02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI personally have never said anything about spirit-filled believers. Nor have I ever said anything about understanding being possible "only" for experts. I have said, however, that some expertise is needed in understanding several passages (many of them theologically crucial ones).
I don't dismiss the need for contextual understanding of the Bible; I just don't believe that such understanding is only possible for "believers" or "experts".
Just how a simple point like this became an opportunity for you to get on your soapbox and take shots at the RCC is beyond me.
EDIT: And when you speak of "plain words spoken to the plain man" (the plain man of 1st cent. Palestine, not 21st century America!) - you are dismissing the need for contextual understanding.
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou tend to think that any reference to the RCC that isn't sufficently laudatory in your view is taking a "shot" at it. The point I was making, that you are disputing, is that the average John Smith can read the Gospels and make up his own mind as to what it says. Your claim that there is some group of "experts" that must instruct us on the meaning of the Gospels is the same position as the RCC. Thus, it is no "shot" to say so.
I personally have never said anything about spirit-filled believers. Nor have I ever said anything about understanding being possible "only" for experts. I have said, however, that some expertise is needed in understanding several passages (many of them theologically crucial ones).
Just how a simple point like this became an opportunity for you to tine, not 21st century America!) - you are dismissing the need for contextual understanding.
I think you know your edit is flat wrong. As I stated: The "context of the Gospels" is readily discernible to anyone who undertakes even a casual study. The message of Jesus was preached to the common man in obvious ways so that it could be understood by all Mankind."
Thus, I am (again) saying not that contextual understanding isn't necessary, but that it is not the sole province of "experts".
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAs a proof of this, I would point to two of the theological outlines I have posted on this thread (one finished, one almost complete). Even with the given of God's existence and the given of the Bible as the Word of God, the unbelievers here are unable to make heads or tails of it.
I don't dismiss the need for contextual understanding of the Bible; I just don't believe that such understanding is only possible for "believers" or "experts".
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPerhaps because it's gibberish.
As a proof of this, I would point to two of the theological outlines I have posted on this thread (one finished, one almost complete). Even with the given of God's existence and the given of the Bible as the Word of God, the unbelievers here are unable to make heads or tails of it.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderScientology, Mormonism, etc., are all relatively easy to dismiss with a cursory stroll down through their literature. The theological outlines I have posted herein are not so easily dismissed as "gibberish," except, of course, by one who either has not taken the time to read them, or simply cannot understand them.
I also have problems understanding Scientology; does that mean it is a correct belief system and I'm just not enough of an "expert believer" to grasp its profound truths? Or is it more likely it's just a bunch of crazy BS?
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI applaud your stubborn single-mindedness. The "Divine Decree" thread starts out with fiat after fiat, unsupported by anything at all. Generally, one starts with a brief outline of their proposition and then musters the evidence in support. Your technique is to carpet bomb with statements which must be accepted as true without discussion. That is quickly tiresome to people wanting a meaningful discussion. Of course, as you feel that you are 100% correct without the possibility of error, no real discussion is possible with you, esp. as you claim to have special knowledge that us poor dopes can't possibly grasp.
Scientology, Mormonism, etc., are all relatively easy to dismiss with a cursory stroll down through their literature. The theological outlines I have posted herein are not so easily dismissed as "gibberish," except, of course, by one who either has not taken the time to read them, or simply cannot understand them.
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI am not saying that the average John Smith cannot make his own mind up as to what it says - I'm saying that what the average John Smith decides thus need not be correct. What is plain to the average John Smith need not be plain to the average Yohannan bar Zebedee of 1st cent. Palestine and vice-versa.
You tend to think that any reference to the RCC that isn't sufficently laudatory in your view is taking a "shot" at it. The point I was making, that you are disputing, is that the average John Smith can read the Gospels and make up his own mind as to what it says. Your claim that there is some group of "experts" that must instruct us on the meaning of th l understanding isn't necessary, but that it is not the sole province of "experts".
As I said before - this is a matter of common sense.
Your claim that there is some group of "experts" that must instruct us on the meaning of the Gospels is the same position as the RCC. Thus, it is no "shot" to say so.
Whether it is the same position as the RCC or not does not affect the validity of the argument - therefore for you to start ranting about the RCC is indeed taking pot-shots at it.
I think you know your edit is flat wrong. As I stated: The "context of the Gospels" is readily discernible to anyone who undertakes even a casual study. The message of Jesus was preached to the common man in obvious ways so that it could be understood by all Mankind."
What I said in my edit was also taken from what you'd stated earlier.
Jesus wasn't speaking directly to the average John Smith of 21st cent. America - he was speaking to the average Jew of 1st cent. Palestine.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe number of denominations need not have anything to do with the clarity of the message. The rest is your repeating a position that you continue to fail to support in any way. I say that based on the text, the historical record and the supporting evidence that it was never intended by Jesus that his message be only accessible to a privileged few who were to transmit their vast knowledge down to the peasants by fiat. Present some evidence to the contrary.
I am not saying that the average John Smith cannot make his own mind up as to what it says - I'm saying that what the average John Smith decides thus need not be correct. What is plain to the average John Smith need not be plain to the average Yohannan bar Zebedee of 1st cent. Palestine and vice-versa.
As I said before - this is a matter of common ...[text shortened]... ith of 21st cent. America - he was speaking to the average Jew of 1st cent. Palestine.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe plethora of fiats is limited to but two: there is a God, and the Bible is His revelation. Everything that follows is derived from that revelation.
I applaud your stubborn single-mindedness. The "Divine Decree" thread starts out with fiat after fiat, unsupported by anything at all. Generally, one starts with a brief outline of their proposition and then musters the evidence in support. Your technique is to carpet bomb with statements which must be accepted as true without discussion. That is quickly ...[text shortened]... ith you, esp. as you claim to have special knowledge that us poor dopes can't possibly grasp.
To ignorantly or arrogantly declare the outlines as "gibberish" only belies your "stubborn single-mindedness" to either consider or concede that there may exist spiritual knowledge which the mundane is unable to ascertain.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf your going to derive claims from fiats, you have to show some causal connection between them. You don't; you simply claim that they "must" follow. This is the intellectual equivalent of holding your breath till you turn blue.
The plethora of fiats is limited to but two: there is a God, and the Bible is His revelation. Everything that follows is derived from that revelation.
To ignorantly or arrogantly declare the outlines as "gibberish" only belies your "stubborn single-mindedness" to either consider or concede that there may exist spiritual knowledge which the mundane is unable to ascertain.
I would say that it's a lot more "arrogant" for a person to assert that he personally has knowledge of God that others can't possibly have then to assert the opposite.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderApparently, I wasn't being clear. The outlines were prefaced with the presumptions of God's existence and the Bible as His divine revelation of His character. With those as givens, the outlines presented orthodox theology derived from that revelation. Start there, and make your own determination whether you are able to comprehend the doctrines they detail.
If your going to derive claims from fiats, you have to show some causal connection between them. You don't; you simply claim that they "must" follow. This is the intellectual equivalent of holding your breath till you turn blue.
I would say that it's a lot more "arrogant" for a person to assert that he personally has knowledge of God that others can't possibly have then to assert the opposite.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn the interest of fair play, I'll take another look.
Apparently, I wasn't being clear. The outlines were prefaced with the presumptions of God's existence and the Bible as His divine revelation of His character. With those as givens, the outlines presented orthodox theology derived from that revelation. Start there, and make your own determination whether you are able to comprehend the doctrines they detail.