3601. marshame - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Seguine
You say: "Why should she [Christi] accept that the way to heaven must be *belief* and not the sincere struggle to behave righteously?"
Let me ask you, since you are Jewish: is the "sincere struggle to behave righteously" enough for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? For example, didn't King Saul "sincerely struggle to behave righteously, as in I Samuel 15:20-28?
3602. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
seguine
"Why should she accept that the way to heaven must be *belief* and not the sincere struggle to behave righteously?"
Ah, perhaps I see part of the problem. Are you equating the evangelical use of "belief" with simple mental assent?? Do you know how the Greek constucts the use of this word?
From my understanding, the Greek usage of the preposition "eis" helps us here. It means "into" and as my Greek prof said a number of times, when the Greek is discussing belief IN someone, it is talking about belief INTO someone, if you would.
In other words, it isn't simply, "I believe that person," but more, "I place my believe IN that person. I place my entire being, my entire hope, my trust, my faith, INTO that person."
In other words, there is no dichotomy between belief in Jesus and following Jesus, or mental assent and actions. Biblical faith is both belief and actions working together. James argues this effectively in his epistle, as does Paul in a number of his too.
As for the specific issue at hand, I don't think it safe or right to separate the teachings of Jesus from the person of Jesus, when Jesus himself said that belief in his PERSON is key to salvation, not just belief in his TEACHINGS. If ChristiP is doing this, as you seem to believe she is, then I would say she is in error.
3603. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
"I can't tell you what's worth fighting for."
Well now I'm very confused, because I didn't ask. But I did look back at my 3577 and realized that I'd left out a crucial "not" in the first paragraph. The sentence should have read: "...getting into trouble for being impolitic is NOT something that should in all cases be avoided."
"This is not to put you off, but my feelings about conflict... don't matter."
I wasn't asking about your feelings, merely about your thinkings. More to the point, I was hoping for a clarification of what you said to Seaweed regarding that aspect of his advice which I might take in order to keep out of "trouble".
However, I will assume no explanation is forthcoming.
3604. ChristiPeters - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
Marshame -
I didn't say I believed Jesus is not the Son of God. I said I dunno. I am studying and meditating and reading and trying to reach a deeper understanding of the world and God and spirituality.
The crux of it, of course, is whether I can trust that the words written by men are the words of God. Even if I knew Hebrew and Greek and had access to "original" manuscripts, my understanding is that none of the Gospels a were actually written by the apostles at the time of the events described. (If I'm wrong - say so.)
Maybe my mother is right and God guided the hand of every copyist and every translator since the beginnings of the Old and New Testaments. Maybe not.
Maybe He also guided each and every politicized body within all the Churches who sat down and decided to include some things and exclude others. Maybe not.
Don't worry about my soul. I'm sure God will lead me where I need to go. You decide for you. I'll decide for me.
In the meantime let us have interesting and cordial conversations.
3605. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
seguine
Trying to be a little clearer, for someone to say in essence, "I believe in and follow the TEACHINGS of Jesus, but I don't believe what he said about himself, ie, that he was the Son of God," would seem rather faulty to me, since what he said about himself was part and parcel of his teachings, and he himself connected salvation and eternal life not which his teachings but with his PERSON.
If Jesus isn't who he said he was, then his teachings are devoid entirely of any real value, since he roots his teachings in his person.
"Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?'
Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'" (John 6:28-29)
There have been a number of "Christians" here in the Fray that have entirely contradicted this teaching of Jesus. They have said, in essence, that all one needs to do is do the things Jesus taught, and one doesn't even have to believe in Jesus himself at all! But Jesus has equated the "work" with belief in himself!
3606. ChristiPeters - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
marshame - Message #3598
For the reason I originally stated - living this way works for me.
I would also like to say that I distinguish between unbelief and undecided. I have said I don't know (yet) whether Jesus truly is the Son of God. I have not said I know he isn't the Son of God. I'm not sure if that is clear, but I hope so.
There was a time in my life when I was sure, Jesus was/is the Son of God. However, my reasons for that belief were simply that my family and everyone around me said so. That is no longer sufficient.
I am now in the process of examining and questioning all my beliefs. Repeatedly. I have been doing this for about three years now. I feel I am just at the beginning - nowhere near a conclusion, yet.
3607. marshame - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
Christi
Do you believe that God is able to ensure that His word is preserved throughout all generations? I do. Therefore, it is not incomprehensible to me to accept the archeological and manuscript evidence that supports the intact preservation of God's word for thousands of years. Hopefully you are familiar with the significance of the Dead Sea scrolls, which proved the exactitude and precision with which the Holy Scriptures were copied by scribes (in the Qamran finds, an entire copy of the Book of Isaiah was found (66 chapters long) and determined to be 1,000 years older than the previously existing oldest copy. An comparison of the manuscripts revealed: not one word changed in 1,000 years!)
3608. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:22 PM PT
Marsha: "I meant esogesis, not exogesis, as in reading INTO something, as opposed
to taking something OUT of a passage of scripture."
There is no functional difference; and no dictionary I own lists the word "esogesis".
"Wooway has provided several excellant examples of reading things INTO the scripture, as when she says in 3570 that the reference to "Father" really refers to nirvana. I also got a huge laugh out of her #3524, especially "each word we utter is a creative act [ha!] a holy moment [!!] in which the word is god [whaa?] and as avatars of Sophia [who, us?] who utter are co-creators." Now that is really funny!"
I understand you find laughable all interpretive acts other than the ones you believe are legitimate. But the very basis of your "exegesis" *I* find laughable, so explain just what the difference is between you and Wooway.
3609. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
Marsha: "Loved your #3428 in which you say that thumpers claim the Kingdom of God is open to all who repudiate reason. I'm sure the doctors, lawyers, business execs, school principles, etc. in my church would get a big yuck out of that one!"
People, in my experience, are perfectly capable of repudiating reason selectively. I'm sure there are doctors, lawyers, etc. who believe in alien abductions. So what?
3610. ChristiPeters - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
"Do you believe that God is able to ensure that His word is preserved throughout all generations? I do."
So does my Mother and so do a lot of people. Maybe I will too, someday. Right now I'm undecided.
How would God ensure this without abrogating the free will of all the translators and copyists and decision makers?
If free will something God gives us unreservedly or do we only have free will sometimes or in certain situations or aspects of our lives?
Do I give up my free will if I decide to be a Bible translator?
3611. ChristiPeters - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
that should be "Is free will something..."
3612. gravel - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
Seguine:
I could put your mind at ease with one sentence, I think. Instead, I want to wait to see how SeaSailor responds to what I've asked. This could be very telling.
You're not in the wrong, by the way. Relax.
3613. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
Marsha: "I meant esogesis, not exogesis, as in reading INTO something, as opposed to taking something OUT of a passage of scripture."
seguine: "There is no functional difference; and no dictionary I own lists the word "esogesis".
Well, I have heard people use the term "eisogesis" which, as marshame said, means to read something INTO a text. And that *is* very different than exogesis. There is indeed a "functional difference" between the two terms. Other than that, I haven't followed your discussion so I don't know what you two are talking about.
3614. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
"Upon what basis would a person, or ChristP particularly, say this or that is what Jesus *really* said or taught or did in the NT, but this or that other stuff is NOT??"
On the basis of objective scholarship that presupposes that the disciples were men and that men err or are motivated by things other than, or in addition to, God.
Incidentally, since you believe the Bible is inerrant, and that faith leads one to a correct interpretation of the Bible, I don't see why it constitutes jumping to conclusions on my part to assume that your argument will, ultimately, come down to an expression of faith, not reason.
3615. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
Seg: "If an uncertain Christian decided to follow Jesus' teachings (because she discerned them to be *right*) but could not accept that Jesus was the son of God, why should this be insufficient to get her into heaven?"
Kuligin: "Jesus himself answers that very question."
No, Kuligin: *Paul* answers it in the quotations you have cited. ChristiPeters (fast becoming our sacrificial example around here) isn't so sure about Paul--she does not appreciate the veracity of every single thing he said. Why should she accept that his or any other apostle's account of what Jesus said is accurate?
3616. ChristiPeters - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
*chuckle*
So I'm a "sacrificial example" now, huh. Go ahead and "sacrifice" away. I don't mind as I find this an interesting discussion.
I've got to head home now, so I'll catch up on all this tomorrow.
TTFN
3617. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
Marsha to CP: "Do you believe that God is able to ensure that His word is preserved throughout all generations? I do. Therefore, it is not incomprehensible to me to accept the archeological and manuscript evidence that supports the intact preservation of God's word for thousands of years."
Well, if God is perfect it shouldn't be a problem for God at all. But that's not the question. The question is not *could* God, but *did* God or did God not, in the particular case of the Bible, dictate and preserve? I don't see how anyone can "know" this one way or the other without relying on faith for an answer.
3618. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
seguine
"No, Kuligin: *Paul* answers it in the quotations you have cited. ChristiPeters (fast becoming our sacrificial example around here) isn't so sure about Paul--she does not appreciate the veracity of every single thing he said."
Um, all the quotes I provided were from John. I'm not sure what posts you have been reading.
But, as far as the "veractiy of every single thing" part, upon what basis, ChristiP, would you believe some of the words of Jesus, but not the others? What "measure" or "rule" do you use to determine that this is okay from but that is not?
This answer from seguine is far too general:
"On the basis of objective scholarship that presupposes that the disciples were men and that men err or are motivated by things other than, or in addition to, God."
We really need specifics here. Like, why would a person take only part of one verse and reject the other part? Or part of a chapter and reject other chapters? And so on.
The "objective scholarship" answer from seguine doesn't answer diddly.
Let's take as examples the five or so quotation from the Gospel of John that I provided earlier. *Upon what basis* can a person conclude that they are true or not true, or that only 2 of them are true, but the other 3 are not? Does it all come down to personal preference, or is there really some "objective scholarship" that a person such as ChristiP can use to make such determinations??
And seguine, get to the specifics. You haven't really addressed any of the ones I have brought up to this point. Like the false dichotomy you attempt to make between actions and belief, or the teachings of Jesus and the person of Jesus, and so on.
And when are we going to lose this thread anyway??!!
3619. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
"Let me ask you, since you are Jewish: is the "sincere struggle to behave righteously" enough for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?"
Behaving righteously is sufficient. But the sincere struggle is all that is expected of us.
In Judaism, the success or failure of people's struggle to behave according to the law is up to people, not God. *As is the interpretation of God's law.* Moreover, the OT God doesn't condemn people to hell for failure, but rather, at worst neglects to bestow on them everlasting life.
Moreover, failure is not defined as having been born human. There is no such thing in Judaism as "original sin".
"For example, didn't King Saul "sincerely struggle to behave righteously, as in I Samuel 15:20-28?"
He failed to obey and lost his worldly position as the leader of God's chosen people because of it. The Bible does not say that Saul went to hell.
It does say Saul did not attend carefully enough in war to what God required of him as "head of the tribes of Israel", but behaved instead as a more ordinary man, "little in thine own sight". The passage in question is in my view, of course, a means of illustrating the difference between what God requires of people who are his direct representatives and people who are not granted by God the lofty status of King of Israel.
3620. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:36 PM PT
Kuligin,
Sorry, previous post should have said "john", not "Paul". My inattention.
"I don't think it safe or right to separate the teachings of Jesus from the person of Jesus, when Jesus himself said that belief in his PERSON is key to salvation, not just belief in his TEACHINGS."
We do not know that Jesus said this, nor do we know that he was right if he did say it. (I would accuse you of MISSING THE POINT if I weren't so incredibly polite.)
3621. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 3:46 PM PT
"Let's take as examples the five or so quotation from the Gospel of John that I provided earlier. *Upon what basis* can a person conclude that they are true or not true, or that only 2 of them are true, but the other 3 are not? Does it all come down to personal preference..."
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does; it's just that some preferences are more likely than others to be preferences for truth...
"...or is there really some "objective scholarship" that a person such as ChristiP can use to make such determinations??"
If she takes into account the scholarship of secular as well as religious scholars, she may come to the conclusion that the politics of Rome, Jews, and others at the time of Jesus and the disciples was such that a person with certain beliefs and ambitions might claim certain things in order to gain followers. No final determinations are possibly, really. Just likelihoods.
Perhaps David Koresh preached the word of God. On what basis does a mere Vic Kuligin decide he did not?
3622. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
"And seguine, get to the specifics. You haven't really addressed any of the ones I have brought up to this point. Like the false dichotomy you attempt to make between actions and belief, or the teachings of Jesus and the person of Jesus, and so on."
Kuligin, why don't you wait for me to get done typing before running off at the keyboard and abusing your punctuation privileges?
I've answered your questions well enough for the time being. I have attempted no false dichotomies: believing *in* Jesus or *on* Jesus does not matter at all in the context of the question I will now reiterate for the millionth time because (politeness abandoned) you are missing the point: unless the Bible is inerrant, not all claims made on behalf of Jesus are necessarily true. If not all claims about what Jesus said are true, then one must assess their truth by means other than faith. The means may vary.
Moreover, the issue is not whether CP can "conclude" that one passage is true while another is not. From the standpoint of Judaism, rationalism, humanism, etc., SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO conclude anything. She just has to consider whatever she can learn from people who have studied the subject with or without prejudice, and then take her best guess. And then only to be a decent person, since she isn't going to hell in any case.
Before you ask for a defense of every other religion or philosophy on earth, defend your own. How do you know that the Bible is inerrant? And please, read what transpired in your absence. I'm sure you'll find fodder in my posts, especially, for excessive !!!!! and ?????.
3623. bloodnfire - Jan. 4, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
Seguine. Your Message #3577 Speaking for this 'FundieThumper', I don't spend my life 'emphasizing the need for Salvation and avoiding Damnation'. I spend my life enjoying the indwelling presence of God, Who, according too His Word, chose me in Him before He hung the world in space.
I also try not to 'get in His way' as sometimes He reaches out through me with compassion and tenderness to people whose hearts are broken and who are hurting.
Brother SeaSailor. Earlier today you posted...'The nature of God cannot be comprehended by man any more than an insect can comprehend the nature of a man'. Peter wrote in his 2nd Epistle, chapter 1 and verse 4..."Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature". Aparently we can not only comprehend God's nature, we can actually partake of it !!
3624. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:07 PM PT
seguine
"How do you know that the Bible is inerrant?"
Show me an error.
And as for missing the point, unfortunately, you have. You have already strayed far from where you were originally.
And that point was your question of "thumpers" about CP's beliefs, and how preeminently saner you thought they were (of course, you read tons into them, but let's ignore that for the moment).
You started first by attempting a false dichotomy, the one you did about a thousand posts ago, when you attempted to portray "born again" believers as believing they have no ethical responsibilities and no inclination to sin. You have consistently attempted, poorly, to paint this errant picture of evangelicals.
Enter CP and her views. At which point you AGAIN attempted to make a false dichotomy, between belief and hope in eternal life, and actions in this life. You also implied that simply following the teachings of Jesus were good enough, and belief in his person wasn't at all necessary.
Your "biblical inerrancy" schtick is just a red herring here. A "Christian" is a follower of JC. One simply cannot be properly called a Christian when one picks and chooses which teachings of JC to follow, and which to ignore. A "relativist" sure, a follower of the teachings of JC, not. Biblical inerrancy need not enter in at all.
Which brings me back to my question of CP. Upon what basis does she choose to ignore some of the teachings of the very person she claims to follow?! I haven't seen any shread of "objective scholarship" given yet, just the term thrown around by seguine.
3625. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:12 PM PT
seguine
"We do not know that Jesus said this, nor do we know that he was right if he did say it."
Again, although this is an interesting aside, it isn't the point here.
Maybe we should go back a bit. CP states that she follows the teachings of Jesus because they "work for her." Which ones?? Where does she get these teachings??
It seems that they come from the Bible. Therefore, CP believes that at least *some* of the teachings of Jesus coming from the Bible are really the teachings of Jesus.
And yet, there are others that she seemingly rejects, or is just "undecided" on. She says she is undecided on whether Jesus is the Son of God or not, even though in the very same Bible from which she gets others of his teachings, Jesus claims on numerous occasions to be the Son of God.
So, why does CP reject some of these teachings and not others? Upon what basis does she do this?
Biblical inerrancy isn't the point at all. What we have here is a person believing that at least some of the teachings of the Bible are truly from Jesus. But, others she rejects (or doesn't believe yet). Why??
Perhaps seguine, you could let her answer this time, instead of putting more words into her mouth. Please?
3626. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
"Perhaps David Koresh preached the word of God. On what basis does a mere Vic Kuligin decide he did not?"
Pretty easy really. Koresh claimed to be Jesus Christ, and he claimed biblical bases for this.
Read the Bible and test his claims.
That was simple.
"Moreover, the issue is not whether CP can "conclude" that one passage is true while another is not. From the standpoint of Judaism, rationalism, humanism, etc., SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO conclude anything. She just has to consider whatever she can learn from people who have studied the subject with or without prejudice, and then take her best guess. And then only to be a decent person, since she isn't going to hell in any case."
This is hogwash. Of course she can conclude if a passage is true or not. What is all this talk from you about "objective scholarship" is she can't?!!
And when Jesus says something like, "I am the Son of God, and you should not hate one another." For someone to take the latter part and ignore entirely the former part is a piss poor methodology that needs explanation. If he is lying about the first part, or is simply mistaken, why on earth should I even follow the second part??
"And please, read what transpired in your absence."
I will be doing no backreading, unless you hotlink a specific post for me to view.
3627. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
seguine
There are in my evaluation two separate issues here. The first was what I originally entered for and it was directed to you. The second has come out of our discussion and is directed to ChristiP.
As for the second, I wasn't really going to engage CP's beliefs at all. She is undecided on a variety of things, so what is the point really. But, my question now of her would be, upon what basis does she decide, "I will follow this teaching of Jesus as found in the Bible, but ignore that one?"
But originally, I jumped in here because of your posts seguine, and specifically these comments:
"If an uncertain Christian decided to follow Jesus' teachings (because she discerned them to be *right*) but could not accept that Jesus was the son of God, why should this be insufficient to get her into heaven?"
But she is only following *some* of JC's teachings. And since Jesus claims authority for his teachings based on his person, it would be foolish to ignore who he is and just try to take the teachings. The two cannot, given the biblical Jesus, be separated.
"Why should ChristiPeters be more concerned about her fate in the afterlife than with living according to the precepts taught by the man all of you believe is the son of God?"
This is where I originally jumped in. This false dichotomy is something you have attempting to foist on us here since you entered this thread. There is no choice to be made between concern for our afterlife and living in this life according to the precepts of JC. Genuinely believers are busy about both.
3628. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:27 PM PT
seguine
Do *you* believe in the existence of God, Jehovah??
3629. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
An obvious example in all of this is the issue of wrath and Hell, and the words of Jesus concerning them.
Consistently people come here and speak about Jesus and his love, and how Jesus would never do this or say that, all the while poo-pooing any notion that Jesus would ever talk about Hell, damnation, the wrath of the Father, and so on.
Why do people do this? Is there any scholarly reason why they would ignore what in the Bible amounts to the largest single amount of material on Satan, judgment and Hell in all of the Scriptures, and this from the words of Jesus?
Sure there is. They simply don't like it. Everybody likes a Saviour, nobody likes a Lord. We get all warm and fuzzy about the nice words Jesus says, but when he says some mean things, we don't like that all too much. So many of us just ignore them.
We like to talk about the parables of forgiveness or love from the Father, but we ignore the ones about the wrath of the Father (which amount to nearly half of all the parables!).
And supremely, we love to ignore the words from Jesus that speak of his own return and judging of those who have rejected him. Why, we will even go so far as to ignore the first half of a verse and accept the second half!!
Is there any scholarly reason to do such things?? Is there any reason to believe that here, John is flat out lying, but there, he is telling the complete truth about Jesus? Where do we draw the line?
If, for example, ChristiP doesn't like Paul, that clearly cannot be ALL of his teachings. Certainly, *some* of them she must agree with. But, upon what basis does she determine to chuck some and not others? "Personal preference" just doesn't cut it, especially if she is ignoring objective truth handed down from God.
3630. gravel - Jan. 4, 1999 - 5:49 PM PT
Seasailor:
This is a total aside. Was it you, sometime during the past month, who said he was about to study the Mormon religion? I was just looking through a bookcase and remembered this great old book I discovered a few years ago in an old barn. It was in good shape for its age. My uncle, a devout Christian, read it while visiting me last summer...and then he just took it. (Said that I'd had it long enough.) It might give you a perspective from those times. If you're interested, I'm sure we can find a way to get it to you without either of us losing our anonymity. Let me know.
3631. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 7:32 PM PT
Seguine: "How do you know that the Bible is inerrant?"
Kuligin: "Show me an error."
No you don't, my dear. It is *your* assertion that the Bible is inerrant. Your entire argument for your brand of Christianity is premised on this single assertion. You cannot defend it logically because it is an assertion of faith. You will not attempt to defend it because you know it is an assertion of faith. And you have no business whatsoever lambasting me for saying that you will and must claim, in the end, that you believe what you believe simply because you believe it.
When others question your assertion, you mount a risible attack premised on a new one: that the debate must turn on others' ability to prove what cannot be proven--the divinity of Jesus, the inerrancy of scripture, the story of sacrifice. But the debate turns on no such thing, and you know it. Because *you* are the one saying you know the truth.
IOW, the fundamental assertion of certainty is yours and your fundamentalist friends', not mine. (And certainly not ChristiPeters', into whose mouth I'm putting no words whatsoever. And I wouldn't blame her for feeling insulted that you said so.) If you cannot prove that the Bible is inerrant, you cannot win an argument premised on the "fact" that it is.
3632. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 7:37 PM PT
"Your "biblical inerrancy" schtick is just a red herring here. A
"Christian" is a follower of JC."
Kuligin defines Christianity.
"One simply cannot be properly called a Christian when one picks and chooses which teachings of JC to follow, and which to ignore. A "relativist" sure, a follower of the teachings of JC, not."
Kuligin elaborates on what Christianity is: Kuligin knows. Other Christians, who he says are not "properly" called Christians, don't know. How does Kuligin know?
"Biblical inerrancy need not enter in at all."
Liar, liar, pants on fire. You are going *straight* to hell. Do not pass 'Go'. Do not collect $200.
3633. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:00 PM PT
"Well, I have heard people use the term "eisogesis" which, as marshame
said, means to read something INTO a text. And that *is* very different than exogesis. There is indeed a "functional difference" between the two terms. Other than that, I haven't followed your discussion so I don't know what you two are talking about."
Obviously not.
But this should help you out:
"Exegesis", as used in the context of this discussion, is simply the practice of interpreting scripture. Not interpreting it via one methodology or another: merely interpreting. And in practice, as semantically, the means by which the Bible is "interpreted" can have all sorts of things to do with what the interpreter brings to the text. Even--perhpas especially--when the interpreter claims to read only what is "really" there.
There is no such word as "exogesis". There is no such word as "esogesis". And, except perhaps in the lexicon of those special priests of the True Truth, who I guess must originally have been German speakers, there is no such word as "eisogesis".
3634. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Seg: "We do not know that Jesus said this, nor do we know that he was right if he did say it."
K: "Again, although this is an interesting aside, it isn't the point here."
It is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point.
3635. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:16 PM PT
"Maybe we should go back a bit. CP states that she follows the teachings of Jesus because they "work for her." Which ones?? Where does she get these teachings??"
"It seems that they come from the Bible." [And HERE HE GOES, folks:] "Therefore, CP believes that at least *some* of the teachings of Jesus coming from the Bible are really the teachings of Jesus."
"Therefore"?
Kuligin, CP didn't say "therefore" ANYTHING. She didn't even say that she knew *any* of the teachings of Jesus were "really the teachings of Jesus." For all you or I know, the truth or falsity of the assertion that *all of the reported sayings of Jesus in the Bible really are what Jesus said* doesn't even matter to CP.
All *she* said is that she follows those teachings that, in her estimation, "work". She has been very careful to claim no certainties.
3636. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:22 PM PT
seguine
Be reasonable. I have yet to find a single error in the Bible. That reasonably leads me to the conclusion that there are no errors. If you disagree, show me some errors. It's really that easy. This isn't something that need only be comprehended via faith; it is reasonable to conclude that, if one finds no errors, than none exist.
Certainly, my premise that this is the Word of God has something to do with it, but for the time being, I am willing to lay that aside and look at the text objectively and reasonably. Show me some errors.
As for exegesis and eisogesis, say what you want to say to marshame, not to me. But your "no functional difference" comment is laughable.
"It is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point."
Instead of further exposing your foolishness, I will opt to wait and see what ChristiP has to say about the matter. Again, it has everything to do with methodology and approach to the text, and inerrancy needn't even enter the equation at this point.
Again, suppose CP doesn't believe in inerrancy (she said as much anyway). Upon what basis does she pick this passage and not that, this half of a verse and not the other half, this author and not that one, and so on? What objective rule or tool does she use to accept some of the words of Jesus found in the Gospels while ignoring the others? This has nothing whatsoever to do with inerrancy at all. I will await her answers.
As for YOU, you have yet to address the false dichotomies you have made up in mischaracterizing the evangelical (or as you call it fundamental) POV. Until you have done this, we haven't anything further to discuss.
3637. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
Seg: "Moreover, the issue is not whether CP can "conclude" that one passage is true while another is not. From the standpoint of Judaism,
rationalism, humanism, etc., SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO conclude anything. She just has to consider whatever she can learn from people who have studied the subject with or without prejudice, and then take her best guess. And then only to be a decent person, since she isn't going to hell in any case."
K: "This is hogwash. Of course she can conclude if a passage is true or not. What is all this talk from you about "objective scholarship" is she can't?!!"
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone *can't* draw conclusions, you addled hysteric. I said that from other than fundamentalist standpoints SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO in order to save her immortal soul. She may remain *undecided* as long as she lives.
3638. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:27 PM PT
Kuligin on the veracity of Koresh: "Read the Bible and test his claims."
"That was simple."
I take this to mean you will soon be joining his surviving followers at Nuevo Rancho Apocalypse.
As to my belief in Jehovah, I've already answered that question in detail. One of my naive attempts to clarify my thinking for Seaweed.
3639. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:31 PM PT
seguine
"She didn't even say that she knew *any* of the teachings of Jesus were "really the teachings of Jesus."
Don't play word games please. Here's what she said:
Message #3574
"The way of life that Jesus taught works for me. That is, living honestly, helping anyone I can, harming no one, and 'turning the other cheek'."
Very clearly, CP thinks that the things she is referring to here are the things that "Jesus taught."
In fact, YOU said this:
"If an uncertain Christian decided to follow Jesus' teachings (because she discerned them to be *right*) but could not accept that Jesus was the son of God, why should this be insufficient to get her into heaven?"
You are either very confused or desperately grasping for straws here.
In short, CP sees certain biblical teachings and says these are the teachings of Jesus. That is very clear. But, other words in the Bible from Jesus she rejects. My questions as to why still stand.
3640. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:35 PM PT
"What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone *can't* draw conclusions, you addled hysteric."
Well, as for hysterics, just read your last series of posts to me. No doubt the spittle is dripping off your lips. I am beginning to understand now why some mistook you for Resonance.
Now, if you decide to calm down a tad, don't curse, and attempt to act civil, perhaps tomorrow we can continue this??
"As to my belief in Jehovah, I've already answered that question in detail. One of my naive attempts to clarify my thinking for Seaweed."
If you have a post #, I'd appreciate it. And just for the record, Seasailor tries his best. Calling him immature names like Seaweed makes you look, well, immature. As does your little side comments about me and my beliefs. Try sticking to the issues without your belligerent mischaracterizations.
And while you are at it, please give us *your* definition of a Christian, since my "one who follows the teachings of Jesus" wasn't good enough for you. Thank you.
3641. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:38 PM PT
And just to be really clear here, in the Bible we have certain teachings of Jesus. We'll call those A,B,C,X,Y & Z.
ChristiP says that the ABC teachings of Jesus she adheres to, or tries to follow. But, the XYZ teachings she rejects, or questions, or is just unsure about. And my question, again, is upon what basis does she accept ABC and not XYZ, when in the Gospels ALL of these teachings are portrayed as the teachings of Jesus.
This isn't all that hard to follow seguine.
3642. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:47 PM PT
And the real heart of the matter is that ChristiP seemingly rejects (or is as yet undecided) the claims Jesus made about his person, as found in the NT, but accepts some of his teachings. But, Jesus also makes it very clear in these same texts that to reject his person is to reject him, and that his teachings are rooted precisely in who he is.
In other words, the teachings of Jesus are not just bare moral precepts, but are true precisely because they are rooted in the Truth, namely, Jesus himself.
Therefore, to reject who Jesus is is to reject his teachings. One cannot just take his teachings and reject the person of Christ. The two go hand in hand.
seguine, I would also like you to address your consistent mischaracteization of the evangelical position, namely, that thoughts to the afterlife mean neglect of actions in this life, and that "born again" believers believe they have no ethical responsibilities and no inclination to sin. You have yet to address these issues as far as I have seen (if you have, please point me in the right direction).
3643. wooway - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:28 PM PT
Marshane:
"I disagree with Wooway that our words have this kind of power, but certainly God's word is."
If you disagree that our words have this kind of power, you are disagreeing with the man himself, Jesus. Consider the story of the fig tree, told in both Matthew and Mark, where Jesus declares the power of the word uttered by anyone. In Matthew, the story is presented as a promise, but in Mark (written earlier) it ends with a warning. I find the Mark version much more poignant.
By the way, for our bible-is-the-inerrant-word-of-god fellows, which of these stories is correct? The one where the fig tree whithers immediately at Jesus' curse, or the one where he and the disciples return at a later time to find it whithered?
Or:
which flood story is correct? The one where Noah sends out a dove, or the one where he sends out a raven? The one where one pair of each animal is taken on board, or the one where different quantities of clean vs. unclean animals are taken on board?
Or:
Which creation story is correct? The one where the man and woman are created at the same time, or the one where Adam is created, then all the animals, then (none of them being fit companions) Eve is created?
heh-heh
3644. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:29 PM PT
seguine
"And, except perhaps in the lexicon of those special priests of the True Truth, who I guess must originally have been German speakers, there is no such word as "eisogesis"."
Well, I was curious, since indeed I had heard the word used before. So, I went to www.dictionary.com and typed in "eisegesis" and here is what I got:
"eisegesis n : personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas"
Indeed, marshame was right, the word exists and she was using is properly. She just didn't spell it correctly.
3645. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:32 PM PT
wooway
Give us specific passages for the above, and we will address them all.
3646. wooway - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
VicKuglin:
Gee, I just assumed you'd know where to find them. Give me a few
minutes.
Isn't this fun? I hope we can keep away from name-calling though, or I won't play.
Back in a minute.
3647. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:38 PM PT
"But she is only following *some* of JC's teachings. And since Jesus
claims authority for his teachings based on his person, it would be
foolish to ignore who he is and just try to take the teachings. The two cannot, given the biblical Jesus, be separated."
You keep begging the question, which is whether the biblical Jesus was the 'actual' Jesus. If he wasn't, she can separate them any way she likes.
Moreover, you keep demanding I admit to creating a false dichotomy I haven't created, and answer questions I've already addressed, in spite of the fact that you will not defend your supposedly rational position on a rational basis, will not admit to faith being the ultimate basis for your conclusions, and will not answer even my objection that CP may reasonably suppose that "the disciples were men and that men err or are motivated by things other than, or in addition to, God."
"Be reasonable. I have yet to find a single error in the Bible. That
reasonably leads me to the conclusion that there are no errors. If you
disagree, show me some errors. It's really that easy. This isn't something that need only be comprehended via faith; it is reasonable to conclude that, if one finds no errors, than none exist."
Who says *you* are reasonable? Why is Vic Kuligin right? What makes you, who are incapable even of grasping the meaning of *my* words, capable of discerning error in so complex a document as the Bible, especially when your search for errors is premised on an a priori assumption that any apparent contradiction or absurdity in the Bible can be explained away by citing more things that cannot be proved?
For heaven's sake, LOTS of people have criticized the supposed inerrancy of the Bible, its incomprehensible contradictions. Jose Saramago in his novel _Blindness_. The author (whose name escapes me) of the novel on which the film _The Last Temptation of Christ_ was based. The writers of the
3648. KurtMondaugen - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:44 PM PT
Seguine:
Nikos Kazinstakis.
3649. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:49 PM PT
"You keep begging the question, which is whether the biblical Jesus was the 'actual' Jesus. If he wasn't, she can separate them any way she likes."
CP has said, in essence, "I follow the teachings of Jesus." Where does she get those teachings? From the Bible. But, some of the teachings of Jesus also in the Bible she rejects or at this time just doesn't accept. Why? Why? Why?
Why not wait for HER to answer it? I am going to do so now.
"Moreover, you keep demanding I admit to creating a false dichotomy I haven't created,"
Sure you have, and you have dodged it consistently when I exposed it. Don't act now like it doesn't exist! You even attempted to change the subject entirely, while your very own quote sat there for all to see!
"... and answer questions I've already addressed,"
There are several questions you have yet to address. One concerns your false statements about "born again" believers believing they no longer having the inclination to sin, or no ethical responsibilities. Will you EVER address this mischaracterization?!! And if you have, where?
"...will not admit to faith being the ultimate basis for your conclusions"
Where did I ever say or even imply this?!!! Are you really this desperate??
3650. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:50 PM PT
(cont.)...The writers of the movie _The Rapture_. Is your answer to all of the arguments offered in literature really just: Vic Kuligin has "yet to find a single error in the Bible"?
For my own part, I spent posts and posts, addressed to others in this thread, analogizing several of the contradictions in the NT that I find irresolvable. (I considered that you might even find them amusing, in between bouts of rage.) You have refused to even *read* them unless I cite you post numbers. But, what with attempting answer all your condescensions and rambling histrionics, on pain of more accusations that I have failed to address your utterly circular queries, I really don't have time. And since you evidently are not reading carefully what anyone here says anyway, I don't see the point.
3651. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:53 PM PT
seguine
"especially when your search for errors is premised on an a priori assumption that any apparent contradiction or absurdity in the Bible can be explained away by citing more things that cannot be proved?"
Are you really this loony? "citing more things that cannot be proved?!" When did I do that?
Calm down a bit please, and then perhaps you will think straight. One can address, point by point, each supposed contradiction or error, via textual means. And I am prepared to do so.
All I said to you was show me the errors, and you rant like the above. STOP IT with the hyperbole and mischaracterizations and jumping to false conclusions about the views of others!!!!!!! Take a deep breath, ask some questions, and WAIT for the views of others.
And while you are at it, addressing their questions would be nice too.
wooway, I have been through this far too much to jump right in with texts, only to have some lame brain either never come back, never address my posts, or say, "I never cited those passages!" So, forgive me if I expect you to do more work than make unsubstantiated claims.
I await your posts!
3652. wooway - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:55 PM PT
cites:
fig tree stories: Mark 11:12-25; Matthew 21:18-22
flood stories: two of each animal: Gen 6:19-20
seven pair of clean; one pair of unclean: Gen 7:2-3
creation: male/female created at one time: Gen 1:26-27
male, animals, female: Gen 2:7-22
many scholars account for the discrepancy in the creation stories in that they were probably the stories that belonged one to the northern tribes and one to the southern tribes. In the Gen 1 creation story, god is referred to as god, but in the Gen 2 story, god is referred to as Yahweh (later replaced by "the Lord" when, after the Babylonian captivity and subsequent release by Cyrus, the priests decided that no one could say Yahweh's name out loud).
Well, there's something to start with. I have to go now.
3653. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
seguine
"But, what with attempting answer all your condescensions and rambling histrionics, on pain of more accusations that I have failed to address your utterly circular queries, I really don't have time."
You seem to have a great amount of time to dodge direct questions, so why not take a few minutes and find YOUR posts, then hotlink them for me?? Otherwise, I simply cannot accept the "I already answered that" schtick.
"And since you evidently are not reading carefully what anyone here says anyway, I don't see the point."
You're right, all I do is cut and paste your own words, and you can't even address that!! How ridiculous of me to expect that you would actually make some sense!!
3654. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 9:59 PM PT
seguine
I'll make it easy for you. Here's one of your posts, one I have referred to numerous times, but you have yet to respond:
"2735. Seguine - Dec. 3, 1998 - 10:12 AM PT
MsIT, MsIT. Don't you understand? If you believe in the proper deity THERE ARE ULTIMATELY NO ETHICAL *REQUIREMENTS* ON YOU. This is the core of the fundamentalist's conceit.
Just as dietary restrictions and so forth were made unnecesssary by sacrifice of Jesus, silly behavioral prescriptions such as the Decalogue are made redundant because
a. acceptance of the supreme sacrifice on one's own behalf absolves men of sin and
b. sincerely inviting Jesus into one's heart endows the born again with the spirit of Christ in such a way as to eliminate the inclination to sin.
Of course, if one accepts these conceits as truth, then it should be possible to observe the behavior of professed Christians in this thread to determine who has really accepted Jesus and who has not. (Which of course it what you have done, with perfect accuracy.)"
Please address your mischaracterizations about no inclination to sin and no ethical responsibilities. And once you have done this, perhaps we can move on.
As for ChristiP's views, I am not talking anymore to you about them until SHE has addressed her OWN views first.
3655. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:05 PM PT
wooway
The creation account is easy. The first account of the creation of male and female gives a quick overview, the second a more detailed one. There needn't be any appeal to "contradiction" here at all.
The same could be said about the flood story. The first is a more summary statement, the second more detailed.
"VicK, what did you do today?"
"Well, I had breakfast with a friend, went into Chicago, caught an afternoon Cubs game, and came home."
If, however, I give much more detail later about my day, this detail doesn't "contradict" my earlier story at all!
As for the fig tree story, I recall Matthew's propensity to conflate stories, but I will have to dig deeper on that one tomorrow.
3656. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:08 PM PT
"CP has said, in essence, "I follow the teachings of Jesus." Where does she get those teachings? From the Bible. But, some of the teachings of Jesus also in the Bible she rejects or at this time just doesn't accept. Why? Why? Why?"
Gee, I don't know. But I *will* hazard a guess.
Maybe it's because some of the things 'Jesus taught' (I will be sure to put that in quotes from now on so you won't mistake my shorthand nomenclature for a profession of certainity) are things she finds "work" for her and the others are not. Just as she said. And so, some of the things 'Jesus taught' are true enough in her experience to be useful, and others can't be proven in her experience, and so she simply makes no judgment about their truth.
It's easy, Kuligin. It's just the opposite of your mental exercise: you take a certain position on things that can't be proven to be true or false. She suspends judgment.
3657. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
seguine
My posts Message #3600 Message #3627 and Message #3639 have basically been ignored by you, and yet form the heart of my disagreement with you.
3658. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
xpost seguine, You have at least now taken a part of my #3639, but unfortunately not the meat of it.
I am no longer addressing *ChristiP's* views as filtered through you! Sorry about that, but I have a feeling you don't know them as well as she does!
In fact, when she says she follows the teaching of Jesus, and you try to make us believe that she doesn't really mean that, well, I hope you won't be offended if I don't like your filtering all that much.
3659. VicKuligin - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:15 PM PT
I am going to bed. Good night.
3660. Seguine - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:25 PM PT
Kuligin--"eisegesis n : personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas"
"Indeed, marshame was right, the word exists and she was using is
properly. She just didn't spell it correctly."
Nor did you. Nevertheless, I concede that the word exists.
But I maintain that there is no functional difference between exegesis and eisegesis--at least not when exegesis is performed aprioristically, which is what you and Marshame (and Jenerator, and Bloody, et al.) do quite consistently. (Although Bloody is truly and honestly content entirely with faith.) Thus, if the Bible is inerrant, and if in reading it one discovers an apparent contradiction, and if the contradiction is resolvable by , say, recourse to some historical document or discovery that leads logically to the conclusion that the Bible was not dictated by God, you will choose to believe a different interpretation which, even if less likely, "confirms" that the text is not flawed.
(Sort of like the once well-regarded scientist Peter Duesberg's explanations of how drug use, and not HIV, causes AIDS.)
3661. concerned - Jan. 4, 1999 - 10:41 PM PT
Did you know that.....?
The Bible has been translated into Klingon, so that extraterrestrials can read the Holy Scriptures in Star Trek movies.
3662. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 2:17 AM PT
'Bloody' [an affectionate short form I hope], is 'truly and honestly content entirely...' NOT with faith, Seguine, but with the God in Whose Word, bloodnfire learned long ago to trust with complete confidence.
Welcome back Jen. Please don't ever go away again without taking us all with you ! :-)
3663. bloodnfire - Jan. 5, 1999 - 2:32 AM PT
You too, Vic. We've missed you. Welcome back.
3664. gravel - Jan. 5, 1999 - 4:53 AM PT
bloodnfire:
I hope it was okay for me to use that example. I'm sure we can think of others that might be of greater immediate interest to the frayers. On my mind was not just sympathy for the kids (because many of them are indeed old enough to be able to make responsible decisions, and I believe those young people are responsible for their acts). I care about the youngest kids, for whom there's hope. And about the people who can't leave their homes without great fear. But I also envision, if we don't stop this situation now, the creation of a bureaucracy to take care of these kids. Once people are employed due to a problem, they never want to see the problem end.
3665. gravel - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:01 AM PT
I'm sorry, people. I meant to post that in "Choice Theory."
3666. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:39 AM PT
Kuligan, or any of the Thumpers: Could you give a succinct explanation as to why you consider the Bible inerrant?
3667. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:40 AM PT
Seasailor (Message #3442 & Message #3443)
Izabegovic = Pseudoerasmus.
Message #3578
"Logic and reason tell us that God, as a creator, must exist."
Perhaps you should read Izabegovic/Pseudoerasmus again, especially his/my reiteration of the cosmological argument. You may notice that the argument takes an "if-then" form.
3668. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 5:44 AM PT
Jenerator (Message #3584)
"It's hard for me to understand how an atheist can *not* see by nature alone that there is a God. Then again, an athiest probably thinks that all things exist from and for scientic reasons alone."
The central metaphysical mystery is that why anything exists at all. Even if we could reduce everything to natural laws, the mystery would remain why those laws exist in the first place. This, for some feeble-minded people, is a compelling reason to believe that God must exist. I, however, find such reasoning a cop-out, because then God simply becomes the central mystery to be explained.
At any rate, for me, to say that natural laws just *exist* without further ado is about as satisfying an answer as saying that God is the explanation -- which is to say not satisfying at all. So I consider it about as likely that God exists as that he doesn't.
3669. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:15 AM PT
Seguine (Message #3576)
"ChristiPeters appears to be an eminently sane individual. How can any of you--Bloody, Seaweed, Marshame--possibly argue with the essential superiority of her approach to life over one which asserts primarily the need for salvation and the importance of avoiding damnation?"
Well, asserting the primacy of salvation and avoiding damnation in the way a Christian does seems saner and less absurd to this atheist than the conviction that there's something sacred about a common ruminant herbivore; or foregoing the pleasures of shrimp, crab, bacon, or pepperoni pizza; or avoiding the elevator on the "day of rest" so that you could schlep up the stairs instead.
I don't understand why people bother to engage believers along the lines you do. Surely, whether Marshame's and Bloody's "approach" is sane depends critically on whether you accept their premises (i.e., faith). You don't, so why bother?
3670. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:15 AM PT
There is an article in the Atlantic about the Koran which may interest those familiar with the exegetical controversies surrounding the Bible.
3671. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:20 AM PT
I recently decided that I no longer believe in the freedom of religion, or in the disestablishment of religion. It really doesn't matter whether you're a Thumper who is conventionally and traditionally seen as dangerous by humanists, or a "nice" religionist like PD who talks peace and is tolerant of gays and pagans and the like. Both kinds are dangerous, for religion encourages mysticism, excessive intuitionism, irrational exuberance, a reverence for deductivism at the expense of empiricism, and mumbo-jumbo in general.
So, atheism and secularism ought to be made the official, established ideology of the state, and religion actively discouraged. By this I don't mean that religiosi be hunted down and persecuted. They'd be left alone to practise their religion. But churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, covens and the like would be taxed; donations to them made no longer tax-deductible; oaths of atheism or agnosticism required for holding public office, exercising the franchise, and receiving social benefits such as student loans and welfare payments; Christmas, Easter and other concocted festivals expunged as holidays; all religious educational institutions disaccredited as well as deprived of public research funds (no more cancer research at Notre Dame); and religious symbols, such as crucifixes, yarmulkas, and veils banned in public schools. I've toyed with the idea of making spitting on the crucifix for nominal Christians the binding concomitant of the atheism oath, but that's probably too much. Of course, Native Americans (or anybody else) smoking paoti as an "exercise of religion" will be treated no differently than crack dealers.
3672. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:52 AM PT
Vic - "Maybe we should go back a bit. CP states that she follows the teachings of Jesus because they "work for her." Which ones?? Where does she get these teachings??
It seems that they come from the Bible. Therefore, CP believes that at least *some* of the teachings of Jesus coming from the Bible are really the teachings of Jesus."
I said: "The way of life that Jesus taught works for me. That is, living honestly, helping anyone I can, harming no one, and 'turning the other cheek'."
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "The way of life Jesus taught as I understand it from reading the Bible ..."
This clarifies that, yes, I *am* taking the "teachings of Jesus" from the Bible. However, that doesn't mean that I "believes that at least *some* of the teachings of Jesus coming from the Bible are really the teachings of Jesus".
I make no judgement at this time whether what I understand as workable directions for living are the actual words of the historical figure Jesus or not.
I can take my understanding of a recommended action or "way of living" and "means test it" - ie try it out. If it works for me, I incorporate it into my life. If it doesn't work for me, I don't incorporate it into my life.
I have no way of means testing (I'm not sure if I am using that phrase correctly, but I hope you understand what I mean) whether the standard English translation of the Bible I am reading contains an accurate translation of the actual words of Jesus. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, so, for now, I withhold judgement and keep on studying.
continued....
3673. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:55 AM PT
I am very skeptical that the anything written by humans and translated and interpreted by humans can be the "inerrant Word of God". Could someone please address these questions I posted yesterday?
marshame : "Do you believe that God is able to ensure that His word is preserved throughout all generations? I do."
Me : "So does my Mother and so do a lot of people. Maybe I will too, someday. Right now I'm undecided.
How would God ensure this without abrogating the free will of all the translators and copyists and decision makers?
Is free will something God gives us unreservedly or do we only have free will sometimes or in certain situations or aspects of our lives?
Do I give up my free will if I decide to be a Bible translator?"
3674. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 6:58 AM PT
Sorry to post and run, but I have a class now. I'll check back with y'all when class is over.
3675. gravel - Jan. 5, 1999 - 7:32 AM PT
Okay. The Bible's just another piece of literature.
SeaSailor: Please go to Message #3573 and tell me if that's a good summing-up of your message to Seguine. (I'm going to assume it is.)
Do you know what you've said there? Do you see the consequences? Do you know the identities of the "several people" to whom I refer? Do you stand by what you did?
3676. gravel - Jan. 5, 1999 - 7:39 AM PT
SeaSailor:
Here's something that might help you make up your mind about responding. It could happen that you'll be left to Marshame's "final court of arbitration."
3677. Seguine - Jan. 5, 1999 - 8:37 AM PT
"So I consider it about as likely that God exists as that he doesn't."
I consider you an agnostic and not an atheist. (Not to cast aspersions on your Message #3671, for which someone any minute now must call you a Communist.)
"Well, asserting the primacy of salvation and avoiding damnation in the way a Christian does seems saner and less absurd to this atheist than the conviction that there's something sacred about a common ruminant herbivore; or foregoing the pleasures of shrimp, crab, bacon, or pepperoni pizza; or avoiding the elevator on the "day of rest" so that you could schlep up the stairs instead."
Saner from a radical individualist's perspective, sure. Otherwise, more or less a sanity equivalence, i.e., silly. (Especially schlepping up the stairs.) But of course, I have never argued that the beliefs of fudamentalists of any stripe are as "sane" as ChristiPeters' avowed indecisiveness. I *have* argued with you privately that some observances, in some contexts, can plausibly advance social goods and therefore can be considered morally "right".
As you once observed, I am a lukewarm utilitarian.
"I don't understand why people bother to engage believers along the lines you do. Surely, whether Marshame's and Bloody's "approach" is sane depends critically on whether you accept their premises (i.e., faith). You don't, so why bother?"
Cussedness.
3678. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
I don't recognise much distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic".
3679. bubbaette - Jan. 5, 1999 - 8:53 AM PT
Athiest means that one is pretty sure there is no devine being. Agnostic means that one is unsure one way or another.
3680. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 8:56 AM PT
Excellent link in Message #3670.
3681. Seguine - Jan. 5, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
"I don't recognise much distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic".
You're a binary kinda guy.
But of course, in terms of practical matters, there's not much difference to recognized. Except that agnostics have a ready out for the question, If God exists, shouldn't you adhere to _____?
Life is full of risks. But an agnostic can at least *reduce* his chance of going to hell--which must be quantifiable by adding up all identical or nearky identical religious prescriptions on the subject and then multiplying by the number of believers (just in case believing makes things true, just like believing in Tinkerbell brings her back to life)--by adhering to precepts that are believed by 51% or more of the world's population. Which, more or less, consist of several of the 10 commandments.
According to popular understanding on such matters, atheists will *definitely* burn right up. But realistically, agnostics might or might not, depending on whether absolute adherence to a particular doctrine is required for salvation, or salvation is available at a lesser cost.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the only way to get into heaven and avoid having Satan's log-sized dick rammed up your burning ass for all eternity is to become a perfect atheist. If that's what God wants, then I guess I'm fucked.
3682. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 9:19 AM PT
Message #3679
Whether one is "pretty sure" or not is irrelevant. Certitude is a property, not a feeling, thus a question to be objectively decided, not subjectively.
Both the atheist and the agnostic lack faith, and that is the primary distinction from the theist. The rest is idle banter.
3683. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
Message #3681
Well, if you're a gambling (wo)man, or if you're going to get actuarial on me, you might as well take Pascal's Wager and BELIEVE. For the cost/potential benefit ratio of belief is pretty pretty damned low.
3684. spudboy - Jan. 5, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
PE: "So, atheism and secularism ought to be made the official, established ideology of the state, and religion actively discouraged." Many Thumpers believe this is the current situation in the U.S.
3685. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
Hmmm...
I guess no one wants to address how God could ensure an "inerrant" document using fallible humans as the tools while still allowing these fallible humans free will.
Oh well.
Next issue?
3686. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
Hmmm...
I guess no one wants to address how God could ensure an "inerrant" document using fallible humans as the tools while still allowing these fallible humans free will. Also, how He managed to ensure that every copyist, every translator, and ever Church bureaucrat with a personal agenda, *still* did not change, confuse, or sully God's inerrant word and He did it in spite of their free will. (or did He?)
BTW, for the record, I am neither an agnostic, nor an atheist. I very firmly believe in God and a purpose to life, and an afterlife. It's all those pesky details I'm not sure of. (I have a lot of Faith in God, but humans are running the churches and I have almost no faith inpeople.)
Oh well.
Next issue?
(there! *that* says what I mean semi-clearly)
3687. verdeazul - Jan. 5, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
I have it on very good
authority that they do have
Ping-Pong in Hell...but the
paddles are very tiny and one
must score 21,000 points to
win a game. Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome is a very common
problem there because the
losers of games are obliged to
drink a, "Devil's Daquiri"...
a slug of cyanide-laced grape
Kool-Aid immediately chased
with a tumbler of Ipecac.
Leaves the loser floppin'
around like an epileptic octopus.
Yes, Virginia, they play
'hardball' in Hell. My sources
swear that it is nearly as bad as
the Pelican Bay Prison in far
Northern California - except
there's no Ping-Pong up there
and no sacra-mental Kool-Aid,
either.
azuldelasgrimas~
3688. ChristiPeters - Jan. 5, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT
verdeazul Message #3687
*chuckle*
3689. Jenerator - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:25 AM PT
Bloodnfire,
Thank you for the kind words. I promise, next time I disappear, you'll be right next to me.
3690. Jenerator - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
PseudoErasmus,
Message #3671 Is characteristically unlike you. Since when do you need to be purposefully provocative? Two things I can clearly see from this post: 1) you were bored and looking to create some form of dialogue and 2)you wanted all of us to know your secret communist leanings.
It is close to your post in the now defunct "Time Travel Thread", where you said you'd go back in time and kill the baby Jesus.
You have been emailing Toonces for so long, that your literary styles are starting to resemble one another.
3691. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
Message #3690
You're such a bore.
How is it communist to propose what I did propose in Message #3671? France, the aggressively secular state par excellence, already long ago enacted many if not all of what I called for.
As for Toonces, what the hell are you talking about?
3692. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
The remark about "communist leanings" is terribly ironic, because if anything the reason I've mocked Iesus Xristos has frequently been is HIS communism. The man was a bloody fucking pinko. That's why I said in Time Travel thread that the baby infant should have been butchered in the cradle.
3693. Jenerator - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
PseudoErasmus,
I sincerely hope that you fall in love some day. It will do wonders for your nasty disposition and outlook on life, people, religion, and communication.
3694. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Jenerator
I've been dating someone since August 1996.
You'd find me devastatingly charming, by the way.
3695. bubbaette - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
RE 3682
As an atheist, "pretty sure" is about as close as I can come to the notion of "faith" for something that is unprovable one way or the other. I should have said that an atheist is "certain" that there is no god, but that would make me an agnostic.
There is a difference in that the atheist discounts the possibility that there is a supreme being and is satisfied with that arrangement while an agnostic may wish to believe but lacks the ability to suspend disbelief.
3696. Jenerator - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
PE,
Wow, you're dating someone? Does she know?
As for your personality, I'd love to find you devastatingly charming. I think you have it in you. I just think that Slate brings out the worst.
3697. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Jenerator
THE question of the century, la question du siècle, is whether the man who dates you ever feels like he actually has got a girlfriend, in the modern, conventional sense, that is.
3698. Jenerator - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
PseudoErasmus,
Modern and conventional are polar opposites my dear.
3699. VicKuligin - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
"I just think that Slate brings out the worst."
I think this is correct, and is one of several factors that has led me to decide today to take an extended hiatus from Slate. There are several factors, not the least being the amount of time I waste here. But, for the most part, I have found it to be terribly boring of late. Things like this
"Of course, there's always the possibility that the only way to get into heaven and avoid having Satan's log-sized dick rammed up your burning ass for all eternity is to become a perfect atheist. If that's what God wants, then I guess I'm fucked."
bring the quality of any good attempts at discussion way down. As do desires to murder babies deemed as "bloody fucking pinkos."
The time away will do me good, as I know it will you here.
3700. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Among Mormons, maybe.