those threads in About the Way. What do you think of that?
I was going to do this very thing in that “Jumping to Concussions…” thread, but it didn’t work for a few semi-forgotten reasons, but one was the thread was in the wrong location. I think it may work better in Doctrinal.
AND, Raf, I really would like to discuss lots of the details in your post. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at some of the positions I have evolved into over the years.
*/*/*
Bolshevik, more fun vacation reading for me would be any details you have to your Tower of Babel and SIT idea.
I often tinker with ideas to better understand what Babel is all about, but I never did much systematic searching on it, compared to what I did with SIT.
This is a meta-reply that is kind of off-topic but speaks to the larger point of Mike's thesis, which hasbeen the undercurrent of multiple threads. I'll make the point here, but it A. deserves its own thread and B. that thread belongs in Questioning Faith or whatever we're calling the Oh Shinola corner of GSC these days.
The point is this:
There is no basis for rejecting PFAL as God-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have been considered God-breathed since there was a canon.
That is why you'll never get through to Mike any more than Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or I will ever get through to you.
Canon is arbitrary.
Mike has no thesis. If anything it's attachment anxiety. VPW HATED Mike. Just like VPW HATED everyone else.
You appear to be equating PFAL and religion. Elevating the importance of PFAL and VPW. Implying Scripture was motivated out of HATE.
Richard Dawkins and Penn/Jillette, whom I admire, are neither here nor there.
Bolshevik, more fun vacation reading for me would be any details you have to your Tower of Babel and SIT idea.
I often tinker with ideas to better understand what Babel is all about, but I never did much systematic searching on it, compared to what I did with SIT.
For starters Mike, I don't read The Bible as a literal documentation of events. But as an impression of human behavior by thousands if not millions of people over thousands of years.
I mean, I wouldn't use a protractor on a painting.
Mike, you're welcome to leave, you're welcome to stay.
I realized after my change of heart that there was probably a shred of difference, if that, between the arguments we had and the arguments they had when the first believers had the audacity to suggest that Paul's letters were God-breathed. And those arguments no doubt preceded the endless debates about what gets in the cannon [sic] and what gets preserved as The Word of God. No doubt some wiseass completely dismissed Matthew and Luke for their painfully obvious plagiarism of Mark, and Mark got raked over the coals for knowing as much about Palestinian geography as Craig Martindale knew about celibacy and humility.
And I'm sure lists of contradictions were compiled.
How dare you put Paul's writings on the same level as Moses? Or John's writings on the same level as David's?
Funny thing is, I now put them ALL on the same plane, but not because they're divine. I put them on thecsame plane because they all contain massive errors that disqualify them from being anything other than the scribblings of ignorant men who could have guided us away from people owning each other but instead made damn sure cheeseburgers were not on the menu. Maybe throw in that rape is a violent crime against a woman, not a property crime against her husband or father.
But hey, go ahead and keep dodging and distracting and refusing to call an error an error. You won't be the first or the last. They did it with the 66 books, with the Quran, with the Book of Mormon. JWs refuse to admit their errors.
It's the same old lie.
I would propose that fundamentalism is the lie.
Humans are not precise machines in many ways. In others we are.
Trying to force precision with superstition is the lie.
Thus the “canon” of anything inspired is always in question. The Greek language is a little more inclined to geometry and precise math than Hebrew. I tend to view God breathed in that light. It is just meaning “inspired” as opposed to “automated writing”.
I do put them all on the same plane. It is just the plane I put them on doesn’t overstep its boundaries with ridiculousness. The “muse” plane or the source of creative inspiration.
I feel that spirituality is an individual choice. What you choose to allow to inspire you is entirely your choice.
There are many quality human beings on the earth that choose the Quran as their inspiration. The God I worship would reward them according to their virtue as opposed to whether or not they had position in “Gods household”. I feel like in the afterlife there is going to be a lot of servants in the house while there are a lot of sons cleaning stables figuratively. To me any view has to have equity and balance.
I view Christianity as a grassroots movement as opposed to an excuse for a building and control of others.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
Raf
This is a meta-reply that is kind of off-topic but speaks to the larger point of Mike's thesis, which hasbeen the undercurrent of multiple threads. I'll make the point here, but it A. deserves its own thread and B. that thread belongs in Questioning Faith or whatever we're calling the Oh Shinola corner of GSC these days.
The point is this:
There is no basis for rejecting PFAL as God-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have been considered God-breathed since there was a canon.
That is why you'll never get through to Mike any more than Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or I will ever get through to you.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks, again, Raf. ...even for the parts I would disagree with, because I saved them for vacation reading, on the beach under a shade umbrella.
You might someday like to hear about the parts I agreed with.
I feel welcome to return, hearing it from you.
So thanks, specifically, for that also.
Because I am SO not a troller, I'm seriously considering setting up one thread in the Doctrinal Dungeon where I can discuss one main topic, and if I see things in “About the Way” that I want to take a tangential swerve into, I’ll do that, and keep it in that one Doctrinal thread. That way I don’t stimulate a derailment to any of those threads in About the Way. What do you think of that?
I was going to do this very thing in that “Jumping to Concussions…” thread, but it didn’t work for a few semi-forgotten reasons, but one was the thread was in the wrong location. I think it may work better in Doctrinal.
AND, Raf, I really would like to discuss lots of the details in your post. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at some of the positions I have evolved into over the years.
*/*/*
Bolshevik, more fun vacation reading for me would be any details you have to your Tower of Babel and SIT idea.
I often tinker with ideas to better understand what Babel is all about, but I never did much systematic searching on it, compared to what I did with SIT.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Canon is arbitrary.
Mike has no thesis. If anything it's attachment anxiety. VPW HATED Mike. Just like VPW HATED everyone else.
You appear to be equating PFAL and religion. Elevating the importance of PFAL and VPW. Implying Scripture was motivated out of HATE.
Richard Dawkins and Penn/Jillette, whom I admire, are neither here nor there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
For starters Mike, I don't read The Bible as a literal documentation of events. But as an impression of human behavior by thousands if not millions of people over thousands of years.
I mean, I wouldn't use a protractor on a painting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For those who ached for an end to this thread:
You're welcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I would propose that fundamentalism is the lie.
Humans are not precise machines in many ways. In others we are.
Trying to force precision with superstition is the lie.
Thus the “canon” of anything inspired is always in question. The Greek language is a little more inclined to geometry and precise math than Hebrew. I tend to view God breathed in that light. It is just meaning “inspired” as opposed to “automated writing”.
I do put them all on the same plane. It is just the plane I put them on doesn’t overstep its boundaries with ridiculousness. The “muse” plane or the source of creative inspiration.
I feel that spirituality is an individual choice. What you choose to allow to inspire you is entirely your choice.
There are many quality human beings on the earth that choose the Quran as their inspiration. The God I worship would reward them according to their virtue as opposed to whether or not they had position in “Gods household”. I feel like in the afterlife there is going to be a lot of servants in the house while there are a lot of sons cleaning stables figuratively. To me any view has to have equity and balance.
I view Christianity as a grassroots movement as opposed to an excuse for a building and control of others.
ymmv and varying mileage is a good thing.
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.