Reading with interest!
(Just FYI-- I believe it is inerrantly produced--but, not inerrantly written.)
Lash wrote:Reading with interest!
(Just FYI-- I believe it is inerrantly produced--but, not inerrantly written.)
And how exactly, when reading, can you discern one from the other?
If you admit there is error in the writing, how do you know what to trust and what not to?
"linguistic gymnastics" (love that one, Dok!...LOL)
BTW, some Catholic dogma is foreign to the Bible. Actually, I think that's what "dogma" means, innit?
heh, thanks. Anyway, dogma...
Quote:
dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).
Thanks. I also found this from some old Catholic magazine:
Quote:Technically speaking, a dogma is a truth revealed by God and, as such, proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. Its sources -‑ the places where we find it -‑ are Scripture and tradition -‑ the latter a living and continuous belief and teaching, no dull and lifeless record of the past. The Catholic does not exhume his faith merely out of documents, after the fashion of his dissenting brethren to whom the sole rule of faith is Holy Writ.
Those damn Prostestant rebels.
I diddely do, too. (Denial. Self-censorship... Great way to live.)
Doktor S wrote:
Would you say the four gospels, as well as the 'prophetic' parts of the OT are inerrant?
i don't know. that's why i'm agnostic. i suppose i should try to determine this myself. be easier if i could just look it up, somewhere. i do doubt that Genesis is inerrant--mainly because the Flood account does not gibe with Geology and Paleontology in my opinion--and according to one Biblical site, Genesis 3:15, 22:18, and 49:10 contain Messianic prophecies, so i'm skeptical.
Doktor S wrote:Lash wrote:Reading with interest!
(Just FYI-- I believe it is inerrantly produced--but, not inerrantly written.)
And how exactly, when reading, can you discern one from the other?
If you admit there is error in the writing, how do you know what to trust and what not to?
This is where the Holy Spirit is invaluable. No non-Christian will take from the Bible, what a seeking, Spirit guided person will.
What reason, in a world where 'inerrancy' has no precedent, would you rationally conclude there is a real possibility of inerrancy in a book riddled with obvious contradictions?
I honestly have as much if not more problems understanding the 'agnostic' mindset as I do the theistic one....
Lash wrote:Doktor S wrote:Lash wrote:Reading with interest!
(Just FYI-- I believe it is inerrantly produced--but, not inerrantly written.)
And how exactly, when reading, can you discern one from the other?
If you admit there is error in the writing, how do you know what to trust and what not to?
This is where the Holy Spirit is invaluable. No non-Christian will take from the Bible, what a seeking, Spirit guided person will.
IMO, "Holy Spirit" basically equates with "conscience". What is your take?
Doktor S wrote:What reason, in a world where 'inerrancy' has no precedent, would you rationally conclude there is a real possibility of inerrancy in a book riddled with obvious contradictions?
I honestly have as much if not more problems understanding the 'agnostic' mindset as I do the theistic one....
speaking only for myself, i imagine there's a part of me that wants to believe but hasn't found anything believable, and perhaps needs an epiphany or a mystical experience to nudge it into belief.
Lash wrote:
This is where the Holy Spirit is invaluable. No non-Christian will take from the Bible, what a seeking, Spirit guided person will.
I find this to be highly problematic!
You are relying on the judgement of humans (which you would probably admit is flawed) to interpret which parts of the bible are 'inspired' and which are not?
Isn't that extremely ambiguous for a book that is suposed to convey gods message?
I mean, if men are free to choose for themselves what they feel to be 'inspired', how could you fault anyone for not believing correctly?
Heaven? Hell? absurd without a written in stone code.
Doktor S wrote:Lash wrote:
This is where the Holy Spirit is invaluable. No non-Christian will take from the Bible, what a seeking, Spirit guided person will.
I find this to be highly problematic!
You are relying on the judgement of humans (which you would probably admit is flawed) to interpret which parts of the bible are 'inspired' and which are not?
Isn't that extremely ambiguous for a book that is suposed to convey gods message?
It can be highly problematic, I'm sure.
But, no. I'm not relying on the judgment of humans. Humans are relying on the insight from the Spirit.
Somewhere in the NT, there's a discussion about what Christians can eat or not eat--and another focusing on some new Christian's belief that they should be circumcised, so as not to offend God--since everybody knows circumcision is a must per God.
Do you recall the discussion? It addresses your second post--which IMO--was inspired.... :wink:
It points a big fat finger at the very thing we all hate about "Christianity."
Quote:
But, no. I'm not relying on the judgment of humans. Humans are relying on the insight from the Spirit.
But still, you are left with a flawed human interpretation of what 'insight from the spirit' is, leaving a big ambiguous mess. What is the point? The bible only works if it's all or nothin' imo.
Lash wrote:It points a big fat finger at the very thing we all hate about "Christianity."
That could be one of many things...
To which do you refer?
Worrying about what other people are doing, Dok.
Let each one consider what he or she is doing--and how that quietly stacks up with God. That beam in your eye thing.
________________________
Meanwhile--circumcision Part II:
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."...
And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
"And made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."...
And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and Brethren, listen to me:...
...I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood....
They wrote this letter..."to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.
"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying 'You must be circumcised and keep the law' - to whom we gave no such commandment - ...
"... it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
"That you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and, from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."
So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.
Acts 15:1... 7-11... 13...19-20,23-4,28-31
"...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" suggests that Peter and some of his hearers had belonged to a branch of Judaism that had already abandoned circumcision for at least a generation.
For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision is counted as uncircumcision.
Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
Dok--
If the written law (the Bible, all or nothing) is the beginning and end--what do we need God, Jesus or the Spirit for?
The answers to life's questions is not a One Fits All proposition.
