[font=Impact]1.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:Thank you for the clarification. Today, I've spent an abnormally unhealthy amount of time typing posts on here and have neglicted to do the stuff that keeps my life running, so I might not get back to this thread quickly.
I can relate. This week I've spent even more time than usual debating here and it's cut into my study time. I must be honest and say that the past few days here have been a tad stressful.
[font=Impact]2.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:Darias wrote:I drew upon your example because it is the most obvious one. You may not believe in omnibenevolence, (I assumed you did, so I'm mistaken -- I thought most Christians did). However, you do believe in Evolution -- and while the Bible doesn't mention evolution (how could it?) It does say that man was created out of clay and Eve from a rib, and that animals were created in kinds and that each bare their own kind. The idea of evolution is not only not present, it's contradictory to what the Bible literally says.
And on that basis alone, I'm sure many would label you a false Christian -- yet it was because of this basis that you decided to agree with AmazingJesusIs.
When you refer to "omnibenevolence" you mean the complete and absolute goodness of God? Has anyone rejected or challenged that? If AmazingJesus has, then I vehemently disagree with him.
This is what he said:
AmazingJesusIs wrote:You deem some things false, because they don't make you feel good, or they don't conform to the omnibenevolent God you have created in your mind. Have you ever read the Old Testament books describing what God instructed His people to do? He made them kill every single person in a city... to leave nothing standing. He told them to kill the woman, the children, and even the livestock. Have you ever read what He allowed Satan to do to Job? He let Satan kill Job's children, destroy his live stock... it's some pretty serious stuff, but you claim that God is omnibenevolent, when in fact He's not.
_____
( "How pointless is debate?" Page 2, Post 14 )
[font=Impact]3.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:Here's my opinion. I condemn the "false christian" stuff because it is not our place to judge others, a virture that many often forget. However, I don't see any problem with someone doubting a person's legitmacy as a Christian because of their beliefs. That is basically what I saw AmazingJesus doing.
This sounds like:
"I don't think it was right that he employed ad-hominem, and its wrong for Christians to judge -- but I agree with what he said."
Again this is what he said:
AmazingJesusIs wrote:You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse.
You have mislead yourself. It's not the fact that you're not a Calvinist or Reformed Baptist, it's that you're not a Christian, and I know you're not a Christian because you claim that Paul's texts shouldn't be taken as real Scripture, and that you pick and choose your pieces of the Holy Bible to suit your own needs. That's not what a Disciple of Christ does. You make a bad name for us true converts.
The reason why "fellow" Christians don't debate with you is because we are not "fellow" Christians. We know we are Christians, and your belief that the Bible is false deems you un-Christian. It is without reason to debate theology with non-Christians.
_____
( "How pointless is debate?" Page 2, Post 14 )
And deeming me unsaved, aka hell-bound for what reason? Two reasons:
1. His view that my belief in Omnibenevolence is unBiblical.
2. His view that a Christian must believe every single verse as without error or he is false.
And yet you say you agree with his "legitimate reasons,"
AKA, you don't think I'm saved because of those things -- even though we both essentially share those same two points of view?
[font=Impact]4.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:And yes, evolution is a point we an somewhat agree on. Does it undermine biblical inerrancy, no, and I laid out my reasons for that in an earlier post. And yes, I don't believe everything the Bible says,
1.) We somewhat agree on in that you invoke ID and a supernatural repairman to explain gaps or "irreducibly complex" things, some of which have been explained already. But you still believe things evolved and that the earth is old correct?
2.) Of course it undermines Biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy means "without factual error." The Bible is factually wrong when it comes to the historic realities of biology -- plain and simple. The only way you can claim that Evolution doesn't violate the doctrine is if you attribute every factually incorrect thing mentioned in the Bible to "metaphor" -- metaphor which was once believed to be literal truth. You know the story of Galileo, so I don't need to tell it.
Maybe you can still cling to Biblical inerrancy by technicality, personal definitions, or whatever -- but I cannot. I don't know how you do it -- but I can't.
And for that reason, I've been deemed "unsaved" and as a person who "gives a bad name" for "true" believers.
[font=Impact]5.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:however I believe most of it
Well according to
AmazingJesusIs, "most of it" ain't good enough.
AmazingJesusIs wrote:You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse.
_____
( "How pointless is debate?" Page 2, Post 14 )
[font=Impact]6.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:and have laid out a criteria for how I discern this:
-The extraordinary measure of the claim/story. If the story is very extraordinary, then it is probably metaphorical.
-The weight it holds on the Christian Faith. For example, the resurrection is just as extraordinary a claim as the global flood story, but Christianity is based on the resurrection story and not the global flood story. The resurrection holds more wieght and meaning.
-If the story can be attested to with some outside reference and objective evidence. Jesus' life, and his resurrection can. The global flood story, for the most part, cannot. The only extra-biblical references to teh flood is the Gilgamesh Epic, which is also considered mythical.
1.) And that's Biblically inerrant how? Are you not "picking and choosing" which miracles you want to believe in --
as I have been accused of doing?
2.) Plus, how does "it's critical to Christianity" dismiss the fact that they are pretty extraordinary miracles? It seems to me that you are unwilling to label them metaphor or myth (
as you did with supernatural events in the Old Testament, and as some liberal Christians do today) because questioning them -- or even pondering the mere possibility that they didn't take place -- endangers your doctrinal beliefs (
to the point where you probably think you wouldn't retain your faith at all if somehow such miracles could be just myths).
[font=Impact]7.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:Darias wrote:I may read the Bible a little less literally than you. I may find a bit more of it less historical than you do, but how is that any different from your position relative to Otseng's, or AmazingJesusIs' ?
I am ignorant of how you view the Bible. I asked you about that in another post. What is your view of the Bible and Jesus Christ, did he actually do miracles and rise from the dead, is there any truth the reports of miracles in the Bible?
1.) If you are ignorant of how I view the Bible then why did you so quickly agree with his message (
albeit not the way it was delivered) ?
2.) I don't know if Christ actually did miracles and raised people from the dead. I know that the only way he could have done that is via some sort of divine intervention, etc. I am not saying that He didn't. However, I don't think those are necessarily relevant to Him being our spiritual Mediator and Savior -- and if somehow such things were ever proven to be myth, it would not void the possibility that He is of a divine nature and has a divine role.
[font=Impact]8.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:Darias wrote:The only reason you not only didn't say anything (you don't have to defend anyone but yourself, despite the fact that you are a moderator) is because I'm liberal -- one of "The left" one of "Them" -- others who posts things you don't like in other threads unrelated to this one (which you mentioned earlier on in this thread as some sort of justification for the collective consensus against me).
I'm not a moderator.
Why does the legend on the main page show that you are? Your name is green and bolded
[
Moderator]
Must be a forum glitch?
[font=Impact]9.[/font]
WinePusher wrote:I also don't have any personal vendetta againist you. I disagree with the positions you seem to have taken and have challenged you on them. I also have said time after time that I don't support the rhetoric AmazingJesus is throwing out, but have no problem with his underlying point which was a challenge to your assumptions.
Darias wrote:You've tried to make the intent of my original question of this thread to be about fundamentalists v. liberals etc... it wasn't -- it was about debate and respect -- of which I was granted neither because I don't agree with a popular doctrine.
Fine, I'll take your word for it.
Thanks.