Subforum assumption, Bible authority

[daedalus 2.0]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I agree. This subforum allows the believer to skip the sticky, uncomfortable mess of showing the Bible is true and dive right into their doctrine. This forum needs to be this way because Xians need protection from this basic logical process.

Now, when I reference Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps as an example of the dangers of Xianity, the Xian will say: But you can't judge Xianity by the people who don't represent Xianity.

My question is this: If we are assuming the Bible is an authority - whose authority do we use? All we get are a long list of people who DON'T speak for Xianity, but is there anyone who does? Jesus? But he didn't write anything and the Bible's authority is up to interpretation.

Personally, I like Bob Price's or Bishop Shelby Sprong's interpretation.

Whose authority do you accept as the authority on what authority the Bible holds as authority?

[Word_Swordsman]

My understanding is that this forum is primarily to debate questions around the theme of "What does the Bible really teach about ... ?" or "Which doctrine is the true Christian doctrine, according to Biblical teachings?"

So, of course, this is the proper place to debate which interpretation, which point of view, who's reading is most correct.

Thank you for expressing wisdom about the subject! You have captured what I believe is the original intent of the sticky statement.

[Word_Swordsman]

My take on it is that any act of interpretation requires us to understand the context and origins of the text.

What type of "interpretation"? Allegorical, radical, descriptive, logical, hermeneutical, which are you referring to of the many types available? All types of interpretations cannot work properly for any religious text, each having different sets of goals. No interpretation requires the origins of a text, be that religious, a fiction novel, a biography, "unknown author" being accepted in literature where the text stands in admiration regardless of source. Value of a text in literary studies is applied according to the merit of the thoughts expressed in the text. Besides, understanding a context is not necessarily an interpretation. An interpretation could better fit to open dialog between one who understands the context with one who doesn't.

For example, I read one argument against the "obvious" interpretation of the Bible to suggest that women must not be allowed to teach men. While I'm not sure if it's true, it did plausibly suggest that the original prohibition was meaningful only in the context of a specific group of women who were the target of the letter, due to the fact that they hadn't yet been indoctrinated thoroughly enough to be trusted with spreading the gospel.

No interpretation was needed except for the one understanding to instruct the one not understanding. Here is the text: 1 Tim. 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The basis for Paul's command to the churches was not at all concerning a group of women not qualified to teach. The basis went all the way back to Adam & Eve in Genesis. That captured all generations and groups of women. An improper "interpretation" of that passage would be to say the Bible declares it's OK for a woman to teach men the Bible as long as they are ordained. That would not be supported anywhere in the Bible.

Your statement is but one example of a skeptic's self generated false assumption of the Bible and intent of Christians sharing the literal truth of it.

Paul not only commanded via letter (1 Tim) to the Church at Ephesus, but to the Corinthian Church a similar command with a different basis that would have applied as well as to the Ephesians. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

On a deeper level, the origins of the various parts of the Bible -- the who, when, where, and even why -- are all relevant to the question of what the Bible means.

TC

It is apparent to me a lot of those facts would only further confuse atheists here who obviously are too deficient in Bible knowledge to carry on a civil, meaningful discussion, let alone an actual debate. Instead of actual debate, what I read from atheists is how they are personally offended over what the Bible says, as well as what they assume it says. God predicted that.

[Word_Swordsman]

I credit daedalus 2.0 for the bulk of the following text, but I will only change a few subject names to mirror his thought for the benefit of Christians wanting to understand atheists.

Obviously, there are a large number of personalities here but I keep seeing very similar ones among the atheists here:
1. Blindly Ignorant: not knowing any of the history, philosophy, apologetics, people or places that are important to religion.
2. Self-Imposed Ignorant: These atheists know many of the issues but would rather argue everything down to the level of absurdity of atheism. They know papers, opinions or ideas exist outside of their own but they prefer to ignore all of them and focus on their take on atheism (which ever level of atheism it might be, even if it is strictly personal to them).
3. Quoters: Atheists who will add extensive quotes and misquotes, usually out of context, and then with some commentary that may or may not be on the same topic. Apparently they hope to bludgeon Christians into ennui.
4. Philosopher 101: Tries to use philosophy-like terms to twist well know arguments into something completely different and thus twist it into something that resembles what they believed in the first place.

I have never seen a solid atheist poster use Biblical text effectively, then use religious papers, or use other texts appropriately to make a larger, conspicuously bad point.

I have also never seen (on this forum) an atheist argue points of a Christian theology in an informed manner. Where can I go to read some of those debates? Normally, a true scholar writes his main point, supports it and then adds, himself, the criticisms that may arise. Here is is just constant regurgitation of typical atheistic apologetics. "It's all mystical, you have to see it to believe it. I just know in my reasonings!" etc..........................

Now on to something better.

Would any Xians like to discuss the controversies within their own Bible?

That would be nice, but so far all you offer is denials of anything we say.

Gal. vs. Acts with Paul, physical vs. spiritual resurrection, was Jesus God, Gods Son or Messiah? What did happen after Jesus died to all of his apostles? Who is in charge of the church? Which books should have been put in the Cannon, which ones left out? Was the voting procedure valid? What parts of the Bible are interpolations, which are probably original?
What did Jesus ACTUALLY say?

I'll gladly debate all that, but with terms, such as atheists acknowledging Christian points you can only otherwise reply to dismissively. I think ya'll have already covered all those topics elsewhere, and I note the skeptic attitude remained dismissive.

Please, Xians, show us how two people of the same religion (but with different beliefs) argue politely and intelligently points in the Bible that are contentious.

I find it amazing you are asking for a bruising! You can't complain of my answer to a moderator, you realize, as you are asking for insider information. We Christians have a Bible code of conduct that commands respect as well as truth in telling. I don't detect any similar code of civil, constructive, tempered, intelligent conduct among most atheists here. You have a few that seem to be polite, but all are woefully ignorant of the Bible they seek to argue over. We Christians have the Holy Spirit working with each of us to the end that truth will be discovered without raising of voices or insults. Sometimes that process isn't completed, ending in a putting off of usually minor issues we can get along together without settling. Atheists have Satan and/or demons whispering absurdities in their ears, which when expressed are supposed to end in calamity among the uninformed unbelievers who remain spiritually blinded by that same devil.

[Word_Swordsman]

Let's ONLY consider the challenges by Xians. Pick one denomination, we'll add the Catholics, Bishop Shelby Sprong, Fred Phelps, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, and a few other differing views of Xianity - maybe the Messianic Jews and the Mormons, and one of the MANY Xian religions that deny that Jesus was real, but that it is a metaphor - that the Bible is mostly metaphor and not historical.

Now, who is right?

None of them are atheists so your argument seems to crumble before you even begin.

You are the one who insists any group calling themselves "Christian", "people of the Bible", are indeed biblical Christians because they say they are. Hitler claimed Christianity, but you won't find Bible scholars expecting to find him in heaven. Any of them that hold doctrines not supported plainly in the Bible are at best in error, many outright false churches, and some blatantly dangerous cults with false prophets. I recommend ignoring those that keep an ongoing argument with God over His clear instructions. What the skeptic groups have to say doesn't affect what the Bible has to say.

As for particular mainline denominations I consider most right, I'd have to say the Assemblies of God. I differ with them mostly in their recent ordination of women as pastors and teachers (which is causing a small stir of division). I have no objection to a man choosing to sit under a woman's leadership. That's his business. I will not stay around where any woman usurps authority over me and my family without a chance to choose such an appointment. I really enjoy listening to Joyce Meyer, a good Bible teacher who acknowledges she ministers under authority of her husband. But due to Paul's basis for keeping women in order going back to Eve's sin I will not allow any woman to be a spiritual head over me.

In general I'm very disappointed over the spending of huge sums over fancy buildings, which prevents me from joining many congregations. Nothing unbiblical about that last part, but it is a dangerous burden to take up these days, the doing of which requires inordinate emphasis on giving to a building fund. Many towns have adequate unused facilities. I am simply done with excessive unnecessary doings, believing people come first, way ahead of expansive church facilities. As for major doctrines they have it straight.

[Confused]

Obviously, there are a large number of personalities here but I keep seeing very similar ones:
1. Blindly Ignorant: not knowing any of the history, philosophy, apologetics, people or places that are important to their religion.
2. Self-Imposed Ignorant: THese people know many of the issues but would rather argue everything down to the same level of absurdity of religion. They know papers, opinions or ideas exist outside of their own but they prefer to ignore all of them and focus on their religion (which ever religion it might be, even if it is strictly personal t them).
3. Quoters: People who will add extensive quotes, usually out of context, and then with some commentary that may or may not be on the same topic. Apparently they hope to bludgeon the reader into ennui.
4. Philosopher 101: Tries to use philosophy-like terms to twist well know arguments into something completely different and thus twist it into something that resemble what they believed in the first place.


I have never seen a solid poster use Biblical text effectively, then use science papers, or use other religious texts appropriately to make a larger point.

I have also never seen (on this forum) argue points of Xian theology in an informed manner. Where can I go to read some of those debates? Normally, a true scholar writes his main point, supports it and then adds, himself, the criticisms that may arise. Here is is just constant regurgitation of typical secularized protestant apologetics. "It's all Faith, you have to believe to see it, you have to see it to believe. I just know in my heart!" etc.



Would any Xians like to discuss the controversies within their own Bible? Gal. vs. Acts with Paul, physical vs. spiritual resurrection, was Jesus God, Gods Son or Messiah? What did happen after Jesus died to all of his apostles? Who is in charge of the church? Which books should have been put in the Cannon, which ones left out? Was the voting procedure valid? What parts of the Bible are interpolations, which are probably original?
What did Jesus ACTUALLY say?

Please, Xians, show us how two people of the same religion (but with different beliefs) argue politely and intelligently points in the Bible that are contentious.

I would challenge you there. I suggest you read some posts by Micatala before you start making such wild claims. Believe it or not, there are some very rationale Christians here, even amongst some nuts that would fit your categories. As you have decided to categorize them in such a negative light, is there a single reason why any of them should take you up on any challenge? For the love of it, could you be a little less condescending in your challenges? It is one rude comment after another and you expect anyone to take anything you say as serious anymore? You can attract the nuts, but not the ones who are true in IMHO!

[daedalus 2.0]

Confused, I am sorry. As the Xian says: blessed be they who are not offended by me. I wish I had God on my side so I could call people "fools" openly, but alas, I am an atheist and have to fight my own battles.

As for the difference between nuts and True Xians. How am I to tell the difference? All the nuts today seem to be little different from the heroes of piety from ages before. Many Xians died for their beliefs knowingly. Are these the nuts you are talking about? Joan of Arc who had visions? Mother Theresa who confessed alter to being agnostic or atheist?

Why are the nuts today so similar to the prophets, disciples and other major church figures from yesterday? And the luke-warm heretics of yesterday are the True Xians today? Fred Phelps is no different than Paul, Moses is no different than Osama Bin Laden. Andrea Yates is the same as Jephthah.

I would love to know what year it was when True became Nuts and Nuts became True.


WS: You have said enough to make it clear you can't debate an atheist. Once you suggest that we have Satan/demons whispering in our ear, you have effectively erased your ability to be unbiased and the atheist will always know that at the crucial part of the debate in which you will have no answer you will plead some supernatural "out".

Also, I am amazed that you find that there are some people who can not find grace from God. I imagine you differ from many Xians, and while you are confident to judge them as not proper XIans, I know other Xians who would consider you a bad Xian.

So, we are back to square one. If the Bible is that authority: who determines what it says?

Also, you haven't sown sufficient knowledge of the Bible to debate these points. You show you have a clear understanding of your own doctrine based on selective readings of the Bible, but hardly a Christian perspective. You are more accurately call a "Word_Swordian" since you are only a prophet to your own beliefs. You obviously don't speak for the Bible.


edit: WS, also please note that "atheism" is the opposite of "theism". No one speaks for theism, no one speaks for atheism. Try not to make such glaring category errors when attempting to even mention debating people.

[Confused]

Confused, I am sorry. As the Xian says: blessed be they who are not offended by me. I wish I had God on my side so I could call people "fools" openly, but alas, I am an atheist and have to fight my own battles.

Do you really want a comment for this? I fail to see God fighting any battles here. Granted, I don't know God, so I am blind there. But just because some poor individuals use choice words like "fools" doesn't mean you must sink lower than them.

As for the difference between nuts and True Xians. How am I to tell the difference? All the nuts today seem to be little different from the heroes of piety from ages before. Many Xians died for their beliefs knowingly. Are these the nuts you are talking about? Joan of Arc who had visions? Mother Theresa who confessed alter to being agnostic or atheist?

My comment was narrowly applied to the Christians on this forum, as they were the ones you addressed in the post I replied to.

Why are the nuts today so similar to the prophets, disciples and other major church figures from yesterday? And the luke-warm heretics of yesterday are the True Xians today? Fred Phelps is no different than Paul, Moses is no different than Osama Bin Laden. Andrea Yates is the same as Jephthah.

I would love to know what year it was when True became Nuts and Nuts became True.

My distinction between nuts and those of who I would say meet the criteria of truly able to debate their religion without resorting to fallacies and attacks are self evident in many cases. The nuts I refer to are generally the ones you attract on this forum because any self respecting Christian would find it a waste of time to debate you as your mind has already categorized them in the condescending categories you have listed.

[OnceConvinced]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I agree. This subforum allows the believer to skip the sticky, uncomfortable mess of showing the Bible is true and dive right into their doctrine. This forum needs to be this way because Xians need protection from this basic logical process.

Now, when I reference Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps as an example of the dangers of Xianity, the Xian will say: But you can't judge Xianity by the people who don't represent Xianity.

My question is this: If we are assuming the Bible is an authority - whose authority do we use? All we get are a long list of people who DON'T speak for Xianity, but is there anyone who does? Jesus? But he didn't write anything and the Bible's authority is up to interpretation.

Personally, I like Bob Price's or Bishop Shelby Sprong's interpretation.

Whose authority do you accept as the authority on what authority the Bible holds as authority?

That's the big question. There are numerous Christians who come through here and claim to have "Holy Spirit" lead interpretation of the scripture. And anyone else who has a different interpetation is wrong. This is the height of arrogance. No Christian can rightfully claim to have the "holy spirit" lead truth. As i've said before, it's all about perspective and even Holy spirit filled Christians have different perspectives on scriptures.

[JoeyKnothead]

We Christians have the Holy Spirit working with each of us to the end that truth will be discovered without raising of voices or insults.

"We are holy, we are the voice of reason."

Atheists have Satan and/or demons whispering absurdities in their ears, which when expressed are supposed to end in calamity among the uninformed unbelievers who remain spiritually blinded by that same devil.

THE SAME PARAGRAPH! TWO SENTENCES LATER!

We Christians have a Bible code of conduct that commands respect as well as truth in telling.

Seems that code stops at the door to these forums.

Do I need to provide the other times this dude has hidden behind the bible to insult us? He caused one thread to get shut down, and dang if he didn't start up in another.

I cracked a joke in a thread and was immediately warned, I have an active request for moderator intervention in another thread that I can't get answered.

How much abuse are we expected to take from this dude?

[Confused]

I cracked a joke in a thread and was immediately warned, I have an active request for moderator intervention in another thread that I can't get answered.

How much abuse are we expected to take from this dude?

If you recall the post, please PM it to me directly and I will address it.