Coolhand

The Jews died because Hitler had them killed. We need to pray about your father, that is not over, it is not time to give up.

No assumptions being made on my part Pete; just simply reading the text. The whole text. The proof of my point, is the text itself Pete. Liberal and fundamentism are irrelevant to this point, this point is purely based on reading. You seem to be upset that you cannot squish this into a specific form.

God did create something He knew would fail, and He did it on purpose, evidenced by His name the "LORD God" (meaning, the creator redeemer). I did not say evil started at any point it time but rather that we start with the presupposition that evil exists. God allowed evil to continue to happen on purpose, but not through His effort: it came through the efforts of His creation; and He knew it would happen. God acts on behalf those who do not reject Him; as He says He would and He repeats over, and over, and over in the Bible. Just like the harvest examples given all through Scripture state: when the fruit is ripe, then comes the harvest. The same applies to evil.

Go back to page 10. You seem to be arguing now a different point than what I was making in that discussion. My argument was what YHWH said that quote that you said was your favorite verse. The point was not who we are two walk with, but rather that it was a command of YHWH. I was using the NIV which says: 8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mic 6:8. The NIV follows the Hebrew text perfectly by the way.

Compare the law to the laws surrounding nations, that should clear that up for you. I think many of the philosophers of the enlightenment era and on to today are looking for a way to throw off religion and establish their own rules for mankind based on their own limited understanding. That is sinister to me, yes. This brand of thinking is not freer at all, it further places man into bondage. Do you think it would be more effective for Paul to appraoch Gentiles as a Pharisee? Or as a Roman citizen? What about the Jews, do you think he would be more fruitfull approaching them as a member of the tribe of Benjamin? Or as a Roman citizen? It makes perfect sense. Well ask the questions Pete. The reason I show up here is for discussion. The only character clash we have is when you insult my chartacter; which is uncalled for.

Hmmm something wrong here, should say: "however there are enough name switches, variant readings, and numbering descrepancies to say it is not without error.

I told you from the start Pete, I do not like discussing Scripture with you. Now you are insinuating I would somehow lie to avoid being wrong. I guess this means you have run out of meaningful comments and now you have to attack character. How is that liberal? The Bible does not need me to take up a defence for it; it has done just fine for thousands of years. I will make sure it gets a fair trial however, comparing apples with apples. Infallible means that it cannot fail. Innerracny means it is without error. I have never seen its teachings fail, however there are enough name switches, variant readings, and numbering descrepancies to say it is without error. The way you approach innerrancy Pete has you stuck in the trap that the enlightenment philosophers hoped to trap you in.

Ok Pete, if women were not to speak in all for the congregations why did Paul then not mention it to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Colosians, the Philliians, and the Thessalonians? Another interesting point is this verse: 26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 14:26-27. Brothers (adelphoi) has the connotation of male and female, opposed to adelphos which would be just male. And here it is saying that everyone is to have a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, etc. This can certainly be complicated beyond any usefullness. Women are supposed to come with a song, a teaching, a revelation, and tongue but no questions......lol. Do you see my point though Pete?

Apparently to you "inspired," "infallible," and "inerrant" all mean the same thing. It is interesting that you are trying to push inerrancy by quoting statements that none of which contain the word "inerrant." A little more of that sloppy agape I guess. Simply put my position on this is that: (a) the Bible was written under the inspiration of God and therefore it is inspired; (b) the Bible has proven itself to be infallible in every area that I have applied its teaching, and I have never been let down by following all that it teaches and therefore it is infallible; © inerrancy is based on the assertion that the original texts are free from error. Being that we do not have any original texts I think it is foolish to say one thing or the other about them. Inerrancy is a statement about something that cannot be verified, which is why I do not argue or content for it. Saying that it is reliable is good enough for me. Sure we can establish what the originals most likely said, but that is someone else’s argument; not mine.

Well to start with Pete you deleted parts to make a point. You even have “.......” in your quote in Ephesians. This “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home” should clear up your little scandal. I guess you are suggesting that they cannot prophesy, or pray, or sing, or make any audible noise while in church. I do not think that is what is being said here. And I am not in the minority either, there are many women who speak in the church and hold leadership positions. Are we all missing what Paul is saying but you? I’m not saying that Paul is supporting culture, but that that was the culture. While Paul is discussing his apostleship he says this: 19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 9:19-23. This should give you insight into where Paul is coming from, that he realizes being culturally relevant is the point in order to reach the world with the Gospel. He understands cultural relevance. In regard to slavery, read the letter to Philemon. That should clear up any misconception about Paul position on slavery. We can discuss whatever you want, as long as we handle the Scripture properly.

I have no idea why you are trying to make me take a side in your argument against inerrancy. You first had an issue because you said I believed in inerrancy. Now you are saying that I do not believe in inerrancy. All I said was that I do not argue for biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy is a 'sucker bet' concocted by enlightenment thinkers in order to promote a liberal view of Scripture. It is taking the wrong approach altogether because it requires natural analysis of a supernatural document. Men do not know enough about the supernatural to evaluate it inductively or deductively. Would you call a plumber to install an electrical circuit? Would you call a painter to install solar panels? Then why would you evaluate the supernatural according to natural standards? Naturalists criticize things that do not conform to their rules, even though in this case they are talking about the supernatural. It seems to me that the only intelligent response to nonsense like this would be: “Duh.”

I have adressed what Paul said....context is king. My status as a non-ULC minister is not an issue to the memebrs here or to the mods and admins; it only seems to be an issue when people dislike my comments. Instead of approaching it that way, why don't you become part of the discussion, friend.

So, like I said before, Paul recognized female prophets and deacons; do not forget that. Paul was writing to Timothy in what are called the Pastoral Epistles on how to set up a church. Culturally, women had no postions of authority. This remark, when viewed in its cultural context, and with consideration to its historical distance, should be taken as an issue of culture. But maybe I'm the wrong guy to have this discussion with, I support women in ministry and the ordination of women, and women pastors; which I believe to be Scripturally sound. Proper exegetical skills would help you here Pete. Interesting that you would use this Scripture. I am not suprised that you had to edit it to make your point: 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansinga her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”b 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Eph 5:21-33. I would like to point out that we are to submit to one another; so your point about only women submitting to husbands is only half the picture. The devotion is to be mutual. Another case for how proper exegesis would help you Pete. This would be a good one to bring up if it were relevant. Notice that you are trying to make a general statment about how Paul views women by using a quote from a letter he wrote to one specific group of people meant to address a specific issue. One must first identify what the issue in the Corinthian church that Paul was addressing. What was that issue Pete? Do you know? This is why I do not like discussing Scripture with you Pete, your complete disregard for the texts is evidenced by your poor handling of it. You pretty much mischaraterize Scripture every time you quote; and you only quote it negatively in order to promote your antifundamentalist views.

Wow, Paul was the one who considered female deacons on the same level as the male deacons; and actually uses the same word for both. Paul recognized female prophets. Paul was the one that listed Priscilla before Aquila. Interesting perspective Pete; not very exegetically sound though.

Interesting philosophical problems you have created. I am equally as interesting in your solutions to these problems.

What specifically are you getting at? If you can articulate a position I will respond to that. How can the text mention YHWH specifcally and not be talking about YHWH? Are you serious? Might we consider this: THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THOUGHT There are three elemental laws of all rational thinking: (1) the law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A); (2) the law of identity (A is A); (3) the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A). Each of these laws serves an indispensable function in theology. The Law of Noncontradiction Without the law of noncontradiction we could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God. The Law of Identity If the law of identity were not binding, we could not say that God is God (G is G). Without the law of identity, God would not be identical to Himself; He could be something other than Himself (e.g., the devil), which is plainly absurd. The Law of Excluded Middle Likewise, if the law of excluded middle didn’t exist we could not affirm that it is either God or not God that we are speaking about. When we use the term “God,” we could be referring to both God and not God. This clearly is meaningless. Hence these three principles are necessary for all thinking, including all thought about God. Since theology is thinking about God, theology cannot escape the use of these three fundamental laws of all thought. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), 81.

Im not saying to accept anything just because the Bible says it. I believe in God; the Bible is only a tool.

What method do you use to meake sure you are honestly comparing apples with apples?

Fine with me. Just realize that you are taking a philosophical approach to a theological issue. No Pete, my view only works is you approach the Bible objectively. By the way, I do not argue for innerancy regardless of how many times you say that I do.

No....the text, that you were saying was your favorite text, says that. Whether or not you are hearing voices is irrelevant....lol.

I would say that Tillich is more of a philosopher than a theologian, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to prove. The apostle was quoted as saying that if Christ has not risen then our faith is usless. APOSTLE PAUL 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 15:12-19. TILLICH, PAUL (1886–1965) German–American Protestant philosophical theologian Paul Tillich was born in East Prussia. Following research at Breslau and Halle and an army chaplaincy in World War I, Tillich embarked on a teaching career that took him to the Universities of Berlin, Marburg, Dresden, Leipzig, and Frankfurt. It was a period marked by an interest in philosophy, particularly that of the early nineteenth–century idealist Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854). But this was combined with contemporary existentialism and religious socialism. The advent of Hitler terminated his academic career in Germany. Thanks to Reinhold Niebuhr (1893–1971), Tillich obtained a post at Union Theological Seminary, New York, in 1933. In 1940 he became an American citizen and subsequently held professorships at Harvard and Chicago. Tillich published a large number of shorter writings, including sermons, which attracted the attention of the intellectual public. His chief work was his three–volume Systematic Theology (1951–1963), which sets out the philosophical position that underlies his shorter works. After his death Tillich’s widow, Hannah, published a revealing and controversial biography entitled From Time to Time. To those familiar with traditional theology, Tillich’s Systematic Theology is like a museum of Picassos. While some of the subjects have an oddly familiar look, the perspectives are often startling and strange. His whole approach has a highly abstract quality. The Bible is rarely quoted, and only occasional reference is made to the classical theologians. Instead, there is a great deal of talk about existence and being. The reason for this is Tillich’s desire to investigate the structure of reality which, for him, is represented symbolically in the Bible. Basic to Tillich’s approach is his rejection of what he calls supranaturalism—belief in God over and above the world. Instead, Tillich believed in being. Tillich’s God was a purely immanent God. He is the ground of our being or Being itself. At this point Tillich’s position is scarcely distinguishable from pantheism. He maintained, however, that there was a break between what he called essence (or pure being) and existence (our life and that of all other creatures as it actually is). For Tillich, the biblical story of the Fall was a symbol of this alienation between ourselves and the ground of our being. The alienation is overcome by Jesus as the Christ or (to use Tillich’s language) the Bearer of the New Being. For Christ lived so close to the ground of his being that in him there was no existential estrangement. This closeness to the ground of his being is for Tillich what in other theologies is the divinity of Christ. For him, Christ is the key symbolic figure who mediates the overcoming of estrangement between ourselves and the ground of our being. All this is combined with a radical skepticism about the historical value of the Gospel accounts. For Tillich, what matters is not historical truth but the symbolic value of the biblical stories. This explains the tension between the vivid realism of Tillich’s preaching and the profound historical skepticism of his other writings. A story may make great impact as a symbol giving insight into the structure of reality (as in a fictional novel, play, or film), and at the same time be without historical foundation. Tillich’s position is best described as an existential ontology, since it combines the existentialist’s interest in the tensions of human existence with a theory of being. Although it was presented in a modern idiom, it was essentially a restatement of the early nineteenth–century idealism of men like Schelling, on whose writings Tillich conducted his postgraduate research. It has strong affinities with Buddhism, with which Tillich expressed considerable sympathy towards the end of his life. He rejected the need for Christian missions in Japan on the grounds that many Japanese already had a greater insight into the reality of being through their own religion than the missionaries who came to convert them. Other important works include The Protestant Era (1948), The Shaking of Foundations (1948), The New Being (1955), The Eternal Now (1963), and Morality and Beyond (1963). C.Brown J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort and Donald Mitchell, Who's Who in Christian History, Illustrated Lining Papers. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1997, c1992).

It is not that the fundamentalists do not see the "apparant" contradictions but rather that they research them in light of genre, author, cultural context, textual context, theologically, thematically, and linguisticly and find that when properly handled there is no contradiction. Meaning can change over time which is why it is important to establish the meaning at the time of authorship prior to application in a time era other than the time of authorship. But now I am just repeating myself. For example, we have just agreed that Micah 6:8 encapsulates how we should treat each other and carry out our business. Yet, the God that is talking about having mercy and being just is the same God that simultaneously is labeled as mean, nasty, and cruel: YHWH. He is praised one minute, and slandered the next; same God. If the text understood as whole (instead of taking line from line like reading a bunch of fortune cookies) it would show that. In this case, the interpreter seems to be one in contradiction, not the text.

The ancient semetic people used the word EL much the same way that people all over the world use the the GOD; common usage. My point is that it proves nothing other than there was a universal concept of God, just like there is today.

I missed this; where was this evidence published? How does this differ from the term "God" that is used pretty much universaly that is referring to God now?

Can you articulate what is convincing about that arguement to you?