Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Baptist Church. I understand the desire for moderate (whatever that means) Christians to distance themselves from Chick's brand of proselytizing. My question: if this is what Chick's exegesis of the bible leads to...on what grounds could a Christian disagree? If you say he's not following the Golden Rule, he will simply reply that he is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.
Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.
Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.
Any takers?
As understanding of the Bible is based on Secret Decoder Rings, you cannot honestly criticize another Christian futher than saying "my decoder ring disagrees with yours". It is impossible via logic to say that one Christian has a more 'accurate' or 'better' view point so do not expect anything more than "I dont agree with him" from anyone.
Originally posted by twhitehead As understanding of the Bible is based on Secret Decoder Rings, you cannot honestly criticize another Christian futher than saying "my decoder ring disagrees with yours". It is impossible via logic to say that one Christian has a more 'accurate' or 'better' view point so do not expect anything more than "I dont agree with him" from anyone.
One could say the same about the US Constitution.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
15 May '06 10:45
Originally posted by twhitehead As understanding of the Bible is based on Secret Decoder Rings, you cannot honestly criticize another Christian futher than saying "my decoder ring disagrees with yours". It is impossible via logic to say that one Christian has a more 'accurate' or 'better' view point so do not expect anything more than "I dont agree with him" from anyone.
Originally posted by Conrau K Exegesis is more involved then that.
I would disagree. The Bible and related writings contain many different view points, none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional, and none of the Authors are known. Much of the writing is open to interpretation. A typical Christian appears to take the interpretation that either is given by someone apparently more learned in such matters (priest pastor etc) or which best matches their current world view/desires/needs at the time. In general any Christian deriding another Christians beliefs is doing so based on personal interpretation and not on some core proven 'facts' stated in the Bible. Christianity is illogical and one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.
Originally posted by twhitehead I would disagree. The Bible and related writings contain many different view points, none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional, and none of the Authors are known. Much of the writing is open to interpretation. A typical Christian appears to take the interpretation that either is given by someone apparently more lear ...[text shortened]... d one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.
Why can't the same be said about the US Constitution? Or the constitution of any other country?
Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.
Any takers?
Everytime you post, you merely confirm what you try in vain to conceal. The absurdities of Chick's publications were brought up previously--- by me. I don't merely distance myself from his thinking, I call it what it is: heresy.
Your attempt to legitimize your argument by throwing the word "exegesis" in when you clearly have no idea what it means simply puts the cherry on top. Chick doesn't exegete anything. His tracts are nothing more than superficial renderings of otherwise basic concepts. Approaching them from a humanistic viewpoint, the bile he coughs out is as rabid and off base as possible.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Everytime you post, you merely confirm what you try in vain to conceal. The absurdities of Chick's publications were brought up previously--- by me. I don't merely distance myself from his thinking, I call it what it is: heresy.
Your attempt to legitimize your argument by throwing the word "exegesis" in when you clearly have no idea what it means simp ...[text shortened]... m from a humanistic viewpoint, the bile he coughs out is as rabid and off base as possible.
Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.
Any takers?
I wonder if Mr. Chick is secretly an atheist with a really wicked sense of humor. I know I'm not the only one who finds his tracts entertaining.
I guess our previous conversation regarding the idiocy of Chick's garbage was lost on David. At least he won't burn in a fiery torment, constantly poked and prodded by a horned devil with a bifurcated tail for the offence (in a room full of homosexuals and abortionists, of course).
Originally posted by lucifershammer Why can't the same be said about the US Constitution? Or the constitution of any other country?
For many reasons. We do know the Authors of the Constitution. We have access to numerous other writings of the same authors. We know the philosophy of these authors. We even know what they wanted to put into the Constitution whereas the NT itself is merely a collection of works stuck together hundreds of years after they were written. Do you see any difference yet?
Originally posted by no1marauder For many reasons. We do know the Authors of the Constitution. We have access to numerous other writings of the same authors. We know the philosophy of these authors. We even know what they wanted to put into the Constitution whereas the NT itself is merely a collection of works stuck together hundreds of years after they were written. Do you see any difference yet?
Not really. What you're pointing out is a quantitative difference - not a qualitative one.
Besides, even with all the apparent clarity you claim exists with the US Constitution, reasonable people do differ on what is implied or necessitated by the Constitution.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Not really. What you're pointing out is a quantitative difference - not a qualitative one.
Besides, even with all the apparent clarity you claim exists with the US Constitution, reasonable people do differ on what is implied or necessitated by the Constitution.
I have no idea what your first paragraph is supposed to mean. In this case, your so-called "quantitative" differences are sufficiently large to make the interpretation of the Constitution a far more easier task than interpretation of the NT. "Reasonable people" did not call those who disagree with their interpretation of anything servants of Satan or demons or any of the other insane things Jack Chick does.
Jack Chick is the man!
15 May '06 09:54
Back to Top