What's the point of debating with Christians?

[postroad]

They decide which texts are literal and which are allegory. They decide what a word really means.

I find it a bit depressing. I could even cope with it if they came to a consensus. I'm thinking of Paul's use of the Hebrew Scriptures. He simply had no respect for context or even the correct rendering?

Apologists will claim he had the authority under Holy Spirit to do so. Are believers claiming the same authority when they bend the texts to fit their beliefs?

Is that what is meant by Spiritual discernment?

I find it particularly disturbing when I'm accused of eisegesis when assuming the literal interpretation of a text. I'm required to defend the plain reading and accused of attempting to force the text into a preconceived interpretation simultaneously?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by William]

Once one acknowledges that this is the case, then one can see more clearly that any interaction one has with Christians in questioning their nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs will be taken as an invitation and opportunity for them to proselytize their particular take on things, which is their main objective.

Which is literally what some of the theists on this board have said, yes.

However, if one is an ex-believer and when you were a believer one had the tendency to proselytize whenever the opportunity afforded itself for one to do so, then this habit of trying to convert others to ones own way of thinking will continue on the new platform/position one chooses.

This one was never a proselytizer. I was devout...but I never preached. Never taught what I believed.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 28 by 1213]

Ok.


Hebrews 1:5-8 New International Version (NIV)

The Son Superior to Angels
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father�[a]?
Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son�?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.�[c]
7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.�[d]
8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.�[e]
Footnotes:

Hebrews 1:5 Psalm 2:7
Hebrews 1:5 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13
Hebrews 1:6 Deut. 32:43 (see Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint)
Hebrews 1:7 Psalm 104:4
Hebrews 1:9 Psalm 45:6,7

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Some things in the bible are to be taken literally. Others are to be understood allegorically. Here is a brief article that elaborates on five (there are more) principles of proper exegesis:

Except what goes into which category is different depending on which Christian I happen to be talking to that day. The priests in the schools I attended as a child did not believe Adam and Eve were real literal people, but if I were to go say Answers In Genesis and ask Ken Ham, or ask Matt Slick of Carm...they'd say differently.

Every kind of literature, religious or non-religious, has rules to help with understanding and anybody who wants understanding needs to study those rules

These rules change though from person to person, group to group, denomination to denomination.
Is "I and the Father are one" a metaphor for being united in purpose and common goal, or is it literal and that Jesus and his sky daddy are the same entity?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by Mithrae]

If it were the 'word of God,' it'd be a lengthy, meandering and ultimately very poor attempt at communication even by the standards of most high school kids. Insistence that you need the right 'training' to 'really understand' it only prove that point even further

This is another thing that bugs me. Supposing this to be true...shouldn't Christianity be a very exclusive club then? Only open to theologians? Why the 2 or three 3 odd billion strong membership roster?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 19 by Wootah]

The generalization isn't absurd at all.

It's written into the rules of interpretation itself.

They state that no contradictions exist in Scriptures. From that perspective I could show contradictory texts and believers would deny they exist on that principle alone.

Am I hearing the same thing that governs the sophistry of Statement-of-Faithers here?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 34 by rikuoamero]

I'm not sure what you mean?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by rikuoamero]

I'm not sure what you mean?

I'm not accusing you of anything. Basically, creationists like Answers-in-Genesis or Carm or CMI have a section on their websites called a Statement of Faith, where among other things, they state that the Bible is primary and superior to all evidence gathered or yet to be gathered. So since the Bible mentions an Adam & Eve, they must have been real people, end of story. No claimed evidence in any field is allowed to contradict that.
The line that you noted about contradiction in scriptures sounds to me like the same sort of thinking. They declare as a rule, that scripture contains no contradictions. So as you noted, it does not matter how many contradictions you show these people. The rule itself takes precedence over any and all evidence you gather.

[1213]

...
Hebrews 1:5 Psalm 2:7
Hebrews 1:5 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13
Hebrews 1:6 Deut. 32:43 (see Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint)
Hebrews 1:7 Psalm 104:4
Hebrews 1:9 Psalm 45:6,7

Thank you and sorry, I don’t think those prove your point.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 37 by 1213]


Ok. I suppose you could explain your position?

[PinSeeker]

I'll interject, here, if I may:

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Some things in the bible are to be taken literally. Others are to be understood allegorically. Here is a brief article that elaborates on five (there are more) principles of proper exegesis:

Except what goes into which category is different depending on which Christian I happen to be talking to that day.

Sure, because not everyone agrees on everything, whether we're talking about Christianity or anything else. People disagree on things. But concerning Christianity, regarding salvific matters and the essentials of the Gospel, there is only belief and unbelief; there is no disagreement.

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Every kind of literature, religious or non-religious, has rules to help with understanding and anybody who wants understanding needs to study those rules

These rules change though from person to person, group to group, denomination to denomination.

Nah, the "rules" don't change. It's just that some get certain things wrong. And that can happen for various reasons.

Is "I and the Father are one" a metaphor for being united in purpose and common goal, or is it literal and that Jesus and his sky daddy are the same entity?

Yes.

I, for one, would be delighted to talk with you about some others if you want.