DaveJes1979

Ender

Dave: actually, there are many reasons why the presuppositionalist accepts the canon of Scripture as such. One of them lies in the fact that Jesus Himself authenticated the Old Testament canon, as He referred to it as "the Scriptures" and "the word of God." He also invested the apostolic message with this authority, saying "he who hears you hears me." It also follows from the fact that God, being providential, controls history, and thus has preserved the canon as such in Israel and the church so that men might know Him and might know salvation.

Concerning "competing" canons, let me just say that they fail not only on the basis of the things said above, but also on the basis that

1. they contradict previous revelation, even though they formally affirm it (Quran, Book of Mormon)
2. they contain distorted doctrines of God, thus undermining any basis for knowing God and reality (this includes not only the Quran and BOM, but also the finite deities of eastern mysticism).
3. fail to give a coherent explanation of how man might know God and be saved.

Dave: actually, presuppositionalists do not deny the validity of allegorical interpretation, per se. Reguarding the interpretation of particular verses, we leave room for much freedom as long as essential Christian doctrine is not denied. I also fail to see how the mere existence of competing interpretations means that "we cannot draw upon the Scripture to settle the question of interpretation." We do indeed employ the "analogy of faith," and interpret difficult verses in the light of the plainer verses. Scripture interprets Scripture.


Dave: actually, we MUST draw upon the Scripture in order to establish our hermeneutical methodology. This is known as the "hermeneutical spiral," where we challenge our presuppositions, methodology, as well as conclusions in the light of what we read. It is an ongoing process, and it never ceases until we die. It is God's grace and His spirit, of course, which guides us (subjectively speaking) down the spiral until we arrive in the "circle" of orthodoxy, and know the fundamental and necessary tenants of Christianity.

I would also say that logic is indeed not the ONLY tool of knowledge we use to understand Scripture. Lastly, I note that Abraham's physical appearance is irrelevant to essential (or even peripheral) Christian doctrine.

wordsmyth
Dave: where is that in the text of Genesis 3? It says we KNOW good from evil, but never said that our standards were the same as God's. Man knows God's standards (what is good), but rejects them in sin in favor of his own standards.

Dave: and WHY do you consider the killing of children to be murder???? You still haven't answered this. I justify God's actions on the basis of His own standard of justice. God's actions were a manifestation of his just wrath against a people that had rejected Him in unrighteousness.

Dave: that is quite question-begging! You assume a defenition of "civilized" that conveniently agrees with you.

Dave: not in this particular context. To distinguish something is to passively understand or receive knowledge. To define something is to actively impose one's standard into existence.

Dave Gadbois

FarSeeker

David Payne
Do you judge religion by only the acts of theworst who claim the beleifs? So why do you complain when I judge Atheists by the acts of the worst of them?

An agnostic...
AND:

An Athesit...

OK, those two statements are in contradiction. So which is the truth, and which is a is not?

Pomp

FarSeeker,

An agnostic...
AND:

An Athesit...

OK, those two statements are in contradiction.

Not at all. I describe myself as an agnostic atheist, in fact. Agnosticism, despite its apparently common usage as "undecided," is a stance regarding the possibility of having real knowledge about any god(s) that exist. Atheism is a stance regarding the existence of any god(s). One can certainly be both an agnostic and an atheist or even an agnostic and a theist.

The Other Michael

Hello Farseeker,

But religions usually claim to be a moral system that leads to right thought/action.

Atheism, as I think has been pointed out before on SecWeb, is not a religion or philosophy - it is the absence of a god belief. The lack of that belief doesn't establish a moral code. So it would seem to me that you'd expect atheists to run the full gamut of good-bad action, depending on what moral system they've decided to use. Atheists have no common creed, prescriptions, etc.

The lack of a god belief doesn't insure that an atheist isn't crazier than a loon, or doesn't believe in phrenology etc.

But it does remove one set of beliefs that seems to encourage people to act/think (in my opinion) in an irrational manner.

To me, the religions, with their "holier than thou" claims, are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. If they are so wonderful, show me, and if they come up lacking, then I see them as hypocritical.

I expect some atheists to act for the good, and some to act for the bad, and most probably falling into the middle of the bell curve (though I'd like to think that in general people will tend to act for the good).

If religious people want to convince me that their religion leads to a greater level of right thought/action (with "right" being something with a meaning that people in general can agree on, not just "it is right because deity X commanded it") then they'd better show that the religious populations are significantly skewed to the "good" end of the distribution curve.

cheers,
Michael

Tristan Scott

DaveJes1979,

So you are saying that when God does evil his motivations are good? Like in Jobe when God sends Satan to murder Jobe's family just to see how Jobe will react, you are saying that is ok because his "motivations" were good?

DaveJes1979

Tristan Scott

Dave: no, God does not do evil. It is men and creatures that do evil. God does, however, use that evil oftentimes for His own righteous purposes.


Dave Gadbois

Tristan Scott

You're kidding right?

Try reading Isaiah sometime.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Bill Snedden

David will most likely point this out to you himself, but as he has not yet done so...

David's statements are certainly not in contradiction. An agnostic takes no epistemic position on the existence of a god or gods. That is completely compatible with the belief that any god or gods that may exist take no active part in the natural world.

It is completely consistent to state, "I don't know if any gods exist, but even if they do, they don't interfere in human history."

Regards,

Bill Snedden

wordsmyth

One of these days you wacky xians are going to have to learn to read your own scriptures.

God, the creator evil...

Isaiah 45
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

God, the cause of(at least some) evil...

Amos 3
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

God, speaker of evil...

1 Kings 22
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

wordsmyth

It says that our knowledge of good and evil is the same as God's.

Please point out any verse in the bible that supports this. I would be very interested to read anything in the bible that states man's standards of good and evil are different than God's.

I'm sorry. I assumed it was universally accepted that killing children is murderous and unjust. I didn't realize that xians, like yourself, support killing children if they don't believe in your deity.

I guess you must consider slavery and rape to be morally acceptable under the right circumstances since God appears to support them in some instances also.

Yes, I see it so clearly now. Those horrid little babies with their unrighteous crawling around and sinful dirtying of diapers were merely cleverly disguised ways of rejecting God. Obviously God was not fooled and could not allow that to continue.

You really ought to think about this some more and hopefully you will have an epiphany as to whats wrong with your above statements. While reflecting on your error, I strongly suggest a quick perusal of a dictionary and perhaps a thesaurus.

here's a little something to get you started.

Define
synonym
v. to specify distinctly
characterize
distinguish
name
identify

I would be most interested to learn which dictionary gives the meaning of "define" as imposing one's standard into existence