24 Jul 12
Originally posted by JS357there are so many irrelevant arguments being proposed, it was a fiat deceleration and...the question is not whether its a fiat deceleration as you have
erroneously assumed, but what the author actually meant...
Do you mean the issue is not what was said? Was what was said, not what was meant?
therefore meaningless (which is a nonsense because it correlates to a particular
statement, in this instance the salutation and title, 'good teacher', it was not really
authored by Christ etc etc The issue is what did the author mean, not how it was said,
not who wrote it, not whether it can be proven or dis-proven, simply, how did the
author intend it to be understood by the recipient.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems to me that one reason the Bible has the power it has is that it can provide guidance as to what is true, what is the good, how to live. This power is amplified and made practically eternal by the fact that the same Bible passage can provide different kinds of guidance at different times in a person's life depending on circumstances. It isn't a one-sentence/one-meaning kind of book. I don't think it is for me to say what another person should take to be the one single meaning of a Bible passage.
there are so many irrelevant arguments being proposed, it was a fiat deceleration and
therefore meaningless (which is a nonsense because it correlates to a particular
statement, in this instance the salutation and title, 'good teacher', it was not really
authored by Christ etc etc The issue is what did the author mean, not how it was said,
no ...[text shortened]... roven or dis-proven, simply, how did the
author intend it to be understood by the recipient.
But what I said was what I thought a "reasonable person" in our community would make of it as it was presented by you. You are entitled to seek to persuade this "community" of your opinion that Jesus was not divine, but you haven't convinced me that the passage doesn't say what I suggested a "reasonable person" in the broad community of believers would think.
24 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357that is fine, but assertions which seek to impose a particular exegesis where none exist
It seems to me that one reason the Bible has the power it has is that it can provide guidance as to what is true, what is the good, how to live. This power is amplified and made practically eternal by the fact that the same Bible passage can provide different kinds of guidance at different times in a person's life depending on circumstances. It isn't a one-se at I suggested a "reasonable person" in the broad community of believers would think.
in the text cannot be examined by the faculty of the mind, they are irrational,
subjective, unsubstantiated and merely an opinion, what is more, one is duty bound to
ascertain how such an assertion is formed , if it is not to be found in the ancient text,
upon what basis and the more one seems to ask for some kind of substantiating
evidence for the assertions, the less there seems to be, which is probably why people
have an emotional attachment to a particular faith rather than a reasoned one.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd there the standoff stands.
that is fine, but assertions which seek to impose a particular exegesis where none exist
in the text cannot be examined by the faculty of the mind, they are irrational,
subjective, unsubstantiated and merely an opinion, what is more, one is duty bound to
ascertain how such an assertion is formed , if it is not to be found in the ancient text, ...[text shortened]... ably why people
have an emotional attachment to a particular faith rather than a reasoned one.
24 Jul 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you dispute the substance of my observation, why not just say so? I do not need nor want to make you agree with me. Do you think I am wrong? Are you trying to make me agree with you?
again another irrelevancy, the subject is not whether you are trying to make me
believe anything, but rather whether you have any evidence to substantiate a claim
you have made, clearly you dont.
24 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFno one can tell whether you are right or wrong you have produced no reasons for your assertion.
If you dispute the substance of my observation, why not just say so? I do not need nor want to make you agree with me. Do you think I am wrong? Are you trying to make me agree with you?