Free
#39
And? Just what exactly is the problem with "paid professionals"? Are they to do these things for free
Nothing. If the point is to be like everyone else in the world. No record that Jesus worked during his ministry. God always supplied his need. Paul worked as a tentmaker, not because he had no faith, rather so that he wouldn't be beholden to anyone. Didn't seem to hinder his mission. I'm not against people who work full time on behalf of the congregation getting enough for their needs. Maybe a few luxuries now and again. So long as the luxuries don't get in the way of the service. But that kind of service isn't the same as professionals if you're honest about it. It's when these "paid professionals" try to make the Bible more complicated then it really is, and get paid more than what's necessary, that's when their true position in Christianity comes to the fore. And I'm long past belaboring the point with Christians who can't or won't see the difference.
As far as the "Scriptural proofs" you gave, anyone can interpret a bunch of verses to back up a point of view. It's what you think I'm doing because I can't help myself (everyone interprets). I think it's only fair to return the favor. Gay Christians are a case in point that should be obvious to you. What's not so obvious is that they didn't get the idea that interpreting the Bible is legitimate in a vacuum. Catholics have been doing it for centuries. Protestants are just following suit. Some trying to pass the buck think Paul is to blame.
What I wrote, I wrote specifically to Asyncritus. In hopes he would tone it down a bit. City Hall can't be fought short of a revolution. The Protestant Revolution failed. It became a part of City Hall. I don't think Asyncritus realizes that yet.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that nor implied it. You are understandably struggling with Scripture, as every single Christian does.
That's how it came across to me. This is a forum. I can only tell what you're thinking by the words you say. I can't see your body language behind it. If you want me to not misunderstand you, your going to have to stop saying things that I can only misunderstand.
I'm not struggling with Scripture. I'm struggling with an interpretation of Scripture. Big difference.
And don't call me Shirley, uh, Christian.
The problem is that you seem to not want to use all of the God-given means in your quest to understand.
I want to use all the God-given means just as you do. Where we disagree is the extent of that God-given means.
As an engineer (despite being retired), I hold you to a higher standard than most
I'm just a small town cop. Mostly I give out parking tickets.
You really should have the reasoning to be able to think clearly through these issues and see the irrationality of the arguments presented in the opening posts of this thread--they could have been written by Gail Riplinger.
Ah, Gail Riplinger, as his eyes gaze off at nothing in particular. When he came back to reality he remembered how he wasn't supposed to covet another man's wife.
Then he thought of Pastor Melissa Scott. Who is even more of a babe. A widowed babe. Possibilities, he thought. Disregarding the improbabilities.
I don't disagree with everything Gail Riplinger has to say. As it happens I prefer the Byzantine text to the Alexandrian text. I think I have sufficient reasons to do so. I also read modern translations. Shame, shame. And it's the war between the texts that started the whole thing. Now it's the war between the translations. I just think Gail takes things a little too far some times. But there are others who take them farther. Like those who try to rewrite history by saying the Septuagint was created after the New Testament was written so that it would conform to the New Testament.
Are you suggesting that those who disagree with you are "those who should hear" and those who happen to agree with you are "those who...don't need it"? Do you see how spiritually proud and arrogant that would make you sound?
Take it in whatever way makes you comfortable. I have to question why you, who thinks a case can be made for thinking that anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is God is not saved, should now think I could be spiritually proud. You should take into consideration where I'm coming from. That I think Christianity is a religion that has little to do with the Bible as written. From that perspective, no arrogance is implied.
And, as I have pointed out previously, the same can be said about you and Asyncritus. Not only do you largely reject scholars and theologians, which is an entirely unbiblical and irrational position, you then set yourselves up as judges of them and then do the very same things that you accuse them of doing.
What you say you can't justify. I know you look at others with a critical eye.
You've certainly misunderstood my position on scholars and theologians. Some of my best friends are Christian scholars and theologians. We're on the same wavelength experientially. And that's one good thing about scholars and theologians. They can reach other educated people with whatever ideas they might have. Including the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One of them started me on this journey.
I go to them frequently for information. I understand a little Greek and no Hebrew, and I can learn from them. I go to them when I want to know what a particular denomination believes about a doctrine. I've even presented my problem with the Trinity. But they really have no more of an answer than you. Quoting a bunch of scripture and interpreting them to conform to Trinitarianism is no answer so far as I'm concerned. I'm savvy enough to know they can just as easily be interpreted another way. If interpretation is all that counts. Then all it becomes is a battle for the ultimate state of control.
Who are you referring to as "extremists"?
You for one. How do you feel about that?
Jesse Stone said:
↑
The God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is said to be compassionate, gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. That he doesn't want anyone to perish.
Free replied:
That is true, and yet that same God is also judge, and has judged many to their utter ruin and destruction. There are numerous passages on this, both in the OT and NT.
Do you think God judges apart from the attributes I mentioned? Or judges when there is no need? Do you think God prefers to judge and only exercises the attributes I mentioned when he has to? I should hope not.
And yet by rejecting theologians and scholars, are you and Asyncritus not being more closed-minded then most?
They are rejected within a criteria. Authoritative paid Professionals and Scholars are necessary among those who only have themselves to look to. It's what works for them. Unless what Paul says about the Spirit indwelling believers is false, that shouldn't be the same with believers. To Jesus and Paul, the Old Testament was the authority. Not those who interpreted it. For the Christian, the Bible includes the New Testament. This new Bible should be the only authority just as the Old Testament was intended to be. But was not because of the interpreters. Jesus consistently came down on those who would make the doctrine of God into the doctrine of men through their interpretations.
You are right and everyone else is wrong.
I don't see you taking a milksop position. Why do you think I should?
Please understand, I am only saying these things to get you to think through the issues thoroughly. If I have misunderstood something you said, please let me know.
Same here. And you thought I say things just to hear myself talk.
You've pretty much misunderstood everything I said. But I don't see how it could have been otherwise. Maybe Asyncritus will too. And he was the one I wrote to.
Education as a tool is not a bad thing. We can read the Bible because of it. The admiration of education, on the other hand, leads to problems. Like thinking Evolution is a factual theory. In Christianity it has lead to a usurpation of the Bible. Wherein the Bible has less authority as a writing than the interpretations of scholars. Martin Luther with the Lutheran Churches is only one example for Protestantism of what has been going on in Catholicism for centuries. And the more time passes, the more I think it has led Christianity to make a doctrine a primary essential doctrine that it shouldn't have.
