tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post2904855815305395568..comments2024-03-28T02:33:58.130-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Where Ya Goin'?Marshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger207125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-57482789079756059872009-03-08T23:00:00.000-05:002009-03-08T23:00:00.000-05:00ER,If you truly are saying that what one believes ...ER,<BR/><BR/>If you truly are saying that what one believes is unimportant when proclaiming one's self to be Christian, then you allow for absolutely any belief to be equally valid. That's about as ludicrous and childish a perspective as can be imagined.<BR/><BR/>To pretend that service is what is left begins to lean toward works as being the be-all and end-all of Christianity. Yet, somehow the simple "work" of learning what the Bible says and adhering to it, and/or preaching it to others is somehow NOT a part of Christian living. So big deal. Even assholes are nice to people they like, and they can be nice to people they don't like, or around whom they feel uncomfortable, for personal gain.<BR/><BR/><I>"Would you have me pretend to believe things I don't believe?"</I><BR/><BR/>No. I would have you understand that you believe the wrong things in some ways, likely based on "scholars" who you <I>think</I> sound more Christian to you. I would have you adhere to the truth which can often hurt and be difficult to grasp.<BR/><BR/>What good is striving to serve in the name of Jesus if you serve a Jesus that never existed? Helping and loving people despite their beliefs is not, nor has it ever been an issue between those like yourself and those like me. The issue has always been serving sinners as if they have no need of repenting of their sin, as if their sin isn't a sin after all, when there is no justification for that position. <BR/><BR/>I have no doubt that with you etheral description of Christianity that you could easily win far more converts than could I. Christ's way is far more difficult than what you describe.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-45400385958916128272009-03-08T14:19:00.000-05:002009-03-08T14:19:00.000-05:00LOL. No, take away the insistence that what one be...LOL. No, take away the insistence that what one believes is most important, and you don't get lip service.<BR/><BR/>You get service -- service DESPITE what one does or dosn't believe, which is all in the head.<BR/><BR/>Would you have me pretend to believe things I don't believe? THAT would be lip service -- and dishonest.<BR/><BR/>I'll stick to striving to serve in the name of Jesus, and trying to help lives and love people regardless of what they believe, rather than arguing for Christ, who needs no advocate or defender, and trying to gain "converts."<BR/><BR/>And with that, I bid y'all peace and adieu! :-)Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-81307379801492663622009-03-08T01:21:00.000-06:002009-03-08T01:21:00.000-06:00ER,"I gauge them based on about 300 years of schol...ER,<BR/><BR/><I>"I gauge them based on about 300 years of scholarly attention paid to the Scriptures."</I><BR/><BR/>I think you gauge your beliefs on the wrong scholars. For example, to base anything on the work of a John Shelby Spong would be spiritually fatal, because he's a blatant heretic.<BR/><BR/><I>"And I think thT what one believes is the least important aspect of what it means to be a Christian..."</I><BR/><BR/>What one believes IS the important aspect of what it means to be a Christian. Otherwise it's lipservice.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-86727526363473804842009-03-08T01:15:00.000-06:002009-03-08T01:15:00.000-06:00ER,"Nah. It's like the Constitution. That's where ...ER,<BR/><BR/><I>"Nah. It's like the Constitution. That's where you start in deciding the basic parameters for our system of government, but the details. It's fleshed out in legislation, then in regulation, then in practice."</I><BR/><BR/>You have this wrong as well. The Constitution is what is supposed to be authoratative, in that it is the document by which legislation must conform. Doesn't always work that way, thanks to judges and justices that ALSO see that which doesn't exist between the lines.<BR/><BR/>With the Bible and religions, the latter is to conform as closely as possible with the former, being that the former is the only record available for reference.<BR/><BR/>As far as the Gospel writers, I find it remarkable that you, who believes that one is called by God alone, not with any influence by those with whom one might encounter in life, that you have trouble believing that God could not inspire or influence the Gospel writers to remember just what He wants them to, and to write down just what He wants us to know even 2000 years later.<BR/> <BR/>But then, that WOULD be inconvenient, wouldn't it? That WOULD narrow the path. Yeah, it WOULD be nuts to think that 30 or 40 years later anyone could remember accurately the words of another. For YOU it would be nuts, or for ME it would be nuts, but not if either of us was walked with the Lord during His ministry and spoke with Him after He rose from the dead. Seems to me much would stick with us like it just happened for many years later. You judge the possibility as if God had no part in it whatever. That's where I think you go wrong.<BR/><BR/>It's totally natural to feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, particularly if they routinely engage in homosexual behavior. It would be like being around mafia people, or drug dealers, or hit men or any number of other sinners. Of course with you, it may require counseling as well. I don't seem to get nervous around them, myself. <BR/><BR/>That you are around more of them when in church is a problem with the church. That is, unless they are all seeking to repent and leave the lifestyle. But I don't think that's what you mean at all. Instead, there are so many in your church likely because they know that they won't hear what they don't want to hear. <BR/><BR/>You act as if people like myself don't struggle with issues with which we'd most certainly rather not. That would be so much easier for you. But it's just that we accept that the path IS narrow. So bite yourself. It is God who decided that the club will be small. Not all who call on the Lord...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-40102807594062880992009-03-07T18:39:00.000-06:002009-03-07T18:39:00.000-06:00D'oh! I wanted to have comment # 200. Bubba, gre...D'oh! I wanted to have comment # 200. <BR/><BR/>Bubba, great points as usual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-41812241840113425742009-03-07T14:31:00.000-06:002009-03-07T14:31:00.000-06:00Yes, I do gauge the relative authenticity of Scrip...Yes, I do gauge the relative authenticity of Scriptures,. Absolutely. But not on whim, and not on what I find inconvenient. So, stop it. It's very rational. LOL.<BR/><BR/>I gauge them based on about 300 years of scholarly attention paid to the Scriptures. I trust scholars more thn I trust church leadership. I don't trust either wholly.<BR/><BR/>And I think thT what one believes is the least important aspect of what it means to be a Christian -- beyond the fact that GOD IS, to whom the Creation itself testifies, and the need for a bridge-savior-advocate-connection-Way to God from myself, which is self-evident!Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-80915708315720091652009-03-07T13:39:00.000-06:002009-03-07T13:39:00.000-06:00A quick clarification, ER: it's not that I believ...A quick clarification, ER: it's not that I believe you hold your beliefs out of convenience.<BR/><BR/>It's that I believe you discard passages of the NT because THE PASSAGES are inconvenient to what you believe.<BR/><BR/>A denial of inerrancy would lead a person to believe that some passages are inauthentic, but it wouldn't help a person determine what is and isn't authentic.<BR/><BR/>Since you have no clear, reliable, objective standard by which you can evaluate Scripture to sift the truth from falsehood, the most likely determinant is whether a passage interferes with what you believe.<BR/><BR/>You believe X, but if a particular passage in the Bible undermines that belief, you discard it because it's inconvenient TO THAT BELIEF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-65648123291319749042009-03-07T11:11:00.000-06:002009-03-07T11:11:00.000-06:00ER, it's simply not the case that theologically co...ER, it's simply not the case that theologically conservative Christianity is "a club that only *some* people can be a part of."<BR/><BR/>All people are welcome, just not all beliefs.<BR/><BR/>That's the case for your belief system, too, as you deride inerrancy as idolatry.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You object, in no uncertain terms, to my belief that you discard passages of Scripture out of convenience.<BR/><BR/>But my point is less about why you sift through Scripture, and more about the simple fact that you do so.<BR/><BR/>You pick and choose what parts of the Bible are trustworthy. It's not the case that you merely fill in the details of what the Bible omits: <B>you discard parts of what the Bible includes.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I understand the implausibility of the idea that the Gospel writers or their sources had photographic memories and perfect recall. Inerrancy doesn't depend on the super abilities of the human writers, but on the guidance of the divine Author, who (we believe) kept the writers from error while not suppressing their personalities.<BR/><BR/>For someone who quotes people for a living, you grasp the difficulty of perfect recall, but what you don't seem to grasp, in the case of the New Testament, is the impossibility for merely human scholars to sift truth from error, centuries after the fact.<BR/><BR/><B>The New Testament documents are the best accounts we have for what Jesus taught and did, and there are no other documents we can invoke to evaluate them.</B><BR/><BR/>You have no rational justification for believing that a particular passage in John, for instance, is inauthentic, because you have no other sources of information that are more reliable, against which the Gospels can be compared.<BR/><BR/>In the end, by picking and choosing from the New Testament those teachings that you like, you're constructing a completely artficial image of what Jesus taught.<BR/><BR/>It is an image built on foundations far weaker than one built from all of what the NT teaches, because you have NO RATIONAL BASIS for sifting through the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>It is ultimately an idol, and I believe the charge of idolatry is far more plausible with you than it is with inerrantists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-87319159213318083852009-03-07T10:26:00.000-06:002009-03-07T10:26:00.000-06:00Well, that's not all I'm saying. If you're going t...Well, that's not all I'm saying. If you're going to tell me that you think that the Gospel writers got what they say Jesus said exactly right, even in the original writing, I'm gonna tell you that that's preposterous. <BR/><BR/>Dude, I quote people for a living. It's hard to get it right, without a recorder, as people are speaking let alone 30, 40 years down the line! It's just nuts to think otherwise.<BR/><BR/>So, not inconvenient: implausible, unlikely, some other words like that.<BR/><BR/>Inconvenient! Do you realize that, almost totally because of where and when I grew up, I am uncomfortable around gay men? Do you know where I am around more gay men than in any other place? The pew.<BR/><BR/>Do you realize that sometimes I wish I could go back to the God-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles it way, because it's so damn much easier?!<BR/><BR/>Do you realize that it's HARDER to think than to just accept?<BR/><BR/>Do you know, that like most people, I like the idea of being a member of a club that only *some* people can be a part of?<BR/><BR/>Bite me. ALL of you bite me if you think that I think what I think because it's fricking CONVENIENT!<BR/><BR/>The path I'm on now is harder than ever -- mainly because of Pharisaical Bible worshippers who can't see Christ in others unless they filter it through their own damned pet doctrines. Well, keep it. 'It's GREAT religion. It's a wonderful club you've got going. <BR/><BR/>And it stinks like the whited sepulcher it is.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-35937585586957111572009-03-07T10:03:00.000-06:002009-03-07T10:03:00.000-06:00ER, if that's all you were saying, I doubt any of ...ER, if that's all you were saying, I doubt any of us would have much problem with your position. <BR/><BR/>Instead, you've asserted that every NT writer put words in Jesus mouth, which we should implicitly ignore as unreliable and inauthentic.<BR/><BR/>You're not just suggesting that the church should be free to flesh out the details of what the Bible outlines: your position seems to be that the church should be free to OVERRIDE those Scriptural details that it finds inconvenient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-41133651927747459832009-03-07T08:02:00.000-06:002009-03-07T08:02:00.000-06:00Nah. It's like the Constitution. That's where you ...Nah. It's like the Constitution. That's where you start in deciding the basic parameters for our system of government, but the details. It's fleshed out in legislation, then in regulation, then in practice.<BR/><BR/>The Bib;e is where you start for the broad paramters: God loves us, to the point that Jesud died for us. The church formed to go tell the story of Love.<BR/><BR/>How it does so and most of the dteails are worked out in liturgy, experience and practice, among other things.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-39115558733794958182009-03-07T00:30:00.000-06:002009-03-07T00:30:00.000-06:00ER,"What I mean by "authoritative" is it's the fir...ER,<BR/><BR/><I>"What I mean by "authoritative" is it's the first place I look for guidance, but not the only place."</I><BR/><BR/>This statement seems contradictory to me. By not being the only place, it's not very authoritative, or, as Miracle Max might say, it's only "mostly" authoritative. <BR/><BR/>Rather than seeking authority elsewhere, true authority would imply that the Bible is the LAST source, the source against which all others must comply. That would make it truly authoritative.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-63357689976223767032009-03-06T16:18:00.000-06:002009-03-06T16:18:00.000-06:00Naah. We'd just keep going around in circles.Naah. We'd just keep going around in circles.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-15401321820392185592009-03-06T16:12:00.000-06:002009-03-06T16:12:00.000-06:00Since you're clearly reading past the first senten...Since you're clearly reading past the first sentence again, maybe you could explain how you affirm that the Bible's authoritative when you don't believe its claims about itself or, for that matter, its claims about what Jesus taught.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-5375699524903690492009-03-06T16:04:00.000-06:002009-03-06T16:04:00.000-06:00You'd *better* remember.Hmmm ...From Merriam-Webst...You'd *better* remember.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm ...<BR/><BR/>From Merriam-Webster:<BR/><BR/>(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law<BR/><BR/>(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "same-sex marriage" b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage<BR/><BR/>(3): an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities<BR/><BR/>(4): an intimate or close union<BR/><BR/><BR/>So, you take 1, and I'll take 1, 2, 3 and 4!Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-4847158501553383132009-03-06T15:52:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:52:00.000-06:00Let me be clear, I accept the traditional definiti...Let me be clear, I accept the traditional definition of the word, "authoritative," and what I reject is that your claims about the Bible match up with the claim that you believe the Bible is authoritative.<BR/><BR/>But I WILL have to remember that you are such a stickler for dictionary definitions, the next time we discuss the institution of marriage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-59589979221018977372009-03-06T15:48:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:48:00.000-06:00Ohhhh-K. I didn't get past the first sentence. If ...Ohhhh-K. I didn't get past the first sentence. If yer gonna argue with the actual accepted definitions of words, or, insist that your personal preferred definition is the only one that *I* can use, well, forget it. Just forget it. Never mind. Forget I was here. Have fun twisting in your own wind. Period. LOLErudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-54724252088850894332009-03-06T15:37:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:37:00.000-06:00ER, if you look to the Bible as the "first" source...ER, if you look to the Bible as the "first" source of truth but not as the decisive source of truth, then you don't consider the book to be authoritative. Period.<BR/><BR/>A baseball fan who fact-checks his stats-crazed best friend against MLB.com doesn't consider the friend to be an authoritative source of statistics, no matter whether he goes to the friend first just because he's more readily available.<BR/><BR/>It's not whether you go to other sources, but what you do with those other sources.<BR/><BR/>If you look elsewhere for truth about God and conform what you find to what you know the Bible teaches, then you do indeed consider the Bible to be authoritative. If you look elsewhere to overturn what the Bible teaches, then you don't consider the Bible authoritative, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Glancing around, I see that you wrote <A HREF="http://pocketmumbles.blogspot.com/2007/05/surprised-nope.html#c3857088523764554279" REL="nofollow">this</A> last year:<BR/><BR/><I>Part of the problem, as I have come to see it, is the notion of the Bible being any sort of revelation of God to man becomes more absurd as science, and even theology, progresses. When the Scriptures are seen as sacred because of their place in Jewish and Christian history, and not because of their supposed origins ("God-breathed"), and rather than revelastion, seen as records of humankind's attempt so "see," comprehend and understand God, *that*s when one begins to be able to take the Bible seriously but not literally.</I><BR/><BR/>The Bible claims to be divine revelation rather than merely human speculation, and indeed Jesus Christ Himself strengthens that claim. Assuming you haven't changed your position, you apparently reject that claim.<BR/><BR/>"It all boils down, again, to what one considers the Bible to be."<BR/><BR/>No, it boils down, not to what "one considers" the Bible to be, but what the Bible claims about itself.<BR/><BR/>If you reject its own claims about its divine authorship, you logically cannot affirm its authority.<BR/><BR/><BR/>About those definitions, I affirm that the Bible is authoritative in all seven senses of the word that you give.<BR/><BR/>It does NOT seem to me that you affirm even those definitions you say you do. <BR/><BR/>Scripture claims to be "God-breathed," to be revelation rather than speculation, to be God's "official" written word, but you apparently reject that claim, striking down definition #1.<BR/><BR/>You assert that every NT writer put words in Christ's mouth, undermining Scripture's claim to be "highly reliable." There goes definition #2.<BR/><BR/>You do not believe what the Bible claims about its own authorship, so you can't believe that the book is "worth of belief." <B>On the contrary, you smear those who DO consider the Bible worth of belief, by accusing us of idolatry.</B> There goes #5.<BR/><BR/>You drain the adjective "authoritative" of most of its meaning, to justify your draining the Bible of most of its message.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-20717187629106254612009-03-06T15:19:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:19:00.000-06:00No, just not by your standard, Bubba. Apparently, ...No, just not by your standard, Bubba. Apparently, what *you* mean by "authoritative" is unassailable, take-it-all-or-leave-it, unquestioning acceptance. What I mean by "authoritative" is it's the first place I look for guidance, but not the only place.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here are some standard definitions:<BR/><BR/>1. Having or arising from authority; official.<BR/><BR/>2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable.<BR/><BR/>3. Wielding authority; commanding.<BR/><BR/>4. Having or arising from authority.<BR/><BR/>5. Worthy of belief, as because of precision or faithfulness to an original.<BR/><BR/>6. Serving the function of deciding or settling with finality.<BR/><BR/>7. Exercising authority.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'd say I mean 1, 2, 4 and sort of 5, and you mean 3, 6 and 7. But we both regard it as authoritative.<BR/><BR/>Now that *that's* settled ... LOLErudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-73419115775628773212009-03-06T14:53:00.000-06:002009-03-06T14:53:00.000-06:00ER, you forgot to mention that you, apparently, do...ER, you forgot to mention that you, apparently, don't get how Neil and I consider the Bible differently than you and yet are not guilty of being "bibliolators."<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you asked Neil to argue that Jesus taught something, but you forbade him from appealling to Paul's epistles or John's Gospel. And, of the remaining synoptic gospels, you recommended that Neil focus on Mark.<BR/><BR/>Why? The only logical answer is that, quite evidently, you don't think that the New Testament canon is authoritative. You even admit as much when you write that every single NT writer put words in Christ's mouth: "they all did."<BR/><BR/>John wrote that Jesus said X, and that's not sufficient for you to believe that Jesus said X.<BR/><BR/>By any reasonable standard, you do not hold to the Bible's authority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-52675012477516858222009-03-06T12:35:00.000-06:002009-03-06T12:35:00.000-06:00Neil, " I'll just go back to ignoring you."Yay! MA...Neil, " I'll just go back to ignoring you."<BR/><BR/>Yay! <BR/><BR/><BR/>MA and Mark: What I mean is this: If you insist that I believe in X, Y and Z -- for example, that Jesus walked on water, that scales literally fell from Paul's eyes, or that Jesus was born of a virgin -- none of that has anything to do with the kind of FAITH that means TRUST. It has to do with me agreeing with you that those three propositions, or any others, are factual, historical and accurate.<BR/><BR/>In other words, that has nothing to do with the will, which is involved in TRUSTING God, and everything to do with the intellect. You say, "Jesus walked on the water," I would say, "I agree," or "I assent." But who cares? That has nothing to do with trusting Christ, or trusting God through Christ.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bubba: It all boils down, again, to what one considers the Bible to be. You consider it to be one kind of thing, and I consider it to be another kind of thing. You don't get how I can consider it differently than you do and still consider it authoritative, and that's OK. I've tried previously to splain it. Uncle.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-25299225960063887592009-03-05T06:31:00.000-06:002009-03-05T06:31:00.000-06:00I think, though I'm not sure, that the term "assen...I think, though I'm not sure, that the term "assent to intellectuality" has to do with some idea that one can't understand the nature of God unless one is highly intelligent, an idea that has been propagated by pseudo-intellectuals because they want everyone to think they are somehow superior to the common folk because they are smarter than us, and are the only ones who can understand this so-called "nature of God" concept.<BR/><BR/>An idea which flies in the face of God's grace, really. <BR/><BR/>I don't believe there is any evidence that God intended only smart people to be granted salvation. In fact, in my experience, the most Godly people I have met often were some of the most simple, intellectually speaking.<BR/><BR/>It is possible, I believe, to overthink God. <BR/><BR/>He offered us (all people) the gift of eternal life, and all anyone has to do is accept the gift. We don't have to know diddly-squat about Him. And we certainly can't understand Him.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this might not have anything to do with the phrase "assent to intellectuality". Knowing ER no better than I do, I still don't believe he buys into all that "intellectuals being superior" crap.<BR/><BR/>I probably should just shut up and let ER hisself explain it.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-78872848282774265252009-03-04T23:28:00.000-06:002009-03-04T23:28:00.000-06:00ER,I'm not getting this "assent to intellectually"...ER,<BR/><BR/>I'm not getting this "assent to intellectually" comment. What do you mean by it? How can anyone NOT consider Christ on some intellectual level before assenting to any of what He said or preached? Are you suggesting some kind of unconscious assent, or perhaps stupidly assenting? Really, dude. I'm not getting it. 'Splain yourself.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-16496055718687613202009-03-04T21:45:00.000-06:002009-03-04T21:45:00.000-06:00ER, I think there are three things worth saying in...ER, I think there are three things worth saying in response to your willingness to discard or diminish the testimonies of John and Paul.<BR/><BR/>First, I think it's far worse for you to question the authority of Christ's hand-picked Apostles, than it is for any of us to question whether your beliefs fall outside of orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>Second, your unwillingness to trust as authoritative the Apostles' writings absolutely validates our suspicion that your beliefs really do fall outside of orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>Third, you have no business whatsoever accusing anyone else of idolatry: <BR/><BR/>"You worship, IF you worship at all, a made-up deity who lives only in your mind."<BR/><BR/>You pick-and-choose which passages of the New Testament are reliable. Rather than trust that they're presenting an accurate portrayal of what He taught, you presume that John and every other NT writer -- "they all did" -- put words in Christ's mouth. I suspect that what you discard as inauthentic interferes with your own ideas of Christianity, and I sincerely doubt that that's a coincidence.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You wrote that you're absolutely happy to be considered a heretic "if Neil -- OR Bubba -- are the measures of orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>But we're not, we don't claim to be, and it's obvious your problem isn't ultimately with Neil and me. It's with the authors of Scripture, to which we appeal.<BR/><BR/>Your problem, quite apparently, is with <B>Peter, James, John, and Paul.</B><BR/><BR/>Ultimately, I cannot see how your problem isn't also with Him who called these men to be His Apostles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-91655367403210480842009-03-04T21:20:00.000-06:002009-03-04T21:20:00.000-06:00"You should come to your own conclusions based on ..."You should come to your own conclusions based on your own thinking."<BR/><BR/>Already did. You have just lived in stereotype-land so long that you think you are the only one who has done that. Then again, you haven't admitted to making conclusions on the truth (even though you make them left and right then back off and call them "opinions").<BR/><BR/>"I also freely admit that trust scholars boldly seeking the truth more than anyone who unthinkingly defends their own version of it."<BR/><BR/>But that's just your opinion. You can't demonstrate that others aren't seeking the truth boldly and that they haven't found it. <BR/><BR/>"I believe -- hee hee -- that what I stated was an opinion, with which you may or may not agree. I try to avoid "truth claims.""<BR/><BR/>Oh, but of course! What a perfectly wimpy way to debate. I'll just go back to ignoring you. I don't mind alternate views, but once again your passive aggressiveness shines through. How come you're only honest when throwing tantrums?<BR/><BR/>"Oh, and you probably should stick to Matthew, Mark and Luke, and Mark more than the other two. I know what Paul said. What did Jesus say to believe?"<BR/><BR/>Cute game! Dismiss the Bible before it is even brought up. What a uniquely Christian thing to do. <BR/><BR/>Then again, no matter what we would provide you'd claim that we don't know if Jesus really said it, that someone put words in his mouth, etc. <BR/><BR/>XOXOXO,<BR/><BR/>NeilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com