1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    08 Feb '15 23:05
    Originally posted by CalJust on a recent thread
    ...the Bible is open to conflicting interpretations, and [people saying] "I have experienced that myself, but it is still the Word of God".

    This statement nicely encapsulates the very common fallacy held by the Fundamentalists that MY CURRENT interpretation of the Bible (i.e. literal or whatever) is the only true and acceptable one. Dualistic thinking at its finest.

    They fail to see the irony that if the Bible were actually the verbally inspired Word of God, that it would be clear for all to understand and agree. Page 8 Thread 162652


    To what degree does the malleability of scripture and the resulting profound disagreements between its interpreters undermine claims that it is the "Word of God"?
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    11 Feb '15 08:54
    Originally posted by FMF
    Originally posted by CalJust on a recent thread
    [quote]...the Bible is open to conflicting interpretations, and [people saying] "I have experienced that myself, but it is still the Word of God".

    This statement nicely encapsulates the very common fallacy held by the Fundamentalists that MY CURRENT interpretation of the Bible (i.e. literal or whatever) ...[text shortened]... g profound disagreements between its interpreters undermine claims that it is the "Word of God"?
    It does not undermine it at all to me. However, that may be because I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the central issues for a redneck.
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    11 Feb '15 09:041 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It does not undermine it at all to me. However, that may be because I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the central issues for a redneck.
    It may well not undermine it for you because you are an own-trumpet-blower Christian and not a person trying to spread a message. People with different interpretations from you can say more or less the same thing about their own interpretation as you have. And all factions can claim that they are right. If they change their interpretation, then ~ lo and behold ~ the new interpretation is now right, instead. For what is supposedly divine communication it seems ever so steeped in human weakness.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    11 Feb '15 09:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    It may well not undermine it for you because you are an own-trumpet-blower Christian and not a person trying to spread a message. People with different interpretations from you can say more or less the same thing about their own interpretation as you have. And all factions can claim that they are right. If they change their interpretation, then ~ lo and behold ~ ...[text shortened]... instead. For what is supposedly divine communication it seems ever so steeped in human weakness.
    That is obviously because we are humans and not God. Very few people look at things in exactly the same way on all issues because we all vary in intelligence, education, and culture.
  5. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    11 Feb '15 09:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That is obviously because we are humans and not God. Very few people look at things in exactly the same way on all issues because we all vary in intelligence, education, and culture.
    And it was beyond the capabilities of your God figure to produce "Word of God" that isn't so contentious and divisive? It's rather a mundane performance from a supposedly divine being, right?
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    11 Feb '15 09:36
    Originally posted by FMF
    And it was beyond the capabilities of your God figure to produce "Word of God" that isn't so contentious and divisive? It's rather a mundane performance from a supposedly divine being, right?
    Humans are good at being contentious and divisive. You are a good example of one who is contentious. 😏
  7. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    11 Feb '15 09:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Humans are good at being contentious and divisive. You are a good example of one who is contentious. 😏
    If the Bible were a more convincing and unequivocal revelation from God, then [1] I would be a Christian, and [2] there would be no contentions between us as Christians.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Feb '15 12:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    Originally posted by CalJust on a recent thread
    [quote]...the Bible is open to conflicting interpretations, and [people saying] "I have experienced that myself, but it is still the Word of God".

    This statement nicely encapsulates the very common fallacy held by the Fundamentalists that MY CURRENT interpretation of the Bible (i.e. literal or whatever) ...[text shortened]... g profound disagreements between its interpreters undermine claims that it is the "Word of God"?
    If we all agreed it would undermine the veracity of what has already been written in the scriptures.

    The Bible shows us the good, the bad, and the ugly of human nature, mostly ugly. In fact, the Bible calls us sheep. Now this is simply a polite way to say we are all pretty much stupid and will gladly jump to our deaths so long as everyone else around us is doing it as well.
  9. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35525
    11 Feb '15 21:151 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    It may well not undermine it for you because you are an own-trumpet-blower Christian and not a person trying to spread a message. People with different interpretations from you can say more or less the same thing about their own interpretation as you have. And all factions can claim that they are right. If they change their interpretation, then ~ lo and behold ~ ...[text shortened]... instead. For what is supposedly divine communication it seems ever so steeped in human weakness.
    Okay, so it is as I had suspected.

    Mousetraps catch mice. Forum topics designed to put down all who enter catch the unwary and unaware.

    I had thought everyone was just going to let this topic die a well-deserved death after ignoring it for a week. But no, RJH and whodey just had to come knocking. It figures.

    Well, have fun. I'll let myself out, thanks.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Feb '15 21:20
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Okay, so it is as I had suspected.

    Mousetraps catch mice. Forum topics designed to put down all who enter catch the unwary and unaware.

    I had thought everyone was just going to let this topic die a well-deserved death after ignoring it for a week. But no, RJH and whodey just had to come knocking. It figures.

    Well, have fun. I'll let myself out, thanks.
    Cya, if you ever feel the urge to address any content, do call back.
  11. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35525
    11 Feb '15 22:53
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Cya, if you ever feel the urge to address any content, do call back.
    Content? There was never any motive to "examine content" in this thread. All he's done is bash everyone who's entered here.

    Relax, put your feet up. This must seem like home to you. Like FMF, you can never leave well enough alone. Always gotta be stirring the pot, but both of you complain when others come in and challenge you. Sorry, I got better things to do.
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    11 Feb '15 23:11
    Originally posted by FMF
    Originally posted by CalJust on a recent thread
    [quote]...the Bible is open to conflicting interpretations, and [people saying] "I have experienced that myself, but it is still the Word of God".

    This statement nicely encapsulates the very common fallacy held by the Fundamentalists that MY CURRENT interpretation of the Bible (i.e. literal or whatever) ...[text shortened]... g profound disagreements between its interpreters undermine claims that it is the "Word of God"?
    Not that you deserve a straight answer, but...

    II Corinthians 4:7

    "But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us."
  13. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    11 Feb '15 23:24
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Relax, put your feet up. This must seem like home to you. Like FMF, you can never leave well enough alone. Always gotta be stirring the pot, but both of you complain when others come in and challenge you. Sorry, I got better things to do.
    While it's all well and good you disagreeing with my opinion, and I welcome that, the question is "To what degree does the malleability of scripture and the resulting profound disagreements between its interpreters undermine claims that it is the "Word of God"?" and your opinion about this would be more interesting than you talking about not being interested. 😉
  14. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34164
    12 Feb '15 08:111 edit
    Please allow me to explain exactly what I meant in my quote which FMF used in his OP.

    It is not supposed to be divisive or argumentative, but a simple fact of reality, driving us towards humility rather than confrontation.

    I would go so far as to claim that ALL of us, without exception, including RJH, whodey, Suzy etc, at this moment believe things that at some point in the past we did not believe. That is called GROWTH and LEARNING. For example, I grew up in a Lutheran home being taught infant christening. My parents suddenly "saw the light" of adult believers' baptism, so we joined the Baptists. From there we moved on to the Pentacostals, having received the B of the HS, something we fought against tooth and nail as Baptists.

    We then "outgrew" the Pentacostals, who were stuck in a groove. For a short time we actually joined the LC movement, (e.g. sonship) before also recognising their blind spots.

    I am pretty sure that the view I hold today, as being the best reflection of "reality" that I can see, may change over time.

    Here is my point: At each and every "new" stage, we were being attacked by the "previous" stage as being heretic and having "lost the faith".

    Unless you are prepared to recognise that my own pov, being FOR ME now the most appropriate according to my current understanding is all that it is. No claim of being a definitive definition of ultimate reality.

    Every time someone like RJH says "THIS is the WoG, full and final", and then also admits that he may have changed his mind in the past (which is what he did, and what I referred to) he is stating a contradiction in terms.

    Another point I am trying to make: The moment anybody says THIS is what God is like, you can be absolutely sure that he/she is wrong.
  15. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34164
    12 Feb '15 10:351 edit
    Rereading my post, there seems to me to be another point that needs clarification.

    From FMF's OP it could be deduced that I was saying that either the Bible was not inspired, or even that there is no God. Maybe this is why Suzy reacted so strongly.

    Of course, neither of these is my point.

    Clearly, the Bible cannot have been verbally, literally, inspired, despite of the protestations of the Fundamentalists. There are just far too many obvious discrepancies and contradictions. But how then are we to interpret the WoG?

    I like the three parts that I read in some Catholic book (although by now you should know that I am no Catholic). These are:

    1. Firstly, TEXTUAL, i.e. the text itself, in context and with crossreferences.
    2. Secondly, TRADITION. How have other saints and scholars through the ages interpreted certain scriptures? Clearly, we are not the first people to try to make sense out of specific difficult passages.
    3. Thirdly, EXPERIENCE. How has my personal experience reacted to, or changed, in the light of more understanding? As I said before, the person with an experience is never at the mercy of the person with an argument

    So, in summary, the Bible was written by many different wise men over many centuries, each doing the best he could, with the best of intentions and to the best of their knowledge at the time. We have a lot to learn from it, but it is not necessarily the sum total of all possible knowledge - and it says so itself, that further knowledge would come.
Back to Top