Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Beware of circular reasoning!

We're speaking of unbelievers Jason.
They don't care about the Trinity.
First they have to believe that God exists.
Right?
Which God ,and well myself my family are Jews .

Prove that jewry is wrong without the bible .?

Then also jw ,Mormon,Muslim .
Never assume that they are athiests ,they can be a theist ,diest too .

Jews believe God is a father to them ,they will deny Jesus is two things ,the Messiah and the son of God .

Never mind which son of David,Ben Joseph ,Ben David . Bury a few and learn all graves will say son or daughter of Jacob on the head stones so that the Messiah can find them and raise them from the dead and take them to Israel .
 
Which God ,and well myself my family are Jews .

Prove that jewry is wrong without the bible .?

Then also jw ,Mormon,Muslim .
Never assume that they are athiests ,they can be a theist ,diest too .

Jews believe God is a father to them ,they will deny Jesus is two things ,the Messiah and the son of God .

Never mind which son of David,Ben Joseph ,Ben David . Bury a few and learn all graves will say son or daughter of Jacob on the head stones so that the Messiah can find them and raise them from the dead and take them to Israel .
You're speaking of believers.

Different topic.
 
You're speaking of believers.

Different topic.
Jews aren't saved ,neither is a jw.

Otherwise Jesus lied about it all .

Look my county has

Universalism,Mormons ,Muslims,the pulse night club Muslim attended the white city mosque which is but twenty minutes south .I worked with a Muslim . I read meters at the mormon hall
 
Jews aren't saved ,neither is a jw.

Otherwise Jesus lied about it all .

Look my county has

Universalism,Mormons ,Muslims,the pulse night club Muslim attended the white city mosque which is but twenty minutes south .I worked with a Muslim . I read meters at the mormon hall
God only can judge who is saved.
 
God only can judge who is saved.
In other words I'm saved if I believe that my Dog is my creator .

John 3 it says he doesn't believe in me is damned already .Jesus said you must believe He died for your sins .

Jews deny that ,Muslims don't
Mormons says Jesus is Satan brother
Jw believe that but deny that Jesus is God .

If we can't start with the truth we believe to be true which we can't logically poke God in touch him ,hear him etc in a scientific manner then why bother
 
In other words I'm saved if I believe that my Dog is my creator .

John 3 it says he doesn't believe in me is damned already .Jesus said you must believe He died for your sins .

Jews deny that ,Muslims don't
Mormons says Jesus is Satan brother
Jw believe that but deny that Jesus is God .

If we can't start with the truth we believe to be true which we can't logically poke God in touch him ,hear him etc in a scientific manner then why bother
You're declaring who is saved and who isn't.
God will decide who is saved.
I don't know how we got here,
But we're derailing.

:topic
 
You're declaring who is saved and who isn't.
God will decide who is saved.
I don't know how we got here,
But we're derailing.

:topic
I'm claiming .

Look I was a jw.

My sister still is .gee if I was saved then why do I need Jesus ?

Stating the bible truths about the nature of God

You call athiests sinners .

No difference
 
??? That others get things wrong about the truth doesn't preclude one from being confident in one's own knowledge of the truth. How is it that you are able to recognize the mistakes in the two perspectives you describe above? Have you had 1500 years of walking with God and Bible study? No.

For centuries, the common belief was that the sun revolved around the earth. You know better, though, right? You know something of the orbits of the planets of our solar system around the sun, I'm sure. But you haven't had centuries of study concerning the matter, have you? Surely, then, you can see how silly your objection is here.

In half-an-hour's time of instruction, the average elementary school student today can know more of the solar system than any person living a thousand years ago. Compared to an astrophysicist of today, however, that fifth-grader would have an extremely superficial grasp on the nature of the solar system. The modern astrophysicist could say without any hubris at all that his knowledge of the solar system is far, far greater than both the scientist of a thousand years ago and the elementary school student of today. He would be an idiot to think to himself, "Ancient scientists were wrong for centuries about the solar system. Who am I to think I know better than generations of mistaken medieval scholars?" Of course, he knows better. He's the beneficiary of centuries of thought, experimentation and increasingly advanced mechanical study of the universe (telescopes, light-spectrum analysis devices, atomic colliders, space probes, etc.). He would also be an idiot to think that describing a modern child as "ignorant" about the solar system, in comparison to himself, was hubris. Obviously, the average professional astrophysicist today knows a great deal more than any modern fifth-grader could know about the solar system. It isn't pride to acknowledge this, but the simple fact of the matter.
Here’s the problem, sir. Nowadays most people are educated in cosmology, it’s common knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, nobody continues to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, this has been debunked by science; however, the two perspectives in my example are still common beliefs among Jews and Catholics. I once had a discussion with a guy recently, he stealthily slipped evolution into the creation account by claiming there were two, God created a group of primitive males and females first, then Adam and Eve specially in the Garden, and then he pointed out that plants and animals in the garden were created after Adam, not before, and used that as a proof to back his claim.There’re plenty of knowledgeable and faithful Christians hold on to such erroneous beliefs. Therefore you drew a wrong comparison, those two perspectives I described are contemporary, not ancient as you think.
 
If the doctorate-level nuclear physicist knows nothing of the Bible he is ignorant of it. It doesn't matter how much he knows of nuclear physics if he proposes to hold forth on Scripture about which he knows nothing. If he is ignorant of the Bible, he should keep his mouth shut about it until he has improved his knowledge of the Bible. The fact that he has a doctorate in nuclear physics doesn't make him the equal of the Bible scholar (nor does the seminarian stand on equal footing with the physicist in the realm of nuclear physics). Only in his own specialized domain of knowledge is the nuclear physicist an expert. So, the Bible scholar is entirely right to describe the physicist as ignorant when the physicist attempts to assert something about the Bible about which he knows nothing. The same would be true if the Bible scholar, knowing nothing of nuclear physics, attempted to expound on the subject.
Sir, with respect, you're justifying your ad hominem attack of calling other people ignorance. Your description and explanation of "ignorance" is not a fair assessment of the other one's lack of knowledge, but contempt. You think they're inferior, they're beneath you, they're not qualified to talk with you and express their opinion on faith because they're not a bible scholar, they didn't have decades of walk with God like you. If such a physicist shares his testimony of Christ with you from the perspective of his own domain, about how he saw God's fingerprints and marvelous work through his studies and discoveries, his perspective may greatly differ from yours, and some jargons he uses may sound like total nonsense to you, are you gonna listen to him and rejoice with him? Or lecture on him?
What the Pharisees lacked was fidelity to God, a love for Him. They loved themselves; they cherished their positions of authority and the attention and deference accorded to them in those positions. In this respect, they were spiritually blind. But they weren't, as you say, ignorant - lacking knowledge - of Jewish law, adding many of their own "laws" to it.
Those pharisees knew a lot ABOUT God, but they didn't know God. Many Christians today don't know the difference and they repeat the same mistake, they know a lot ABOUT Jesus, but they don't really know Jesus, their abundant knowledge puffs them up and blinds them spiritually.

??? If I give testimony to something, I am expressing knowledge about it - unless its false testimony.
Not sure what your point is here... To what are the witnesses, witnesses? What knowledge do they have that qualifies them to be true witnesses of whatever they're witnessing about?

In any case, I've not said one must be a seminary graduate in order to know Christ well and testify of him.
Since you're so knowledgeable in the bible, why don't you enlighten me about the qualification of these witnesses? "Testimony of Christ" in Rev. 12:17 is not necessarily biblical knowledge about Jesus as you suggest, it is necessarily a piece of truthful information about personal encounter with Jesus.
All truth is God's truth, whether it is located in a chemistry text, or a text on geography, or in the Bible. In expressing spiritual truth the Bible has no equal; but it is a poor source of truth concerning mechanical engineering, or how to make a chocolate cake, or how to change out the spark plug on a lawnmower. So, no, I don't think the Bible is "superior over all other knowledge" except in regards to things spiritual and eternal.
But if I'm speaking with someone who is entirely ignorant of the Bible, or nearly so, from them I will learn nothing about the Bible. This was my point, not that, having studied the Bible for a long time, there is nothing more to learn from any other domain of knowledge.
This is the attitude of arrogance I'm warning you about. Are you sure you know all the prophecies, which count for as much as a third of the bible? These prophecies are usually not taught in any seminaries and seldomly preached from any pulpit, because they causes a lot of divisions and raises wild speculations. Historically, these prophecies are usually ignored or "spiritualized" to fit into certain denominational doctrines. We'll never get to know what they truly mean until these prophetic events unfold before our eyes. And don't take my word for it, think about the disciples who literally walked with the Lord during his whole ministry, and yet they were still clueless and ignorant about the Lord's death, burial, resurrection and ascension until these events came to pass.
Absolutely and confidently, I call them ignorant. Not because I'm vain or proud, but because I am sure I know the truth better than they did (or do). Like the modern astrophysicist, I'm the beneficiary of two thousand years of thought and investigation (into the meaning of Scripture, in my case) and have access to language lexicons, commentaries, historians, exhaustive theological debates, well-established interpretive hermeneutics and, most of all, the Holy Spirit himself in my decades-long study of God's word. And I call ignorant, too, the new believer who has little to no knowledge of the Bible - especially when/if they attempt to inform others of its contents.
If you call them ignorant, then you're already vain and proud, don't bother to make any excuses. You compare those two contemporary myths due to misunderstanding of the bible with an ancient myth due to misunderstanding of astronomy, that's like comparing apples and oranges, it's invalid. In fact, there're lots of heresies that have plagued the church - replacement theology, amillenialism, "puff" disappeance rapture, hyper grace, universalism, "sinless perfection", just to name a few popular ones, are you sure you're clean from all of these, especially replacement theology, that the gentile church is the new spiritual Israel?
 
Last edited:
Which God ,and well myself my family are Jews .

Prove that jewry is wrong without the bible .?

Then also jw ,Mormon,Muslim .
Never assume that they are athiests ,they can be a theist ,diest too .

Jews believe God is a father to them ,they will deny Jesus is two things ,the Messiah and the son of God .

Never mind which son of David,Ben Joseph ,Ben David . Bury a few and learn all graves will say son or daughter of Jacob on the head stones so that the Messiah can find them and raise them from the dead and take them to Israel .
I respect you, sir, despite our differences. I believe you guys are God's chosen people, bound by the Abrahamic covenant to eternity. I'm really worried about your guys' safety and wellbeing in light of the October 7 surprise attack and the following onslaught antisemetic movements all around the globe, how are you doing in the midst of this maelstrom? Is everything OK?
 
I respect you, sir, despite our differences. I believe you guys are God's chosen people, bound by the Abrahamic covenant to eternity. I'm really worried about your guys' safety and wellbeing in light of the October 7 surprise attack and the following onslaught antisemetic movements all around the globe, how are you doing in the midst of this maelstrom? Is everything OK?
My ancestry is Jewish . I have a cousin who has cousins in the idf .

I'm not a Jew in the way I see God .

If you ever go to Savannah,ga there you will find my surname ,Cranman Dr or Miami ,Cranman Blvd .named for my uncle in Dade county .
 
??? I'm not upset in the slightest. Maybe you're projecting a bit here...
Oh? Where did I indicate this in my remarks to you in this thread?

I actually have no idea what knowledge you prefer and so have no set opinion on the matter.
I have no preference or bias regarding domains of knowledge like you do - "having studied the Bible for a long time, there is nothing more to learn from any other domain of knowledge." Nothing more to learn? Really? Then why did Jesus, the author of all knowledge, listened to rabbis and asking them questions in Jerusalem for three days (Lk. 2:41-50)? How did he know so much about agriculture, construction, finance and used those as teaching tools?
I suspect I have had over the years a greater experience with "multiple perspectives" than you've had. I've been writing, and studying, and interacting with folks from across a very wide spectrum of belief for decades now (atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Daoists, New Agers, Satanists, pagans, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, etc.). How about you?
Maybe not as wide a spectrum of belief as yours, I'll give you that, but I don't call any of those folks ignorant, because I know that God values attitude and action more than knowledge and credentials.

Well, if this is the basis for your argument against my assertion, then it excludes you from comment one way or the other, too. You weren't there either, so you're prevented from saying what they felt, or did not, also.

At least, I can support my thinking from the account of the event in Acts where no mention is made of any sensation when the "tongues of flame" hovered above the disciples. My view is entirely consistent with the description of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples, not adding to it, as you're trying to do.
Nope. Only the disciples who had been in the upper room and had received the Holy Spirit were preaching the Gospel, not the 3000 who were saved as a result of their doing so. And the "tongues" they spoke were not the mindless gibberish of modern hyper-charismatics but discernible languages of the people of various cultures and tongues who were in the street:
??? This is bizarre. Read the actual, biblical account before you make such fantastical assertions about it. There is no mention at all in the account of a "vibe" of the Holy Spirit, a sensation of invasion (whatever this means), only the sight of "tongues as of fire" (which is to say, not of actual fire, but only in some way like fire), and a noise like a "rushing, mighty wind." Though the account takes the trouble to describe these sights and sounds, it records nothing of sensations, or "vibes." Nothing. Why, when these other things are described are these other, powerful sensations not described? Obviously, it seems to me, because there were no such sensations.
You're diminishing it to a sermon service and you asserted that mere words could win hearts and souls, that was your original argument which I refute. This Pentecost was a milestone, a significant prophetic event, the fulfillment of God's feast of weeks. In fact, these 3000 pilgrims gathered together on that specific holiday at that specific place, and they were all baptized by the Holy Spirit, that by and of itself was a miracle, regardless of what they said or heard afterwards.

Actually, the "vibe" and "invasion" of the Holy Spirit is just another expression of the noise like a "rushing, mighty wind", I'm giving you an honest report, and I understand what those people were saying. I wasn't at that Pentecost, but I was at that specific church service, that wasn't an assertion, I didn't make that up. You think that's bizarre and you accuse me of adding things because you have a closed mind.
Not more annoying, I think, than having someone make false assertions about what one has written.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
"Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
And where in this quotation do I ask for persecution, censorship, de-platforming etc., as you warned me not to do? Nowhere. I simply pointed out that persecution will be the means God uses, as He has repeatedly in the past, to purify and strengthen His people. No request made.
Absolutely, the modern Church deserves God's sharp reprimand. It is, at least in the West, generally horribly corrupt, weak and ignorant of His truth. There are some exceptions, of course.
You have answered your own question.
??? I don't operate on the basis of what you want or don't want to be reminded of in forming my remarks. If I think it's worth writing, I'm going to write it.
So am I, sir, without triads of question marks. And FYI, I'm not really annoyed, and I don't take it personally, because I've noticed that you often reply to other people's posts in the same manner.
Are you implying that I'm not?
Yes.
The very idea of spiritual maturity, at least in my view, entails the absence of doubt and confusion about God and His truth. It is the spiritually immature person who still struggles with doubt and confusion about these things. God is a Person with whom I interact every day and this direct, personal experience of Him, of His Spirit, more particularly, eradicates doubt. So long, though, as God remains merely a proposition, an idea, a distant, untouchable figure, just a set of doctrines, the deep confidence in Him (and spiritual maturity) that comes from fellowship with Him will remain absent. When, then, I encounter a believer who is wrestling with doubts about God, I know they have yet to come into consistent, transformative, personal experience of Him; for only in fellowship with God, in daily, intimate communion with Him, do doubts and confusion about Him finally and fully dissolve.
No it doesn't, not always. Doubts and confusions naturally occur, you wouldn't have had any need to interact with God or study the bible if you really had no doubt or confusion. You think that's spiritual maturity, I see it as pride and arrogance. Moreover, I don't usually struggle with my own doubt and confusion, I trust in God as I believe His Holy Spirit will lead me to the answers I seek; I struggle with other people's doubt and confusion, I struggle with the entire civilization's doubt and confusion, there're so many people, some close friends whom I used to respect, support and adore have gone astray due to their doubt and confusion, it feels like betrayal, a tremendous loss, you'd never understand this whn you're on top of your high horse.
 
We're speaking of unbelievers Jason.
They don't care about the Trinity.
First they have to believe that God exists.
Right?
Hey All,
I have thought about this.
How can we explain that God exists apart from the Bible?
Creation and consciousness are the obvious two, as Paul pointed out in Romans 1.
Then you can look at the last couple of chapters of Job, as he is questioned by God.
Without telling the unbeliever where they are from, let them try to answer them.
But these are not completely apart. After consideration, let's do Romans 1 using secular terms.

Creation
Science exists because of the immateriable.
The universe follows a uniform, and measurable order. Mankind did not create the order. But we did/do observe it, and created the mathematics to measure, or define, it. We created numbers as the language of mathematics. One plus one cause two.

The universe also has physical laws. Again immaterial, but present. We did not cause the phenomenon of motion, gravity, etc.: But we can observe them, and difine them. We develop formulas, the language of physics, to explain them. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom cause a water molecule.

Laws are not random. There is even a law for chaos.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
by Edward Lorenz

From whom, or where, did these laws originate? They, the immaterial phenomena, are not man-made, just observable and definable.

Science is then, at its core, an admission that the immaterial exists.

Creation, then, in scientific terms, is observable. Definitions - theories, as to how the universe began, may vary. But the observable fact is that it did begin.

Nothing then something.

Consciousness
There is, within mankind, from ancient civilizations, to present day, a collective need to worship something. It is observable and definable. The immaterable (need to worship), needed by the material (humanity). It is cultural, and at the same time, expands culture. Aborigines, Native Americans, the Incas, all cultures appart from, and unaware of each other, shared/share this common need.

Some worship material things like money, objects, themselves, and/or others. Some worship immaterial things like lust, fame or power.
Atheists worship an empty immaterial. Agnostics acknowledge the immaterial, but leave it undefined. They worship ignorance.
Still others worship the immaterial, maybe by different names - Wakan Tanka of the Sioux tribes for example, but some type of intelligence greater than themselves.
But collectively, the need of mankind to worship exists.

Why?
Where there is a need, there is a cause for that need.
From where, or whom, does this collective need to worship come from?

If something is observable, and definable, we can theorise a cause.

Could it be that the immaterial - greater intelligence - has left its mark on the material?
Is it not the responsibility of the material - humanity - to then try to observe, and define that greater intelligence?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
 
Hey All,
I have thought about this.
How can we explain that God exists apart from the Bible?
Creation and consciousness are the obvious two, as Paul pointed out in Romans 1.
Then you can look at the last couple of chapters of Job, as he is questioned by God.
Without telling the unbeliever where they are from, let them try to answer them.
But these are not completely apart. After consideration, let's do Romans 1 using secular terms.

Creation
Science exists because of the immateriable.
The universe follows a uniform, and measurable order. Mankind did not create the order. But we did/do observe it, and created the mathematics to measure, or define, it. We created numbers as the language of mathematics. One plus one cause two.

The universe also has physical laws. Again immaterial, but present. We did not cause the phenomenon of motion, gravity, etc.: But we can observe them, and difine them. We develop formulas, the language of physics, to explain them. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom cause a water molecule.

Laws are not random. There is even a law for chaos.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
by Edward Lorenz

From whom, or where, did these laws originate? They, the immaterial phenomena, are not man-made, just observable and definable.

Science is then, at its core, an admission that the immaterial exists.

Creation, then, in scientific terms, is observable. Definitions - theories, as to how the universe began, may vary. But the observable fact is that it did begin.

Nothing then something.

Consciousness
There is, within mankind, from ancient civilizations, to present day, a collective need to worship something. It is observable and definable. The immaterable (need to worship), needed by the material (humanity). It is cultural, and at the same time, expands culture. Aborigines, Native Americans, the Incas, all cultures appart from, and unaware of each other, shared/share this common need.

Some worship material things like money, objects, themselves, and/or others. Some worship immaterial things like lust, fame or power.
Atheists worship an empty immaterial. Agnostics acknowledge the immaterial, but leave it undefined. They worship ignorance.
Still others worship the immaterial, maybe by different names - Wakan Tanka of the Sioux tribes for example, but some type of intelligence greater than themselves.
But collectively, the need of mankind to worship exists.

Why?
Where there is a need, there is a cause for that need.
From where, or whom, does this collective need to worship come from?

If something is observable, and definable, we can theorise a cause.

Could it be that the immaterial - greater intelligence - has left its mark on the material?
Is it not the responsibility of the material - humanity - to then try to observe, and define that greater intelligence?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
Thanks for your philosophical thoughts. I'd add that creation is NOT just about the origin of the world as we usually think, when this term, "creation" is brought up, we often automatically compartmentalize it into this "creationism" "intelletual design" "worldview" section, but it goes far beyond that. No matter how the universe came into being, it was ancient history, it was distant from us and irrelevant to our lives; however, if we are made in God's image, then this creation is part of our inheritage, it's part of our character. Since God is the Creator and he's identified by his creation, our creativity and originality can be traced back to God. A lot of animals can USE tools, but only human can MAKE tools, we're toolbuilders, we're gifted to draw inspiration from Him and invent new things that didn't exist before. Satan can counterfeit everything, at the end he will counterfeit the holy trinity (Satan, the Sea Beast and the Land Beast), which will deceive the whole world, the only thing he's not able to pull off is creation. And this aspect is reflected in our own lives and society. You know why modern art is so grotesque, so full of abominations? Why is there scarcely any new idea in art, music, films and literature? Why is everything in decline and chaos? The answer simple - apostasy, the falling away. When you fall away from God, you fall away from that inheritage of creativity, your mind's just dried up, you can only regurgitate the old things, there's nothing new coming out, no matter how long and how hard you brainstorm. That's what happened to those entertainment industries I just mentioned, they're more or less reduced to widget factories.
 
Last edited:
There’re plenty of knowledgeable and faithful Christians hold on to such erroneous beliefs. Therefore you drew a wrong comparison, those two perspectives I described are contemporary, not ancient as you think.

You're deflecting/missing my point. Please read my posts more carefully.

Whether or not people hold today to ancient mistaken notions about the Bible, if they are lacking knowledge on a subject upon which they are attempting to hold forth, they are correctly described as ignorant.

Sir, with respect, you're justifying your ad hominem attack of calling other people ignorance.

Nope. I'm simply accurately describing an actual state-of-affairs in the ignorant person's knowledge base.

You seem to be confusing the colloquially-pejorative sense in which "ignorant" is used that conveys the sense of stupidity and/or rudeness with the term's more formal definition: Lacking knowledge. I'm using the latter definition, not the former in describing a person as ignorant. As such, the description is not an ad hominem when it accurately describes the level of knowledge a person has on a particular subject.

Your description and explanation of "ignorance" is not a fair assessment of the other one's lack of knowledge, but contempt. You think they're inferior, they're beneath you, they're not qualified to talk with you and express their opinion on faith because they're not a bible scholar, they didn't have decades of walk with God like you.

If a person lacks knowledge on a particular subject, then, on that subject, they are ignorant. This is the simple fact of the matter, which fact cares not at all for what you might feel about it.

At no time in describing a person who lacks knowledge have I ever said that they are themselves "inferior" or "beneath me." Their level of knowledge might be inferior, but this doesn't make the person, as a person, inferior. Obviously. Why, then, are you ascribing this thinking to me when it is not at all in evidence in what I've written? Again, it looks to me very much like you're projecting here, jumping to unwarranted conclusions on the basis of your own personal sensitivities rather than on the actual content of my posts.

As well, I've never said an ignorant person can't express their opinion in conversation with me, only that they ought to refrain from making comment from ignorance. What I think folk entirely ignorant of the Bible ought to do and what they are free to do (and do often, unfortunately) are two very different things. In any case, I've had countless discussions online with very biblically-ignorant people, so the fact that they are unqualified by their ignorance to talk with me about the Bible has been no barrier to these discussions. Usually, though, they end up just exposing the depth of their ignorance, which isn't much fun for them. This is, though, what happens when one wants to talk on matters about which they know almost nothing.

If such a physicist shares his testimony of Christ with you from the perspective of his own domain, about how he saw God's fingerprints and marvelous work through his studies and discoveries, his perspective may greatly differ from yours, and some jargons he uses may sound like total nonsense to you, are you gonna listen to him and rejoice with him? Or lecture on him?

I think our exchange in this thread ought to give you some idea what I'd do.

Anyway, nothing of what you describe above of what the hypothetical physicist says makes any knowledge claim concerning the contents of the Bible. If he wants to explain what prompted him to move toward Christ, great! But if he wants to add that he thinks Jesus wasn't really God-in-the-flesh and that the Bible says so, well, that's when our difference in Bible knowledge will kick in and make things...awkward for the physicist.

Many Christians today don't know the difference and they repeat the same mistake, they know a lot ABOUT Jesus, but they don't really know Jesus, their abundant knowledge puffs them up and blinds them spiritually.

Yup. Sometimes, though, it's the immature believer, full of Self and pride, unwilling to acknowledge their immaturity and corresponding ignorance, who is puffed up and profoundly spiritually-blind. I've met more of these than the sort you've described above.

Since you're so knowledgeable in the bible, why don't you enlighten me about the qualification of these witnesses?

Well, simply study a bit about epistemology. Learn something of the basics of logic. Bone up on interpretive hermeneutics. Doing so will satisfy your request more fully than I'm willing to do typing in this thread in my spare time.

This is the attitude of arrogance I'm warning you about.

It seems to me that, of the two of us, you have more cause to heed your warning, here. It's not only knowledge that puffs up.

If you call them ignorant, then you're already vain and proud, don't bother to make any excuses.

It's...interesting that you do here - and earlier - the very thing you were clamoring against: Ad hominem. Funny how it's okay for you to attack the man while you criticize another for doing so.

Regardless, I'm not vain and proud, only factual. I make no excuses for being so.

In fact, there're lots of heresies that have plagued the church - replacement theology, amillenialism, "puff" disappeance rapture, hyper grace, universalism, "sinless perfection", just to name a few popular ones, are you sure you're clean from all of these, especially replacement theology, that the gentile church is the new spiritual Israel?

Are you now the Final Arbiter of these perspectives on prophecy, soteriology, the nation of Israel and the Church, etc.? I'm sure the amillenialist wouldn't appreciate you calling their viewpoint "heresy." Nor would those who hold to the Secret Rapture view. In any case, I'm not taking the red herrings you're offering.

Continued below.
 
I have no preference or bias regarding domains of knowledge like you do - "having studied the Bible for a long time, there is nothing more to learn from any other domain of knowledge." Nothing more to learn? Really?

Wow. Not only are you hypocritical about ad hominem attacks, but now you're misquoting me!

What I actually wrote was:

"But if I'm speaking with someone who is entirely ignorant of the Bible, or nearly so, from them I will learn nothing about the Bible. This was my point, not that, having studied the Bible for a long time, there is nothing more to learn from any other domain of knowledge."

Your misquote above made it seem I wrote the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. Note the enlarged and bolded word in the quotation above that indicates the opposite of your misquote and accompanying rhetorical question.

Maybe not as wide a spectrum of belief as yours, I'll give you that, but I don't call any of those folks ignorant, because I know that God values attitude and action more than knowledge and credentials.

See? You just aren't actually understanding what I'm writing to you. Noting a person's lack of knowledge - their ignorance - on some subject, does not equate to deriding them. Are you twelve years old? Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

You're diminishing it to a sermon service and you asserted that mere words could win hearts and souls, that was your original argument which I refute.

Well, if you hope to, you'll have to use some other portion of Scripture because Acts 2 doesn't help your case any.

And no, I'm not guilty of your Strawman of my remarks on the chapter.

Actually, the "vibe" and "invasion" of the Holy Spirit is just another expression of the noise like a "rushing, mighty wind", I'm giving you an honest report, and I understand what those people were saying. I wasn't at that Pentecost, but I was at that specific church service, that wasn't an assertion, I didn't make that up. You think that's bizarre and you accuse me of adding things because you have a closed mind.

*Sigh* Just more ad hominem...

The account in Acts 2 says what it says. And what it says mentions nothing but what I've pointed out. I'm not being "closeminded" in pointing this out, but merely careful with the text of Scripture - as you should be.

Also, I never said you "made up" anything about a church service you attended. And what I found "bizarre" wasn't this service you attended (though, it might have been), but that you would attempt to make a parallel between it and what happened in Acts 2, though the account in Acts 2 offers nothing about a "vibe" or a sense of "invasion" by the Spirit who "permeated" the room.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
"Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

Pot and kettle, fella. Pot and kettle.

You have answered your own question.

Do I ask for anything in this quotation, as you asserted that I did? Nope. I simply stated a biblical point of view.

So am I, sir, without triads of question marks. And FYI, I'm not really annoyed, and I don't take it personally, because I've noticed that you often reply to other people's posts in the same manner.

Yup.


More ad hominem, then. Well, at least you're consistent in this...

No it doesn't, not always. Doubts and confusions naturally occur, you wouldn't have had any need to interact with God or study the bible if you really had no doubt or confusion.

I never wrote that doubt and confusion never occur, only that, when they do, they signal the need for further spiritual growth. It is true that, by means of doubt, God will prompt His children to investigate Him and His truth further, more deeply. But this is to the end of eradicating doubt and confusion. A perennially doubting and confused Christian hasn't met with God in consistent, daily fellowship; for if they had, that fellowship would have dissolved their doubts and confusion. And this lack of consistent, daily fellowship with God is always a mark of spiritual immaturity.

You think that's spiritual maturity, I see it as pride and arrogance.

You think that a settled confidence in God and His truth is "pride and arrogance"? This says a great deal about where you're at with Him...

I struggle with other people's doubt and confusion, I struggle with the entire civilization's doubt and confusion, there're so many people, some close friends whom I used to respect, support and adore have gone astray due to their doubt and confusion, it feels like betrayal, a tremendous loss, you'd never understand this whn you're on top of your high horse.

And...more ad hominem. Clearly, if anyone's astride a "high horse," it's you. Goodness. It's always amazing to me how the thing of which a person is most glaringly guilty is the thing they're quickest to criticize in others (whether it's there or not).

You have no idea of the content of my life as a believer, not the slightest hint of what has transpired in my life. And yet, from your vantage point atop your high horse, you seem to think you see the full scope of my life and thought. What was that you were saying about hubris and arrogance? You might want to prayerfully ponder Romans 2:17-24. It applies as well to Gentiles of today as to the Jews of Paul's time.
 
Ignorant is many times, these days, used in a peggiorative manner and is understood by some to have the same meaning as the word Stupid.

Ignorant simply means not being informed of a subject matter.

No insult is intended.
 
Ignorant is many times, these days, used in a peggiorative manner and is understood by some to have the same meaning as the word Stupid.

Ignorant simply means not being informed of a subject matter.

No insult is intended.
Whichever meaning you prefer, one thing is for sure - ignorance is NOT strength.
 
Back
Top