[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

That's the best way to gain converts.

[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.

[Athos]

Athos, if you have a belief, then support it with the Bible the way I have done. If you can't, then it's just opinion.

Exactly how have you done that? And exactly what is your belief?

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.

I thought personal testimony was a big thing with you evangelical types.

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.

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?

[Wondergirl]

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.

Just smack them on the forehead with that Bible! Works every time! NOT!!!

Touch the heart first, not flood the brain.

[Wondergirl]

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?

Of course, JL does! If he doesn't scare the pants off them, they'll ignore him.

[jlisenbe]

Touch the heart first, not flood the brain.

It is good to have the heart touched WITH THE TRUTH.

Exactly how have you done that? And exactly what is your beliefs?

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.

I thought personal testimony was a big thing with you evangelical types.

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".

[Wondergirl]

It is good to have the heart touched WITH THE TRUTH.

Nope. Touch their hearts first spiritually with kindness and love. My speaking and their hearing the Gospel can then follow.

[Athos]

I have not posted a belief.

Your words from above - "If you have a belief then support it with the Bible the way I have done"

I don't consider myself to be an "evangelical type".

Fundamentalist? Born again?

[jlisenbe]

Yes. Put Bible texts on the board. Simple.

Christian. Born again? I'd sure say yes to that.

Define "Fundamentalist".

[Athos]

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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 certainly agree with reading the Bible literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. The key element is knowing when to employ each one.

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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

I certainly agree with reading the Bible literally, historically, spiritually, and allegorically. The key element is knowing when to employ each one.

Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

Is the Flood story an allegory or literal/historical? Is Jonah and the great fish story alligorical or literal/historical? How do you know?

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.

Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?

And we know at least some of the translators had an agenda, so tweaked/changed words and phrases.

Oh? Where are those passages altered by someone who had an agenda?

[Wondergirl]

Why did you misspell allegorical as "alligorical"?

I was watching - and booing -- Dr. Phil. Hard to boo and speel kerectlee.

Oh? Where are those passages altered by someone who had an agenda?

The ones, for example, that changed the translation of the Greek word from "pedophiles" to "homosexuals".

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

At any rate, if that's all you have, then you have nothing.

Paul coined the word arsenokoitai.

[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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[jlisenbe]

I kind of figured that.