What a absurd argument. Put someone's personal experiences above the Bible? No one who has any knowledge of the Bible would arrive at such a foolish conclusion.Quote:
Posting many texts in lieu of personal testimony is a fools' way out.
|
What a absurd argument. Put someone's personal experiences above the Bible? No one who has any knowledge of the Bible would arrive at such a foolish conclusion.Quote:
Posting many texts in lieu of personal testimony is a fools' way out.
That's the best way to gain converts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The best way to gain converts is to present the Christ of the Bible. He is loving, powerful, compassionate, and able to radically change lives. How do we know this? Because it's someone's testimony? Well, that helps, but we ultimately know it because it's what the Bible says. But to accept what we like and discard what we don't like is the sure way of accepting false beliefs about God. It's what you are doing, and it results in an acceptance of a Jesus of our own making if we are not careful.
Exactly how have you done that? And exactly what is your belief?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I thought personal testimony was a big thing with you evangelical types.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you also tell them he will send you to hell for eternity in flaming punishment if you don't believe in him? Is that part of your conversion process?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Just smack them on the forehead with that Bible! Works every time! NOT!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Touch the heart first, not flood the brain.
Of course, JL does! If he doesn't scare the pants off them, they'll ignore him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
It is good to have the heart touched WITH THE TRUTH.Quote:
Touch the heart first, not flood the brain.
I have not posted a belief. You have. You have said that unbelievers do not go to hell. When asked to support it (repeatedly), you have shown you are unable to do so. And now you seem to be not man enough to simply admit to it. Pretty sad.Quote:
Exactly how have you done that? And exactly what is your beliefs?
I don't consider myself to be an "evangelical type". At any rate, personal testimony is next to useless in establishing truth. It can illustrate it, but not establish it. For every "personal testimony" WG or anyone else can post, someone else can be found with the opposite "personal testimony".Quote:
I thought personal testimony was a big thing with you evangelical types.
Nope. Touch their hearts first spiritually with kindness and love. My speaking and their hearing the Gospel can then follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your words from above - "If you have a belief then support it with the Bible the way I have done"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Fundamentalist? Born again?Quote:
I don't consider myself to be an "evangelical type".
Yes. Put Bible texts on the board. Simple.
Christian. Born again? I'd sure say yes to that.
Define "Fundamentalist".
I think of fundamentalist as primarily reading the Bible literally. I like the Catholic approach where they read it literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. I think most mainstream Protestant denominations read it like the Catholics, more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As far as dogma/doctrine/belief, I am opposed to the unbeliever goes to hell business. It requires substituting the Bible for God. I understand that fundies believe the Bible was written by God. I'm not sure how they explain that, but there's too much in the Bible that God couldn't possibly have said or done.
There are fundamentalists in every religion who are similar to the Christians in the sense of being literal.
I certainly agree with reading the Bible literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. The key element is knowing when to employ each one.Quote:
I think of fundamentalist as primarily reading the Bible literally. I like the Catholic approach where they read it literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "substituting the Bible for God." Are you saying that you have some utterly dependable means outside of the Bible for knowing what God is like? BTW, fundamentalists do not believe God wrote the Bible. They believe men wrote the Bible, but did so by being moved by the Spirit of God in such a way that it is God's Word.Quote:
As far as dogma/doctrine/belief, I am opposed to the unbeliever goes to hell business. It requires substituting the Bible for God. I understand that fundies believe the Bible was written by God. I'm not sure how they explain that, but there's too much in the Bible that God couldn't possibly have said or done.
Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We don't have the original text of the Bible. And we know at least some of the translators had an agenda, so tweaked/changed words and phrases.Quote:
BTW, fundamentalists do not believe God wrote the Bible. They believe men wrote the Bible, but did so by being moved by the Spirit of God in such a way that it is God's Word.
The general rule of hermeneutics is to take a passage literally unless there is a compelling reason not to. I take them both literally since I see no compelling reason not to, but I have no quarrel with someone who chooses not to.Quote:
Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?
Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?
Oh? Where are those passages altered by someone who had an agenda?Quote:
And we know at least some of the translators had an agenda, so tweaked/changed words and phrases.
I was watching - and booing -- Dr. Phil. Hard to boo and speel kerectlee.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The ones, for example, that changed the translation of the Greek word from "pedophiles" to "homosexuals".Quote:
Oh? Where are those passages altered by someone who had an agenda?
Your example is ludicrous. You are trying to go back to the good old days of Luther when he used a German word which could have the connotation of pedophile. But if Luther kind of, sort of goes one way, and every modern translation, by the dozens, go a different way, then I'm not putting my money on Luther. Besides, the root of the Greek word is the word for "man", so to suggest it is referring to boys and men having sex is really a reach.
Surely you can come up with a Greek lexicon or major translation that uses "pedophile". If you can't, and you can't, and they why make such a preposterous statement? At any rate, if that's all you have, then you have nothing.
Paul coined the word arsenokoitai.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
First of all, that is not settled as being true by a long shot. With 99.999% of ancient writing lost, then no one can say that. It is thought that Philo might have used it several decades earlier, but can't be certain.
But even at that, what difference would it make? Your approach is a perfect example of eisegesis.
I have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I kind of figured that.
As my grandpa would say, "You're full of applesauce."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
from WG
Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?
You don't consider the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood that that destroyed all humanity a compelling reason to consider the story not literal? A man living for three days inside the belly of a whale is not a compelling reason to consider the story other than literal?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Like you, I have no problem with how others may see these stories, but to call them literal is bizarre in the extreme.
Before I saw this, I was going to ask you about the creation story in Genesis, and the Adam and Eve story. But I think I know your answer now. Anyway, I will ask it anyway to make sure.
I can't resist citing the parable of the man who swallowed a camel (took the flood and Jonah as literal) and strained at a gnat (concerned about a spelling typo).Quote:
Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?
I only pointed out her typo because she continually does that to others.
As to the flood, there are good reasons to believe in it, but it is hard as well in other ways. That's why I don't worry too much about others not taking it literally.
Continually? Wash out your mouth! There aren't enough ours in the dsy to pint out the arrows and tepos on these boreds!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then why did you point out mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You mean your spelling of complementarianism? Because I thought then, and still do, that it highlighted the fact that you don't understand the concept and grossly misrepresented it.Quote:
Then why did you point out mine?
Hope you all have a good night. See you tomorrow.
Then how do you explain that it was spelled correctly by me otherwise? By your own logic, that would mean that I do understand the concept and accurately represented it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
On the issue of your Bible reading as literal, allegorical, etc., etc. please tell us your take on the Genesis creation story and the Adam and Eve story.
I just saw your response re the flood story. Quote, "As to the flood, there are good reasons to believe in it, but it is hard as well in other ways." What are the good reasons to believe that a world-wide flood killed all life on earth?
Your mispellings here are outrageous! I have no option but to report you. Stop watching Dr. Phil. His doctorate is in jump-rope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I had no real problem with your spelling. It was your unfortunate mischaracterization of the idea that revealed your lack of understanding.
Do you want a Pilot?
Signal then to Jesus;
Do you want a Pilot?
Bid Him come on board;
For He will safely guide
Across the oceans wide
Until you reach at last
The Heavenly Harbour.
What part or parts of the below do you deny?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Complementarianism" says men and women have separate roles, and men are the ones in charge. Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter. It’s from a letter the Apostle Paul wrote to his protege, Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
You only presented one narrow aspect. The principle is that men and women, though filling different roles in marriage and leadership, complement each other's strengths. It is a partnership based upon leaders who sacrifice for the sake of their wives, children, and church members, and a corresponding respect paid to those in leadership, including by the men of the church who do not participate in church leadership. You attempted, quite intentionally I think, to portray it as the idea of men dominating women. If you had even said, "men and women have separate and yet complementary roles," then it would have been more on target.
But we have discussed this to death. I see no point in pursuing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is true. I was making a point ABOUT the idea, not defining the idea.
I believe that is also true. But does it work out that way in practice?Quote:
The principle is that men and women, though filling different roles in marriage and leadership, complement each other's strengths. It is a partnership based upon leaders who sacrifice for the sake of their wives, children, and church members, and a corresponding respect paid to those in leadership, including by the men of the church who do not participate in church leadership.
You're batting 1.000! That is exactly what I intended. That has been my observation of the idea. I think it is generally true that men dominate women in those (Biblical) relationships. It is also true (generally) that some women accept and like their subservient role, while others prefer an equal partnership. Either way is OK with me, but I must insist on the ongoing practice of excluding women (generally) from leadership roles in (some) churches. Sorry for so many qualifiers, but that's the only way to put it.Quote:
You attempted, quite intentionally I think, to portray it as the idea of men dominating women.
I definitely appreciate your idea of sacrifice and a corresponding mutual respect.
Sadly, it oftentimes does not work out that way in practice. I think that doesn’t alter the beauty of the arrangement.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 AM. |