Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

---

Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

spend some time finding out what those of different traditions actually believe

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

---

Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.

---

Oooh - a (non post-) modernist liberal. I genuinely thought you lot were almost extinct.

---

quote:

---

How about this for a distinctive feature of evangelicalism then?

A belief in "The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture (as originally given), and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct"

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

spend some time finding out what those of different traditions actually believe

---

Silly me. I thought that was what I was doing here!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

---

Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.

---

Oooh - a (non post-) modernist liberal.

---

quote:

---

I genuinely thought you lot were almost extinct.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
And that says just how much you know. Have you been paying any attention at all on the boards (in particular to how well (or otherwise) -Spong is reguarded down here)?

---

quote:

---

I believe that the infalliability of scripture is a discussion in dead horses (is the earth flat and only 4000 years old?)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

I believe that the infalliability of scripture is a discussion in dead horses (is the earth flat and only 4000 years old?)

---

As you say, that's a dead horse, so there's not much point flogging it here.

OK, so what do you believe then and how is it different to what I believe?

Custard

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
How about this for a distinctive feature of evangelicalism then?

A belief in "The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture (as originally given), and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct"

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
I suspect the real difference is that you're looking for the right answer, I'm looking for the right question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
It's still a matter of definition and interpretation. I can agree to the above as long as inspiration doesn't mean "plenary verbal", as long as infallibility means "it will not fail to achieve its purpose" and as long as "supreme authority" is understood in a way which is not inimicable to the proper use of reason and tradition in understanding and interpreting the said Scriptures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
IIRC the conclusion they came to, after mapping out various areas of disagreement, was that the key area of difference was the approach to Scripture.
Evangelical theology sees the Bible as the complete, full and authoritative revelation of God.
Liberal theology tends to view the Bible as containing the word of God, or being an historical (but not necessarily unique) record of others' encounter with the divine.

I guess it's the difference of seeing the Bible as an imperative text or simply an indicative text.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Custard, you would be strongly advised not to assume anyone around here is a liberal (modernist or otherwise) simply because they are not a fuckwit like you.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
If you endeavour to bracket people into helpful little categories from the GLE book of identifying heresies,

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:
If you believe in the pre-eminence of neither, what on earth are you?! I need to label!

---

Perhaps Orthodox?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                       

quote:

---

You seem to believe you have the ability to discern who gets in and who doesn't though some poor half-arsed understanding of God derived from a literal reading of some specific bits of the bible. That, it seems to me to be arrogant, self righteous bullshit. I at least acknowledge that my understanding of the mysterious ways of the ever-loving, ever-living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, may be a little bit more complicated than my tiny human brain can cope with.

---

Saviour Tortoise,

I feel you, Ham n Eggs etc not seeing the wood for the trees here. I feel the Bible itself tells us when to take things literally and when not to. For example, if Jesus says 'The only way to the Father is through the Son'..that very statement itself to my mind demands that it be taken literally. Context too obviously is very important. I feel the nature of the statement in combination with the context and in combination with other related parts of scripture, as Custard wisely pointed out, helps us to decide what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not.

So far from it being a half arsed understanding or self-righteousness, I reckon many Christians genuinely want to know what scripture is saying, and I don't think you have to be a genius to work it out. I don't feel that God is trying his hardest to make his Bible obscure or contradictory in order to flumox us, on the contrary I think anyone who approaches the bible with an 'open-mind' (ok danger word - I mean not overly influenced my today's culture) will understand the Bible as it was intended to be understood.

To my no doubt average mind I don't find much difficulty in understanding which bits are to be taken literally or otherwise. All of you guys posting here are quite intelligent, perhaps many of you find the Bible too easy and wish to complicate matters for yourselves? Good luck if so. Of course I don't claim to competely understand God, but I feel I and anyone for that matter can understand what's written in the Bible with a bit of prayer and contemplation. That's why I'm rather bewildered by some in the Church, particularly ECUSA, and also The Catholic Church, want to take their own line rather than what I believe to be the Bible's line on many issues, or in the RC's case on Church structure.

I do feel Jensen overdoes it, he looks to the Bible for the way to operate a church, though he might be skipping over the love and compassion bits! Whereas to my mind some ultra-Liberals are only looking at the love and compassion bits and ignoring the message God has for us that will free us from certain ways of living that the Bible (literally imo) indicates are incompatible with his wishes for us.

No-one's saying ultra-Liberals aren't Christians and won't be saved (assuming they accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour of course), it's just that there is (imho) no way that they can make such moves as they have done over the last few years and claim that they are biblically (bible in its entirety that is) sound. Arguing that the Bible is not clear on some issues or that we will never know the 'mysteries of God' etc is simply poor excuse-making to my mind.

I feel both Jensen and ultra-Liberals are not taking the entirety of scripture and it's self-evident form of revelation -sometimes literal and sometimes symbolic, but always pretty obvious which is which - into account.

[ 11. June 2004, 15:16: Message edited by: philo25 ]

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
If you must label me, try middle-of-the-road Anglican[1].

[1] Except on Thursdays.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:

I do feel Jensen overdoes it, he looks to the Bible for the way to operate a church, though he might be skipping over the love and compassion bits! Whereas to my mind some ultra-Liberals are only looking at the love and compassion bits and ignoring the message God has for us that will free us from certain ways of living that the Bible (literally imo) indicates are incompatible with his wishes for us.

---

quote:

---

I feel both Jensen and ultra-Liberals are not taking the entirety of scripture and it's self-evident form of revelation -sometimes literal and sometimes symbolic, but always pretty obvious which is which - into account.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Well I seem to be in line with "ultra-liberals" in believing that Christianity is pre-eminently about "love and compassion". I believe that's what God is trying to show us. It is the over-arching message of the bible. It is the over-arching message of the church. God is Love. Love God and love your neighbour. There is no other comandment greater than these. And yes, I place this above What The Bible Says(TM).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Isaiah 28
16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.
17 I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
18 Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
19 As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through."

The understanding of this message
will bring sheer terror.
20 The bed is too short to stretch out on,
the blanket too narrow to wrap around you.
21 The LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim,
he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon-
to do his work, his strange work,
and perform his task, his alien task.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

---

quote:

---

I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.

---

quote:

---

Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.

---

quote:

---

As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through."

---

quote:

---

The understanding of this message
will bring sheer terror.

---

quote:

---

The bed is too short to stretch out on,
the blanket too narrow to wrap around you.

---

quote:

---

The LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim,
he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon-
to do his work, his strange work,
and perform his task, his alien task.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
To my no doubt average mind I don't find much difficulty in understanding which bits are to be taken literally or otherwise. All of you guys posting here are quite intelligent, perhaps many of you find the Bible too easy and wish to complicate matters for yourselves? Good luck if so.

---

To my clearly above average mind I don't find much difficulty in understanding that you are a pissant. You've pointed out in Anselm's post the distinction between those who see the Bible as an unambiguous and authoritative revelation and those who see that the Bible contains the word of God*. Those of us in the second camp are there because that has seemed to be the best position according with what the Bible says about itself, what we observe about the world, and what we have experienced. Nothing to do with complicating matters. So take your patronising little comments, with or without the attempt to ameliorate the offensive things you say with smilies, and fuck off.


* Personally I would rather say that the Bible points to the Word of God, which I think enables one both to acknowledge its uniqueness as well as its humaness.

--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
And now, for an alternate interpretation...

quote:

---

I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.

---

So, basically, this is where the Sovereign LORD told Dubya to invade Iraq. I'll be durned.

---

Yep, I can see the basic problem with your interpretation here, RooK. See, one of the problems in Iraq is a lack of water. Dry, arid country, and with all the shelling and fighting, the water pipe system has taken some serious damage. Granted, it's not as bad as for the Palestines in the Gaza strip*, but still, the Iraqis have a whole lack of water. So how can you possibly suggest this verse is about invading Iraq?

It's clearly a reference to how God pre-ordained the film "The Day After Tomorrow". Fuckwit

Sarkycow

*How great am I? Gratuitous reference to the Palestine/Israel problem, which is guarenteed to create another argument. I'm sure we can get this thread to 10 pages now

--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
God pre-ordained the film "The Day After Tomorrow". Fuckwit

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
God pre-ordained the film "The Day After Tomorrow". Fuckwit

---

I don't think that's a very nice thing to say about God.

I.T.T.W.A.C.W.

---

The fuckwit was directed at RooK But I guess it would apply to God too, depending on what you thought of the film

--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
I suspect the real difference is that you're looking for the right answer, I'm looking for the right question.

---

What do you mean by that? Well, the bit about you anyway - I understand what you mean about me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The fuckwit was directed at RooK But I guess it would apply to God too, depending on what you thought of the film

---

Very apt that a forum thread entitled hell seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.


[Learn how to quote properly, before you try to insult us again.]

[ 14. June 2004, 14:05: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad:

quote:

---

The fuckwit was directed at RooK But I guess it would apply to God too, depending on what you thought of the film

---

Very apt that a forum thread entitled hell seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.

---

quote:

---

IBPs handy cut-out-and-keep guide to interracting on the Ship Of Fools number 63:

I thought this was supposed to be a Christian Website

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So take your patronising little comments, with or without the attempt to ameliorate the offensive things you say with smilies, and fuck off.

---

quote:

---

As best I can tell, the bible fundamentally is just the longest-running precursor to modern tabloids and fad magazines. First of all, you've got the reader's digest version of a primitive people's myths, used metaphorically to reinforce and reflect the arbitrary laws and customs of the time. Then you've got seemingly pointless lists of genealogy, which seems a lot like how future generations will consider modern society's hype about the Royals. There's some Rolling-Stone type third person reports about a really cool guy, and the tragic rock-and-roll ending of his gig because "the man" just didn't understand or resented his work. Throw in some overdressed Dear Abby, mix in a pinch of "how to feel smug and superior" Martha Stewart for your soul columns, and garnish with dire warnings from biased sources. The actual tone of the work seems to be greatly affected by the various "version" that exist, which is really unimportant but still amusing.

Basically, I suspect that the bible is the bound collection of People Magazine back issues dating from 4000 BC to 100 AD. My regard for its usefulness for discovering fundamental truths or dictating how modern society should be is attributed accordingly.

---

Rook's over-laboured attempt at wit does contain an interesting position at it's core , one in fact I used to adopt before I became a Christian. Reading the Bible without belief one would likely find it an interesting but essentially pointless novel, rather like War and Peace but with still more characters. Sure there'd be some wisdom in there and some beautiful ideas, perhaps more than you might find in other books. (Albeit I reckon it's the Bible that has influenced and triggered all the wisdom that future generations produce in any case)

By Lovely-Linzc

quote:

---

Personally I would rather say that the Bible points to the Word of God, which I think enables one both to acknowledge its uniqueness as well as its humaness.

---

'Points'? I personally would not like to follow anything unless I'm pretty sure what the Word of God is. Just like when I'm reading instructions on how to cook a meal, I don't want one that 'points' to the right temperature, length of time, when to stir etc, I went clear instructions, otherwise the result might be a culinary disaster! (Not unusual at my house, but I'm a crap cook) And when I'm looking at a map that will get me out of the forest, I'd rather not have a map with a set of 'pointings' in the general direction, but instead a recent Ordnance-Survey eddition. Likewise in life, I want an Ordnance-Survey, not an Ikea instruction leaflet!

I personally feel I'd be a bit of a dumbass (some think I already am on this thread but hey) believing in something intangible, something very mysterious that the Bible only 'points' to. If I shared your opinion on the Bible Linzc, I'd end up like Rook and dismiss the whole thing as a collection of People magazine or whatever Canadian rag he reads Although I disagree with Rook's conclusions, I think he's being more sensible in not taking the Bible too seriously given that his faith is not strong (I assume). If the Bible only points to the truth, well perhaps the Bhagavad Gita does too, so why not be a Hindu aswell? Imo I feel Rook's position has greater intellectual integrity. Paul himself says that if there is no resurrection, then our faith is futile. He says himself and quotes from Isaiah, that Jesus will be a stunbling bock for Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. I agree with him, if we only think that the Bible points to the Word of God, then how do we know if the Resurrection was real or not, what if God was not pointing in the right direction that day and Paul relied on his own feelings? If we're not even sure if what is reported in the Bible is real, then we won't know if what Jesus said was real or imagined. Then how can we trust him if he claims he is the Son of God?

I'm not prepared to follow Jesus, have people and family think I'm wierd for not getting drunk, evangelising, sleeping around etc., give up many things in life that humans prize just for a set of 'pointings' in the general direction of God's Word. Still less a Bible that comprises a collection of 'Readers Digests' (shudder), but one that remains after all the millenia, a clear accurate and unambiguous account of God's Word to his prophets and mankind.

I reckon it's important in the light of the arguments put forward by Rook and Linzc to ask ourselves what it is that makes a Christian, Christian. I feel Linzc definition of the Bible pointing to the Word of God would not be accepted by any of the martyrs, Popes, ABC's or even the majority of Christians worldwide, still less Paul and the Apostles. It's not neccessarily the case that the majority within a group is always right of course, but it's a good indication in imo.

[ 14. June 2004, 15:00: Message edited by: philo25 ]

Posted                          

quote:

---

'Points'? I personally would not like to follow anything unless I'm pretty sure what the Word of God is. Just like when I'm reading instructions on how to cook a meal, I don't want one that 'points' to the right temperature, length of time, when to stir etc, I went clear instructions, otherwise the result might be a culinary disaster! (Not unusual at my house, but I'm a crap cook) And when I'm looking at a map that will get me out of the forest, I'd rather not have a map with a set of 'pointings' in the general direction, but instead a recent Ordnance-Survey eddition. Likewise in life, I want an Ordnance-Survey, not an Ikea instruction leaflet!

---

quote:

---

I personally feel I'd be a bit of a dumbass (some think I already am on this thread but hey) believing in something intangible, something very mysterious that the Bible only 'points' to. If I shared your opinion on the Bible Linzc, I'd end up like Rook and dismiss the whole thing as a collection of People magazine or whatever Canadian rag he reads Although I disagree with Rook's conclusions, I think he's being more sensible in not taking the Bible too seriously given that his faith is not strong (I assume).

---

quote:

---

If the Bible only points to the truth, well perhaps the Bhagavad Gita does too, so why not be a Hindu aswell?

---

quote:

---

Imo I feel Rook's position has greater intellectual integrity. Paul himself says that if there is no resurrection, then our faith is futile.

---

quote:

---

He says himself and quotes from Isaiah, that Jesus will be a stunbling bock for Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. I agree with him, if we only think that the Bible points to the Word of God, then how do we know if the Resurrection was real or not

---

You believe in Jesus rising from the dead just because some people wrote that He did

Erich von Daniken - I've found you a new market!

quote:

---

what if God was not pointing in the right direction that day and Paul relied on his own feelings?

---

quote:

---

If we're not even sure if what is reported in the Bible is real, then we won't know if what Jesus said was real or imagined. Then how can we trust him if he claims he is the Son of God?

---

quote:

---

I'm not prepared to follow Jesus, have people and family think I'm wierd for not getting drunk, evangelising, sleeping around etc.,

---

quote:

---

give up many things in life that humans prize just for a set of 'pointings' in the general direction of God's Word. Still less a Bible that comprises a collection of 'Readers Digests' (shudder)

---

quote:

---

but one that remains after all the millenia, a clear accurate and unambiguous account of God's Word to his prophets and mankind.

---

quote:

---

I reckon it's important in the light of the arguments put forward by Rook and Linzc to ask ourselves what it is that makes a Christian, Christian.

---

quote:

---

I feel Linzc definition of the Bible pointing to the Word of God would not be accepted by any of the martyrs, Popes, ABC's or even the majority of Christians worldwide, still less Paul and the Apostles. It's not neccessarily the case that the majority within a group is always right of course, but it's a good indication in imo.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad:
Very apt that a forum thread entitled hell seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Thus gushed forth Philo, like many a clueless fundy before and after: ..

---

Clueless? Well how rude, just becuase of that I'm gonna try and be extra clued-up on this post...

It isn't a case of what would you like. It's a case of what have you got. Your argument here is a bit like arguing that your haddock is in fact cod because you wanted cod. Shame the chipshop only had haddock.

Nice try Karl No, my argument here, if you would be so good as to allow me to modify your allegory, is that the Haddock many people are mistaking for a Cod, is in fact a Haddock, and always has been! People may be confused as to the nature of the Haddock by the disappointing chips and swamping of vinegar (i.e. life and it's troubles, keep up with me here!) but the Haddock, I'm arguing, is a Haddock. I'm grateful to you for brining up the subject of Haddock and Cod by the way since I now know what I'm having for dinner Perhaps some of that Omega-3 oil will help me with the clueless-fundie disease I've come down with too Anyway, leaving those smiley's behind..

quote:

---

But why your lack of interest in a personal voyage of discovery about what God is really like, based on the pointers of the Bible?

Perhaps the Koran is actually the literal word of God. Why do you believe it's the Bible that is so amazing and not the Koran?

---

quote:

---

You believe in Jesus rising from the dead just because some people wrote that He did

Erich von Daniken - I've found you a new market!

---

Yup. I also believe you to be a liberal backslider becuase you say that you are. Shall I get all paranoid and start questioning whether that's true, and that you're not just pretending, or shall I judge what you write on it's merits? I do that with the Bible, I feel it correctly in my view describes the situation of helplessness and sin that we're in, and that the only solution is to trust the one that died in our place. I beleive the Bible correctly diagnoses our condition, therefore I trust the medicine will work too. Erich von Daniken is clearly bonkers!

quote:

---

It self-evidently isn't that though. If it were clear and unambiguous, we would hardly have people killing each other over what it says. If it were accurate, it would be able to count the number of legs locusts have, calculate Pi and be able to say who persuaded David to take his disastrous census.

---

quote:

---

And you know what all these illustrious folk thought how exactly? Anything more substantial than "they were really holy so they'd obviously have the same ideas as me"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
But I also feel the beauty of the Bible means it self-evidently is the truth.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Philo, have you ever actually read the bible?

If so, perhaps you would have noticed a few things that K:LB was pointing out. Like the fact that it gets the number of legs on a locust wrong. Like the fact that it claims pi is equal to three. Like the fact that there are two versions of creation in Genesis.

---