Interpreting the scripture

[Peds nurse]

Hello people!!

I have talked with a couple of non believers who are somewhat disturbed when Christians claim to interpret or have more insight to scripture than they do. I am wondering why this is an issue? If we read multiple books on electric conductivity of the brain, and how various diseases interfere with that process, would we claim to know as much as a neurologist?

I don't think that Christians are claiming that nonbelievers are incompetent in any way, or that they lack the skills to interpret scripture, rather I believe it is because we as Christians, have God living in us (His Spirit), giving us discernment in how to apply and live out those scriptures in our life (New Testament).

Question for debate: Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

HAPPY 4TH of JULY!!!

[tam]

In response to the OP:

Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

Technically, no... because interpretation does not belong to men, so it should not BE a Christian interpreting scripture.

I wonder who you think it IS that does the interpreting?

Christ, because He was there, and/or as He has learned from His Father.

[quote]tam wrote:

I would say truthful, over saying superior.

ZZyzx wrote: Would you say that other "understandings or interpretations" are NOT truthful if they contradict yours? It would seem as though you must accept contrary interpretations as equal to yours or claim that yours is superior (at least for yourself).

[/quote]

They are not truthful if they contradict Christ... not me or my personal interpretation. I am just a (wo)man, same as others.

I will reiterate... I would never expect anyone to take my word for any 'interpretation/understanding' - but rather to test what I share against Christ (and love as well)

tam wrote:

Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

Zzyzx wrote: Agreed. All that Apology has to offer is its own unverifiable texts plus personal unverifiable testimonials – and seems miffed that others will not accept that "evidence" as proof of truth.

Not miffed in the least - regardless of whether what I have shared is accepted or rejected - and I don't ever expect others to accept personal testimony as proof of truth. Maybe I can help someone see something or think in a way they hadn't before, when answering a question asked (of me or perhaps in general). Maybe not.

Would you (generic term) accept the same level of "evidence" in support of one of the thousands of competing gods?

I would test it for truth... and/or ask my Lord about it... and/or simply live and let live.


Depends on what the situation called for.


Peace to you both,
your servant, and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

From Post 61:

Show us this "spirit" guides folks to some superior understanding of biblical texts. Extra bonus points if ya can do it without referencing the very book making the claims.

I would say truthful, over saying superior.

Then show us all how "truthful" it is, this book of contradictions and outrageous claims.

That is not what you asked, is it? Didn't you ask me to show how the Spirit guides some to understanding biblical texts?

That is not the same as asking someone to show you that the book is truthful. I agree with you that there are contradictions (though I do think many of these are only seeming contradictions based on misunderstanding). But the Spirit could also guide a person to understand where the text is in error.

I can give you personal testimony of how the Spirit helped me to understand something that was written - I can do this without referencing the text (except to say which text He helped me understand). But it is personal testimony. If you want to hear that, then I will share it. If you do not, then I won't. Whatever you answer, my sharing it doesn't mean I think you have to accept or believe it.

Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

Joey wrote: You can tell it all ya want, you just can't present nothing more'n your swearin' up and down about it.

Yes, which is why I asked if that is what you meant, or if you meant something else.

As for your proposal above, I'm not going around doing that to begin with and hopefully I explained that well enough in my response to Zzyzx and Danmark. You and I probably posted at the same time.

Joey wrote: I contend you are, samularity of posts regardless.

Okay. Well, hopefully 'actions' will speak louder than words then.

Joey wrote: You dare say some "Spirit" - that you can't show is there, leads you to some "truthful" understanding, and declare that Christians who don't see it your way can't find 'em the "truth" if it jumps up and bites 'em.

[/quote]

I never said that Joey. Has nothing to do with me... and I can make mistakes. So again, anything that I share - from personal thoughts or from what I have understood from Christ - can and should be tested to see if it is true and from Christ. Test against Him, if one has the faith to hear Him; test against what is written (beginning with what Christ is written to have said and taught and done), and test against love (because God is love, and so what comes from Him must also be of love).


If I share something that is against any of the above, then call me on it... because either I have misunderstood something, or communicated it poorly so that you have misunderstood me.


***

In your post that followed the above, you are protesting having been called a sinner? I never saw the post that called you that, but I do understand how that word has been used as a weapon by some against others, to judge them, beat them down, tell them that they are worthless... and perhaps also to make themselves feel righteous. (Not saying that is what happened on this thread, but I know that happens in real life.) I am sorry for it, Joey, if any of that has been done to you.

You say that you are not a sinner. Well, that is your business.

I am a sinner. Now to me, sin= wrongdoing. I have certainly done my share of wrongdoing, and will continue to come up short and do wrong at other points in time, I am sure (not on purpose hopefully, but still...). I don't personally know anyone who has not done wrong at least at some point in their lives.

That being said, I also have been given to understand that the law is there (including the law of love) to be used as a mirror - so that we can judge ourSELVES - not as a weapon to be used as a pointing finger so that we can judge others.


I only skimmed quickly through that last post of yours (not addressed to me I realize) and if there is anything I overlooked, I will try to respond in another post.


Peace to you Joeyknothead, truly,
your servant, and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

In response to the OP:

Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

Technically, no... because interpretation does not belong to men, so it should not BE a Christian interpreting scripture.

I wonder who you think it IS that does the interpreting?

Christ, because He was there, and/or as He has learned from His Father.

Christ interprets Christ.
That's in those talks you claim to have?

I would say truthful, over saying superior.

Please demonstrate that the TALKS you say you have with Jesus are real, and not just imaginary.

Lack of evidence confers no credibility.

ZZyzx wrote: Would you say that other "understandings or interpretations" are NOT truthful if they contradict yours? It would seem as though you must accept contrary interpretations as equal to yours or claim that yours is superior (at least for yourself).

They are not truthful if they contradict Christ... not me or my personal interpretation. I am just a (wo)man, same as others.

You stated earlier that CHRIST interprets Christ for you.
Now you say that YOU do the interpretation.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I will reiterate... I would never expect anyone to take my word for any 'interpretation/understanding' - but rather to test what I share against Christ (and love as well)

Against the Christ you speak to in your head? How are we to test what Christ tells you in your head? What you think he tells might be pure imagination or delusion on your part.

Why should we take what you claims about Christ are NOT just the products of delusion or an over-blown imagination?

Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

Personal testimony is worthless in our quest for the TRUTH of your remarkable god talk claims.

The PROBLEM you have is that when we ask you for proof or evidence, you can't even begin to THINK how to show us that what you believe in is true at all.

But if you can't at all "show" us anything....then that's it for your claims. You have literally nothing to show except your tall tales and nice feelings that you get.

But we ALL have nice feelings. We don't ALL OF US make tell tall tales.

Zzyzx wrote: Agreed. All that Apology has to offer is its own unverifiable texts plus personal unverifiable testimonials – and seems miffed that others will not accept that "evidence" as proof of truth.

Not miffed in the least - regardless of whether what I have shared is accepted or rejected - and I don't ever expect others to accept personal testimony as proof of truth. Maybe I can help someone see something or think in a way they hadn't before, when answering a question asked (of me or perhaps in general). Maybe not.

It's a good thing that you understand that personal testimony is NOT good evidence. That's why personal testimony is so poorly regarded in courts.

Courts demand evidence.

Would you (generic term) accept the same level of "evidence" in support of one of the thousands of competing gods?

I would test it for truth... and/or ask my Lord about it... and/or simply live and let live.

HOW would you test it... by asking Jesus in your head if Jesus is real?
Why would that "test" impress anyone ELSE?

We all live and let live, but some of us want others to believe our tall tales.

Depends on what the situation called for.

All truth claims CALL for evidence that we can verify.
Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims, with no regard as to proof. That's like soap commercials.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 1 by Peds nurse]

ahhhh I must have misplaced my god glasses. Actually the neutral reading of the bible exposes it for the fabrication of the three Fs of religion; Fiction, Fantasy, and Forgery. if we remove the pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables, and allegorical writings there wouldn't be much left to consider. There are over 40,000 different strains of christian delusion, isn't that fact thought provoking? Creative interpretation is a necessity of remaining faithful, as any intelligent analysis of fact, history and biblical historicity exposes it for the fairy tale fabrication that it is. One MUST begin tap dancing, and becoming a christian apologist if one is going to pretend he/she still believes this ridiculous story.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

So it isn't that you are "able" to read the bible, and us poor ignorant atheists just can not conceptualize and comprehend the scriptures, it is your self delusion and apologetic embracement as a means to accept what is obviously a lie that gives you the false assumption that you truly understand the bible.

Then there is the posit that some people have a built in sense of the divine...something within them that senses god in the same way that we have eyes that sense things in the visual realm. One of the main problems with this little theory, is that just as some people can allegedly sense god, other people can allegedly claim to sense other imagined entities. This rebuttal is called the great pumpkin objection. In the end, it is very convenient to play the "I am a member of a small select special group that can sense god"...can you now?

[tam]

Quote:
ZZyzx wrote: Would you say that other "understandings or interpretations" are NOT truthful if they contradict yours? It would seem as though you must accept contrary interpretations as equal to yours or claim that yours is superior (at least for yourself).


tam wrote:
They are not truthful if they contradict Christ... not me or my personal interpretation. I am just a (wo)man, same as others.


Blastcat wrote: You stated earlier that CHRIST interprets Christ for you.
Now you say that YOU do the interpretation.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I was responding directly to the question Zzyzx asked of me, and he said asked about 'my' interpretation. I clarified that if something contradicts Christ.

No contradiction there.

tam wrote:
I will reiterate... I would never expect anyone to take my word for any 'interpretation/understanding' - but rather to test what I share against Christ (and love as well)


Blatcat wrote: Against the Christ you speak to in your head? How are we to test what Christ tells you in your head? What you think he tells might be pure imagination or delusion on your part.

Why should we take what you claims about Christ are NOT just the products of delusion or an over-blown imagination?

I respond to this in my reply to Joey:

"I never said that Joey. Has nothing to do with me... and I can make mistakes. So again, anything that I share - from personal thoughts or from what I have understood from Christ - can and should be tested to see if it is true and from Christ. Test against Him, if one has the faith to hear Him; test against what is written (beginning with what Christ is written to have said and taught and done), and test against love (because God is love, and so what comes from Him must also be of love)."

tam wrote:
Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.


Blastcat said: Personal testimony is worthless in our quest for the TRUTH of your remarkable god talk claims.

Hence I asked if that is what Joey meant when he said to show him. An example that was personal testimony.

The PROBLEM you have is that when we ask you for proof or evidence, you can't even begin to THINK how to show us that what you believe in is true at all.

But if you can't at all "show" us anything....then that's it for your claims. You have literally nothing to show except your tall tales and nice feelings that you get.

But we ALL have nice feelings. We don't ALL OF US make tell tall tales.

See above... though you could ask to hear for yourself, then it would be your personal evidence as well. But no one mentioned 'nice feelings' before you did, just now.



Peace again to you Blastcat,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[otseng]

Please understand that my following libels are presented as an example of what's a goofy way to go. I don't explain 'em within the text, so that impact may be preserved

Moderator Comment

I understand your point. But, it's best not to violate the rules in order to make your point.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Blastcat]

Quote:
ZZyzx wrote: Would you say that other "understandings or interpretations" are NOT truthful if they contradict yours? It would seem as though you must accept contrary interpretations as equal to yours or claim that yours is superior (at least for yourself).

They are not truthful if they contradict Christ... not me or my personal interpretation. I am just a (wo)man, same as others.

Blastcat wrote: You stated earlier that CHRIST interprets Christ for you.
Now you say that YOU do the interpretation.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I was responding directly to the question Zzyzx asked of me, and he said asked about 'my' interpretation. I clarified that if something contradicts Christ.

No contradiction there.

I asked you who you thought did the interpretation for you.
You said Christ did that for you, and then you said that you had your own interpretation, that you don't want to impose on anyone.

I wonder who you think it IS that does the interpreting?

then you said that you HAVE a personal interpretation...

"They are not truthful if they contradict Christ... not me or my personal interpretation." ( bold my own )

then you say that ...

"I would never expect anyone to take my word for any 'interpretation/understanding' " (again, bold my own )

DO YOU HAVE any interpretations or understanding?

Do you think at ALL about the Bible without Jesus telling you what it means?

I will reiterate... I would never expect anyone to take my word for any 'interpretation/understanding' - but rather to test what I share against Christ (and love as well)

Blatcat wrote: Against the Christ you speak to in your head? How are we to test what Christ tells you in your head? What you think he tells might be pure imagination or delusion on your part.

Why should we take any claims about personal conversations with Christ are NOT just the products of delusion or an over-blown imagination?

"I never said that Joey. Has nothing to do with me... and I can make mistakes. So again, anything that I share - from personal thoughts or from what I have understood from Christ - can and should be tested to see if it is true and from Christ.

So Christ tells you what to think.
But you still have personal thoughts about what this GOD tells you is true?
Why do have thoughts and make mistakes about them if GOD interprets the Bible for you in your head? Seems to me that if a GOD told you how to interpret something, it would be PRETTY darn clear, easy for you to understand and kinda.. you know, PERFECT.

I wonder why you STILL have problems interpreting the Bible after a GOD tells you what it all means?

But more importantly, how can others know that's any of this talking with GOD business is true?

Test against Him,

WHAT test are you referring to?

Ask Christ to tell me if Christ is real?
Maybe you can ask him but I can't.

if one has the faith to hear Him;

It takes FAITH to hear that your god isn't just the product of your imagination?
How does your faith that something is true help anyone else know what you believe in is true?

test against what is written

But others don't HAVE Christ telling them how to interpret what is written.

beginning with what Christ is written to have said and taught and done),

But others don't have Christ interpreting all of this for us.

and test against love (because God is love, and so what comes from Him must also be of love)."

How can love be a test when love happens under any belief system?

Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

Blastcat said: Personal testimony is worthless in our quest for the TRUTH of your remarkable god talk claims.

Hence I asked if that is what Joey meant when he said to show him. An example that was personal testimony.

Giving personal testimony only shows WHAT you believe in , but not that it's true. You might be testifying about a delusional belief, or a false one.

I'm trying to make you understand THIS QUESTION:

How do we TEST to see that what you believe in is true?

The PROBLEM you have is that when we ask you for proof or evidence, you can't even begin to THINK how to show us that what you believe in is true at all.

But if you can't at all "show" us anything....then that's it for your claims. You have literally nothing to show except your tall tales and nice feelings that you get.

But we ALL have nice feelings. We don't ALL OF US make tell tall tales.

See above... though you could ask to hear for yourself, then it would be your personal evidence as well. But no one mentioned 'nice feelings' before you did, just now.

You mentioned the feeling called "love".... love isn't a nice feeling to you?

I have a great imagination, but I don't believe everything that I can create in my mind is literally TRUE.

How can we know what you claim is true and not just the product of your imagination?

That's how what you describe sounds to me. A real STRONG case of religious imagination taken as literally true.

[arian]

[Replying to post 58 by arian]

JoeyK wrote:
Your and ttruscott's posts should be added to that religious harm thread - where we see that even after the passage of some two thousand years, some thiests still can't tell their insults from Shinola.

What one would consider an insult, could be another's warning to you of grave danger. Or ones show of affection, like a hug from me to you could be considered an insult too. So can you define 'insult', or love, or evil, or hate, or marriage between a man and woman and two dogs of the same sex getting married in Japan? (I seen it happen, brides maids, the costumes, the priest, the throwing of rice (or was it Skittles?) and all!

Should the person accused of being 'insulting' by another person consider the insulted person's point of view at all? Is it reasonable to do so?

Oh pleeese, don't try to make this some personal attack. Sure we can 'defend' our stance on our belief, our POV's, that's what debating is all about.

The Forum Rules points out 'insult', I just want to know what is the 'Debating Christianity & Religion Forums' interpretation of 'insult'?'

Like; Is it the Bible, it's laws, it's Prophets and its God "I Am Who I Am" that is an insult? Or was this Forum created to debate the insults of Christianity and Religion? Because I have made it clear time and again by using the Bible and other historical documents that 'Constantine's Christian Religion' and their doctrines are an insult to Christ's teachings.
If atheists, non-theists, ignostic, agnostics, or all the "I'm not sure?" can berate, degrade, insult the Bible, and the God of the Bible and His teachings, but me a firm believer in what God teaches is 'absolute truth' not be allowed to take it as an insult? Or is it now that just simply asking for a general definition of 'insult' is considered insulting?

If you are speaking from promptings of the Holy Spirit, or Christ, does this give whatever you say 'immunity' from criticism, or accusations of being 'insulting'? Is it reasonable to disregard complaints against you for being offensive or insulting when you are moved to speak from your theological convictions?

That is EXACTLY what I was pointing out! What is this Forums New definition of 'insult'?

Look, especially with these New laws being implemented, where in the past 'homosexuality' was a sin punishable by the law, but now just referring to homosexuality negatively is against the law and punishable by the law, so I asked if we on this Forum could come to some agreement what is 'insult', what is considered good, what is now considered evil, or what does this New One World laws consider just and civil?
I'm not a mind reader, so I ask!?

Is the 'insulted' person entitled to speak out against your (the generic) Holy Spirit guided words, or should they humbly accept that you are speaking God's truth?

Of course! .. hey, this is a Debating site, so speak out, that's what I do!
But if people keep telling me that my stand on debatable issues are 'insulting', where I keep getting Warnings and be put me on 'probation' because of it, this has gone way beyond insult, into a totalitarian One World Order, where everything I say is being analyzed by it, and I don't even know what that 'it' is?
So before us Bible readers and adherers are Banned (from Forums, from life on earth in general) can you define 'truth' for me? Can the 'moderators' redefine "Respectful and civil Religious Debate?" Or is it offensive for me to even ask?

Were you hugging Haven in that one thread in the Politics and Religion section?

Yes, .. just as God was hugging us sinners when He was watching His Son Jesus Christ dying on the cross. But the real question here is, do you know what Agape 'love' is, .. or has the sixties and seventies movement redefined the meaning of the word 'love'?

I can't really 'hug' Haven here on this Forum, or anyone else like JoeyK, Z, Otseng or you, so this is why I have over the years asked if debaters here would want to get together and meet in 'person', and I have even given my address several times. Or asked if we could meet somewhere, you know, like rent a theater or a less expensive hall or something, it's really not that expensive. We could have Pot-luck, I'll even make some good Hungarian/German dishes and maybe I'll get to taste some home-made whiskey made by other debaters?? or not, (we used to make Slivovitz - Plum-brandy in the Old Country)

Yes, I'm a hugger and one reason is because I'm not perfect, far from it, so I hug. So far, no matter how offended the other person feels, they knew my hugs were genuine, so after a while they stop pushing me away and hug me back. I debate issues that concerns us, the whole world and all. I mean, just because I use some firm words with my kids when they do something 'bad' (which the meaning of the word is in question now) doesn't mean I wouldn't hug them. Actually, even as I am yelling at them, I rather be hugging them.

Take care Hamsaka, and yes I do love you too.

[arian]

From Post 58:

Until you can show this God gives him the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans, this is but one more libel from theists.

...
Question: do you believe this President gives him the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans, let alone non-Muslim Americans he supposedly is the leader of?

I never said the man even exists.

See what I mean, and there are over 300 million people just here in the States alone that actually believe he exists. So with what 'evidence' do all these people go on believing in this guy? That was my point, what do we consider verifiable evidence?
Then how do we, or what do we use to 'verify' should any evidence be presented?

Do you believe he even exists? That he is not just some construct of Jesuit/Mason/Nazi/Zionist imagination? I myself have never seen this man, have you?
Do you know anyone trustworthy enough who has seen him, that he really is our 44th President?

I make no claims regarding the existence of Mr. Obama. Nor have I.

OK fine, so let's take someone who you know and believe exists. Is there anyone in the entire world that you know exists (other than yourself)??

If yes, then can you give me some clues as to how you 'know' this person exists?

It was you who declared me a "sinner" in the eyes of your proposed god.

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Yes, so why are you accusing me of libel? This book you and others here label as supernatural fairytales by some bronze aged sheep herders and fisherman made up said it, so why would you take it literally? I mean proven, I could actually go to prison for defamation of character, but if the judge hears someone quoting Peter Pan from a Disney book, I doubt he would take it seriously.

“All the world is made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust.�
― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan

“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.�
― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan

I mean imagine a parent taking another parent to court because the neighbors kid told her son "he could fly", and now he is in the hospital with broken bones.

Besides, if you do take the fairytale Bible seriously, then consider this:

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.�

So do you believe you are a sinner, then why accuse me of libel? And if you don't think you are a sinner, then this Jesus character is not for you, for He did not come for the righteous, but called sinners, who know and believe they are sinners, these He called to repentance.

I point out your inability to show this god exists to even consider something a "sin", and how it is, your blanket accusation is a libel, until it can be shown to be true and factual.

You see it was you, Z, McCulloch, D.I. and many others here who taught me to reason, so don't take my next response to your above statement offensively my friend, but blame yourselves for teaching me so well.

So again, if I haven't proven this God; The Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am" to even exist, how is it 'libel' to quote what He said? Like I said above, would me quoting what Peter Pan said offend you?

Why I ask is because I'm a skeptic, and "I want evidence".
...

As I've made no claim regarding the existence of Mr. Obama, I'm under no obligation to support such a claim. Apply response to the remainder of the snipped paragraph.

What 'snipped paragraph'?
And sorry if I assumed you believed Mr. Obama existed, I retract the example I used, the main reason, because I love you Joey!

I reject the libelous slanderer who accuses me of being a "sinner", when their accusations are as empty as their claim to know the mind of a god they can't even show exists.

You a sinner? That's only for those that believe in such a thing as truth, lies, good and evil. If you believe in such a thing to be even possible, then you, .. just as we all are a sinner.

arian, I like ya. I find you and your notions a fascinating study. But I ain't gonna entertain your repeated libels.

You think my views I present in debates is fascinating (I thank you my friend, you were a big part in forming my remarks) you should study me in real life.

You mean my 'quotes' from what you guys claim as religious fairytales made up by religious sheepherders and fisherman, .. those notions?

I seek to remain a productive, civil member of this site. I don't want to ruin it responding in the manner I deem needs it.

Have a great day.

But I really want to hear it, exactly as you want to say it. So can you PM it to me? I'll send you a quick PM reminder, .. I'm serious Joey, let me have it!

Actually, can we make a Sub-Forum where we could just let it all out, maybe even put a Warning on the room: "Warning, this sub-forum may be inappropriate for minors and those with heart problems, or with anger issues!"

with an added Disclaimer; "You may not use anything said in this Sub-forum against your fellow Debaters because most of it may be just getting it off their chest!" or something like that!? I mean we already have 'Debating Politics and Religion', but it is very restricted, I mean how can anyone debate politics and religion and sound all civilly like at all times? I mean it's so white man'ish if you know what I mean?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 72:

Show us this "spirit" guides folks to some superior understanding of biblical texts. Extra bonus points if ya can do it without referencing the very book making the claims.

I would say truthful, over saying superior.

Then show us all how "truthful" it is, this book of contradictions and outrageous claims.

That is not what you asked, is it? Didn't you ask me to show how the Spirit guides some to understanding biblical texts?

I'm just trying to understand this whole "spirit guide" thing, and base my responses on what I'm presented. If I've misrepresented your position, I 'pologize.

That is not the same as asking someone to show you that the book is truthful. I agree with you that there are contradictions (though I do think many of these are only seeming contradictions based on misunderstanding). But the Spirit could also guide a person to understand where the text is in error.

"Could" being the operative word.

I "could" make me a pie, only I can't, 'cause I don't know how.

I can only conclude you have no means whatsoever of confirming this "spirit" is even there, much less able to guide folks to a "truthful" understanding of contradictory, sense-assaulting claims.

I can give you personal testimony of how the Spirit helped me to understand something that was written - I can do this without referencing the text (except to say which text He helped me understand). But it is personal testimony. If you want to hear that, then I will share it. If you do not, then I won't. Whatever you answer, my sharing it doesn't mean I think you have to accept or believe it.

Your personal testimony offers us no way to confirm a "spirit" guided you to anything.

I never said that Joey. Has nothing to do with me... and I can make mistakes. So again, anything that I share - from personal thoughts or from what I have understood from Christ - can and should be tested to see if it is true and from Christ. Test against Him, if one has the faith to hear Him; test against what is written (beginning with what Christ is written to have said and taught and done), and test against love (because God is love, and so what comes from Him must also be of love).

How might I test the notion that dead folks come back to life and stroll through town?

Can we not, after some two thousand years finally conclude that testing to see if folks are still in the graves where they were put shows there they sit?

This is the problem with your approach, it ostensibly asks us to keep "testing" that which two thousand years of history shows is hokum.

If I share something that is against any of the above, then call me on it... because either I have misunderstood something, or communicated it poorly so that you have misunderstood me.

I don't much fret sermons.

I seek to determine if their claims can be shown to be truth.

You propose some "spirit" can "guide" you to a "trutful" understanding of biblical texts.

I propose you've failed to support that contention beyond just declarin' it to be the case.

...
In your post that followed the above, you are protesting having been called a sinner? I never saw the post that called you that, but I do understand how that word has been used as a weapon by some against others, to judge them, beat them down, tell them that they are worthless... and perhaps also to make themselves feel righteous. (Not saying that is what happened on this thread, but I know that happens in real life.) I am sorry for it, Joey, if any of that has been done to you.

I 'preciate that. I also can't convey just how much it means to hear you tell it. Such language has been used to cause far too much pain and suffering in this world.