Vinnie

Pelvidism

Pelvidism comes from my good buddy Rodney. He posts on various message boards with the handle 'Pelvidar'.

I'd be proud to be an official Pelvidist.

Or maybe I'll create my own since he has been out of the religious lopp as of late. How about the first Christian Church of Thomasine Panentheism?

I would gladly welcome Pelvidism as a sub-branch



Vinnie

Tod

Originally posted by hope's daughter
Which response? He has a few. I disagree whole heartedly with alot of what you have posted. i agree there is a way to interpret biblical passages without relying on vague feelings and first impressions. It takes a lot of work to correctly interpret Bible passages. This is not to say that the Bible is not easily understood.

Of course not. That is why hundreds (or is it thousands?) of Christian denominations don't agree on a myriad of minor points and a hefty load of major theological points. That is why many liberal Christians don't think conservatives are good Christians, and many conservatives don't think liberals are good Christians. Surely this can't be a result of the Bible being unclear in its message, right?

Only that reason and the intellect which many shun must be used.

One can only conclude that with the aforementioned tremendous disagreement among Christians and extreme range of opinion on biblical interpretations that Christians don't have a good track record on applying this "reason and...intellect" necessary to understand the Bible's "easily understood" message.

Seriously though, if you think reason and intellect is what is needed, I invite, nay challenge, you to tackle a couple of examples I gave in my first post in this thread of serious biblical inconsistencies and false prophecies. I would ask, however, you not address one of the two that have already been covered ad nauseum in my first thread on the subject: the Ex. 6:3/Gen 22:14 contradiction or Jesus' prophecies that he will return in decades.

Apply "reason and... intellect" to some of those problems and show me how they aren't problems.

Outside sources such as Bible dictionaries, maps, historical time lines and concordances are imperative to good study.


Yeah, and don't forget to eat your Weaties and get plenty of sleep too.

Seriously, again, these things can be helpful. However, in terms of Bible dictionaries and historical timelines, it really depends on the source. Bible dictionaries vary from scholarly to fundamentalist, and the latter are about as helpful as a hole in your head. Historical timelines also vary, often radically, depending on whether you are asking a fundamentalist or a scholar. Their only as good as their source.

hope's daughter

[off topic baiting deleted--Celsus]

Vinnie

And I thought I was the one getting in trouble! Cool!

I posted my most recent response to what denonimantion I was BEFORE I saw this so my apologies.

Vinnie

aikido7

Again, you are presuming that Matthew's words--written at a time when the early movement was being challenged by mainstream Jews--are the actual words of Jesus.

Biblical scholars and careful readers of the text have long known that the New Testament is a complex blend of remembered history and active theology. Each of the gospel writers wrote in a different time to different communities going through different problems.

That is why Mark's Jesus dies in agony ("thou hast forsaken me") because Mark's followers were going through the cataclysm of the Roman-Jewish war. John's Jesus--written a generation later--speaks of a Jesus in total control, actually asking to drink "the bitter cup" and dying in fulfillment of God's divine plan ("It is finished"). The Fourth Gospel has an advanced theology. There is a very different account here.

Contextual reading and careful focus gives one a richer feeling for what was going on at the time and why certain things are written the way they are...

Vinnie

Just to be good I am going to turn this response into something on topic

So doing the will of God in heaven is believing the correct doctrines to be true? This is a very problematic verse then. Why is intellectual faith a soteriological criterion? I can't believe that having correct doctrine or believing the facts of Christianity is the ONLY means of doing the will of God. And it is a shame if you think it is.

I'm a literalist so this doesn't apply to me. I've never prophesied and I've never.....(tries to keep a straight face as I type)-----casted out devils before

I have done wonderful works before though. For example, I have helped my friend Richard receive healing through petitionary prayer with webpage I made:

http://www.after-hourz.net/spoof/prayforrich.html

Surely the Lord will reward my kindness? Surely the Lord will appreciate my humor? I hear Jesus is even using my pick up lines in heaven

So not believing the Trinity is equivalent to working iniquity? Thrilling!

Who needs problematic bible verses when you can just point out the absurdities of Christian Statements of Faith

Vinnie

Vinnie

Magus, here is the GJohn vs Synoptics article I have up:

http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html


Please don't forget 1 Pet 3:15:

God has commanded you to respond to my question. If you do not offer up a thorough rebuttal in a timely fashion you are sinning. Please be gentle with me as the Bible commands

With love,
Vinnie

Vinnie

I have to apologize to Celsus in here. I'm bowing out of this thread. Sorry everyone. Its too hard for me to not post sarcastic and playful, baiting posts in here given the nature of the discussion. i mean, I'm still laughing here......

At any rate, Sorry.

Magus, if you do want to tackle my article create a new thread.

Laters everyone

Vinnie

P.S. You are doing a good job, akido

hope's daughter

Celus, what did you delete? Baiting my you know what...give me a break

Celsus

Check your PMs. Let's get back on topic now.

Joel