Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RGD · 06-17-2005, 07:09 AM

BGIC offered the following opinions in regard to why we were created by God:

Quote:

Why did God create? What does God will? God wills many things -- these as means to some ultimate end though. Ultimately, God wills God's glory, which not unintentionally is also man's greatest good; his eternal life and happiness. God planned that these two goods intersect in the act of worship and the perpetual state of worshipful relationship between man and God: heaven. What about hell? It is 'just deserts' for it is where those who want something else more than God get what they want: something else other than God. The reason the denizens of hell find themselves miserable instead of happy is because they mistakenly thought there could be happiness apart from God Himself (and so lived life accordingly), a lie Satan frequently tells and man frequently and willingly believes.

over in the EOG.

I asked him if he could indicate the specific tenets of the Christian worldview - and the texts in which they appear - to support these opinions.

So. Here we are.

NearNihil Experience · 06-17-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

BGIC offered the following opinions in regard to why we were created by God: over in the EOG.

I asked him if he could indicate the specific tenets of the Christian worldview - and the texts in which they appear - to support these opinions.

So. Here we are.

Regardless of the specific questions, one can only assume that these are personal opinions of one man. And that these personal opinions have been influenced by his readings of the Bible and upbringing. But this doesn't mean that he's not going to have opinions and conclusions, and THEN go to the Bible looking for verse and passage that supports the views he already holds.

I don't want to sound snarky, but your setting him up to for confirmation bias.

True Christians (tm) don't go to the Bible to confirm their beliefs or provide evidence for. They hold their beliefs according to the Bible and let experience confirm the truths of their beliefs...which supposedly never fails.

I'm not saying this personally. This is directly from another Christian.

But its going to be interesting seeing what gets brought up.

My and my Christian Buddy's 2 cents.

RGD · 06-17-2005, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NearNihil Experience

Regardless of the specific questions, one can only assume that these are personal opinions of one man. And that these personal opinions have been influenced by his readings of the Bible and upbringing. But this doesn't mean that he's not going to have opinions and conclusions, and THEN go to the Bible looking for verse and passage that supports the views he already holds.

I don't want to sound snarky, but your setting him up to for confirmation bias.

True Christians (tm) don't go to the Bible to confirm their beliefs or provide evidence for. They hold their beliefs according to the Bible and let experience confirm the truths of their beliefs...which supposedly never fails.

I'm not saying this personally. This is directly from another Christian.

But its going to be interesting seeing what gets brought up.

My and my Christian Buddy's 2 cents.

Well yes - so am I. BGIC frequently conveys the impression that Christian tenets are not arguable - there is a truth; that he knows it; and we're generally being deliberately difficult in ignoring it.

Cross Examiner · 06-17-2005, 08:36 AM

The practice of going to the Bible in order to find support for a preconception is often called proof-texting or eisegesis. It is lazy and perhaps dishonest. An exegete does not approach the Bible from such a Cartesian, top-down perspective. Rather, he goes from the bottom-up, inductively, letting the writers speak for themselves in much the same way that scientists and historians go about their work (cf. Polkinghorne). Theology, however, doesn't necessarily work this way. It is far more deductive. Anyway, as this matter is primarily theological, I said that if you doubt I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly then simply offer an alternative reading and then we'll go to the relevant texts as arbiter. So this thread is at least a step in the right direction.

RGD · 06-17-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

The practice of going to the Bible in order to find support for a preconception is often called proof-texting or eisegesis. It is lazy and perhaps dishonest. An exegete does not approach the Bible from such a Cartesian, top-down perspective. Rather, he goes from the bottom-up, inductively, letting the writers speak for themselves in much the same way that scientists and historians go about their work (cf. Polkinghorne). Theology, however, doesn't necessarily work this way. It is far more deductive. Anyway, as this matter is primarily theological, I said that if you doubt I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly then simply offer an alternative reading and then we'll go to the relevant texts as arbiter. So this thread is at least a step in the right direction.

Perhaps, but this post of yours has not advanced the discussion.

What specific tenets of the Christian worldview support your opinions? What texts support those tenets? How did you derive your opinions from those texts, tenets, and argument?

Cross Examiner · 06-17-2005, 09:28 AM

Wouldn't you have to have some idea of what the right reading of the Christian meta-narrative is before you can possibly judge mine as the wrong one? Failing that much, I need to know what exactly you challenge and upon what basis before I can answer intelligently.

John A. Broussard · 06-17-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

Wouldn't you have to have some idea of what the right reading of the Christian meta-narrative is before you can possibly judge mine as the wrong one? Failing that much, I need to know what exactly you challenge and upon what basis before I can answer intelligently.

Would you please give me the right reading of this verse from the Christian meta-narrative?

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thank you.

gregor · 06-17-2005, 12:03 PM

John B.

I think we need the exegesis on a NT tract more relevant to the OP.

2 Thess 2:

" 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

BGIC - please explain this passage and justify it with a "God wants all to be saved" worldview. So, if you believe Satan but you were on the fence, God will send a delusion to make certain that you never change your mind.

OK

Cross Examiner · 06-17-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Would you please give me the right reading of this verse from the Christian meta-narrative?

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thank you.

The Christian meta-narrative is a reading of the Christian story from the broadest level of the Christian worldview. It consists of stringing together the High Themes of theology into a coherent whole. You can see these High Themes reflected in man's many stories, whether ancient or modern (e.g. The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia etc). Meta-narrative deals in things like soteriology, christology, justification, mediation and the like. It is generally uninterested in where the city of Ai was or even how old the Earth is. It's truth does not turn on the truth or falsehood of this detail or that. So you can probably see now why my reading of Joshua 10.13 is hardly relevant to whether or not I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly, no?

John A. Broussard · 06-17-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

The Christian meta-narrative is a reading of the Christian story from the broadest level of the Christian worldview. It consists of stringing together the High Themes of theology into a coherent whole. You can see these High Themes reflected in man's many stories, whether ancient or modern (e.g. The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia etc). Meta-narrative deals in things like soteriology, christology, justification, mediation and the like. It is generally uninterested in where the city of Ai was or even how old the Earth is. It's truth does not turn on the truth or falsehood of this detail or that. So you can probably see now why my reading of Joshua 10.13 is hardly relevant to whether or not I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly, no?

I take it this means you don't know what Joshua 10:13 means?

Am I reading you correctly?

Thank you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2005, 08:36 AM	#4
Cross Examiner Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 1,881	The practice of going to the Bible in order to find support for a preconception is often called proof-texting or eisegesis. It is lazy and perhaps dishonest. An exegete does not approach the Bible from such a Cartesian, top-down perspective. Rather, he goes from the bottom-up, inductively, letting the writers speak for themselves in much the same way that scientists and historians go about their work (cf. Polkinghorne). Theology, however, doesn't necessarily work this way. It is far more deductive. Anyway, as this matter is primarily theological, I said that if you doubt I've read the Christian meta-narrative rightly then simply offer an alternative reading and then we'll go to the relevant texts as arbiter. So this thread is at least a step in the right direction.

06-17-2005, 09:28 AM	#6
Cross Examiner Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 1,881	Wouldn't you have to have some idea of what the right reading of the Christian meta-narrative is before you can possibly judge mine as the wrong one? Failing that much, I need to know what exactly you challenge and upon what basis before I can answer intelligently.

06-17-2005, 12:03 PM	#8
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	John B. I think we need the exegesis on a NT tract more relevant to the OP. 2 Thess 2: " 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." BGIC - please explain this passage and justify it with a "God wants all to be saved" worldview. So, if you believe Satan but you were on the fence, God will send a delusion to make certain that you never change your mind. OK

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.