On God-Breathed Scriptures

[Bolshevik]

12 minutes ago, Raf said:

Bolshevik, Everyone understands my terms but you. Stop derailing the thread.

If someone says they didn't know VPW was a sex predator, the burden would be on me to prove that person DID know. Otherwise the best I could do is demonstrate that the person could have or should have known. 

Which has nothing to do with scripture being God-breathed. Again you are derailing the conversation with a tangent to satisfy your obsession with defining the terms of a discussion to the point of making said discussion impossible.

You're not being targeted. Your bulls hit tactic of derailing every damn thread is being called out

I'm going to clarify something for you.

I didn't join your little cult with your silly terms.

You may have collectively agreed to those terms, but they make no sense.  Should I feel left out?

 

Saying someone was inspired to do something and then making them prove it makes no sense to me. 

[Raf]

7 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

 

Is it being implied rejecting PFAL has the same impact as rejecting the Bible?  Are neither escapable?

To be abundantly clear:

NO SUCH THING IS BEING IMPLIED. Now I have to discuss the difference between this batcrap stupid extrapolation of my point abd my point itself. Because that's what Bolshevik does in every @#$!ing conversation. 

I am tired of clearing up every misconception that he introduces in response to everything I post. E flipping nuff

[Raf]

Just now, Bolshevik said:

I'm going to clarify something for you.

I didn't join your little cult with your silly terms.

You may have collectively agreed to those terms, but they make no sense.  Should I feel left out?

 

Saying someone was inspired to do something and then making them prove it makes no sense to me. 

The alphabet probably makes no sense to you.

That does not confer upon me the burden of explaining it to you.

[Nathan_Jr]

I feel like my questions are designed to further the progress of the discussion. Maybe they aren't perceived that way. IDK.

Should I add my questions to the Unanswered Questions folder and gently read them at the gentle beach?

[waysider]

The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest it's God Breathed. PFAL? it doesn't even claim to be.

[OldSkool]

22 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Should I add my questions to the Unanswered Questions folder and gently read them at the gentle beach?

You might someday like to hear about the parts I agreed with.

[Nathan_Jr]

11 minutes ago, waysider said:

The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest it's God Breathed. PFAL? it doesn't even claim to be.

You couldn't have said it better yourself. Amen.

 

Even if PFAL claimed, explicitly or implicitly, to be God-breathed, the claim wouldn't make it so. 

[Nathan_Jr]

8 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

You might someday like to hear about the parts I agreed with.

I don't think I would ever be able to find the time.

[Raf]

59 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

I feel like my questions are designed to further the progress of the discussion. Maybe they aren't perceived that way. IDK.

Should I add my questions to the Unanswered Questions folder and gently read them at the gentle beach?

no, you're good. thx 

[Raf]

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Can we clarify this?

If something is God-breathed, it is without error or contradiction by definition. PFAL and the Bible both have errors and contradictions. Therefore, neither PFAL nor the Bible is God-breathed.

Is this the proposition?

It's part of it. Maybe a jumping off point. But it's more complicated than that. Because all that establishes is that PFAL must be wrong about what it means to be God-breathed. 

If so, by what standard can anyone reject PFAL as God-breathed? And what happens when you apply that same standard to the Bible?

For example: The history of the Khazars in Eastern Europe as presented in JCOP [borrowed with proper attribution from Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe] is demonstrably and dangerously false. It's presented as history, but it's not. Not by a longshot.

Does the fact that PFAL contains a discredited "history" disqualify it as God-breathed? If so, hold the Bible's beer!

[Nathan_Jr]

31 minutes ago, Raf said:

It's part of it. Maybe a jumping off point. But it's more complicated than that. Because all that establishes is that PFAL must be wrong about what it means to be God-breathed. 

If so, by what standard can anyone reject PFAL as God-breathed? And what happens when you apply that same standard to the Bible?

For example: The history of the Khazars in Eastern Europe as presented in JCOP [borrowed with proper attribution from Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe] is demonstrably and dangerously false. It's presented as history, but it's not. Not by a longshot.

Does the fact that PFAL contains a discredited "history" disqualify it as God-breathed? If so, hold the Bible's beer!

Ok.

”God-breathed” is figurative, right? Interpretation is subjective.

So, what does it mean to be God-breathed?

[waysider]

4 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

So, what does it mean to be God-breathed?

Divinely inspired/Given by revelation

[Rocky]

4 minutes ago, waysider said:

Divinely inspired/Given by revelation

That's how I have always understood it.

[Raf]

Stepping back: by what standard do you reject PFAL as "God-breathed," however you define that term? And are you willing to apply that same standard to the 66 books that make up the Holy Bible? 

[Raf]

9 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Ok.

”God-breathed” is figurative, right? Interpretation is subjective.

So, what does it mean to be God-breathed?

That really is the key question, isn't it?

But there seems to be passionate agreement that WHATEVER God-breathed means, PFAL does not qualify. How do we proceed? Define God-breathed first [a scriptural term, not one invented by a cult]? Or propose a standard first?

Either way works with me. One makes a right turn and the other makes three lefts.

[Bolshevik]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Stepping back: by what standard do you reject PFAL as "God-breathed," however you define that term? And are you willing to apply that same standard to the 66 books that make up the Holy Bible? 

 

By what standard to you accept the Magna Carta?  Typically, with uprisings.  With violence over the centuries.

PFAL is pushed with the wooden spoon.  The standard is to alleviate pain.  Accept what is or the pain continues.

Christianity moved with the sword as well.

Did you chose what alphabet you use?  What criteria did you accept it with?

You are zooming in on a phrase making this accept / don't accept binary decision.  Oh depending on definitions this changes things.  No it doesn't.

People and history are not robots.

 

 

[Bolshevik]

I think this website is evidence that although people openly "reject PFAL" whatever that means, it still pulses through their veins.   Entire lives will be lived without it being fully purged, in spite of best efforts.

Likewise The Bible has been at work for millennia among billions.  

 

"I'm not this and I'm not that now" . . . *poof* . . . . this sounds like The Law of Believing at work.

 

 

If someone else could enlighten me, Raf's argument is on paper only?  It can't be applied to the real world?

[waysider]

You can take people out of The Way but you can't take the Way out of people.

They have to make that decision for themselves. 

Over 20 years of GSC's existence would seem to validate that concept.

[Raf]

Again with the f'ing babbling.

Dude, enough.

 

[Bolshevik]

3 minutes ago, waysider said:

You can take people out of The Way but you can't take the Way out of people.

They have to make that decision for themselves. 

Over 20 years of GSC's existence would seem to validate that concept.

The Bible is problematic because everyone around us has been influenced by it.  You don't have to read it.  Or go near it.  It's there.

It's inspiration is unavoidable?

[Raf]

I would sincerely like to know, Bolshevik, why you are so passionate about derailing every damn concersation we have.

People accept the Bible as God-breathed and don't accept PFAL as the same. Not one person accepts the Magna Carta as God-breathed, but dammit you HAD to ask about the Magna Carta to make some esoteric point that the document exists WHICH WAS NEVER IN QUESTION.

You SERIOUSLY need to get the flip off threads I start because you clearly lack the skill to engage without going off on irrelevant tangents.

eNOUGH already. Damn.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Raf

[Bolshevik]

For everyone else's reference, I do not accept the idea that The Bible is the nasal ejections of a bearded sky god.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muses

Quote

In modern figurative usage, a muse is a literal person or supernatural force that serves as someone's source of artistic inspiration.

 

[waysider]

Hey, Mr. B.

I think the difficulty here is that your posts are sometimes a bit more open ended than some people would like them to be. People don't  generally like to be left to draw their own conclusions. I mean, that's cool with art and philosophy and sometimes these discussions do evolve in those directions. Personally, I usually see where you're headed, but I'm not everybody. I'm just me.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that, if you try to point the reader to an intended conclusion, it might help.

 

OK. Fire away. I'm ducking for cover now.

[Bolshevik]

19 minutes ago, waysider said:

Hey, Mr. B.

I think the difficulty here is that your posts are sometimes a bit more open ended than some people would like them to be. People don't  generally like to be left to draw their own conclusions. I mean, that's cool with art and philosophy and sometimes these discussions do evolve in those directions. Personally, I usually see where you're headed, but I'm not everybody. I'm just me.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that, if you try to point the reader to an intended conclusion, it might help.

 

OK. Fire away. I'm ducking for cover now.

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.

 

This statement claims PFAL was God-breathed.  That is out of left field.  (There's a certain poster who may think this, and that motivation appears based on an attachment to VPW - is this statement a personal attack on another poster?)

"apply equally"  - We're taking an out of left field statement about an esoteric class and saying this also applies to a major text in the development human history.

"that have been considered God-breathed since there was canon" - The Bible was not written.  Canon was compiled.  The history of the canon begins with the church see a need among the people due to various heresies popping up.  Are we going back to "like it hasn't been known since the 3rd or 4th century?  Did they make a statement saying "this is God-breathed?" - That evidence should be presented, or would be helpful.  They would be the people to consult.

God-Breathed can easily change meanings in that one sentence.  Not that the meaning is established in the first place.

 

 

Are we saying the early church was run by malignant narcissists as a whole?  PFAL was an attempt to ride the coattails of Christianity, not support it.  

Snow on the gas pumps story screams self serving.  "look at me I'm spAcial"  Uninspiring.  There's no revisionist history needed, it speaks for itself.

The story of Christ?  Factual or not doesn't matter.  Hardly narcissistic.  The mechanics of that story are repeated in other stories throughout time.  Love, sacrifice and I'm a sure a lot of other matters.  Ideas that spread among the bottom tiers of society . . . those without power saw something in it.  Eventually those with power had to acknowledge it.

 

The phrase sounds like click-bait.  So, click click click click click click

 

 

 

 

[waysider]

4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

47 minutes ago, waysider said:

Expand  

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.

I'm right with you on that.