Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by FMF
Repost my claim about the purpose of the Bible.
And repost your refutation of it underneath.
Easily done and it will settle it.
If you have refuted my claim, it will be clear.

Sure

It is a piece of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine extrapolated from John 17:15-16, in a similar way to how they choose to extrapolate 'no blood transfusions' from Acts 15: 28-29. - FML

This is your claim is it not? To which a plethora of historians testified that early Christians refrained from public office and were most likely required to resign from public office on becoming Christian. This refutes outright your above claim that the interpretation is particular to Jehovah Witnesses and casts serious doubt on any claims that the Bible was written for political purposes. Clearly at least as far as Christians are concerned it was written to get them out of politics.

In The Early Church, historian Henry Chadwick says that the early Christian congregation was known for its “indifference to the possession of power in this world.” It was a “non-political, quietist, and pacifist community.”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

FMF: It is a piece of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine extrapolated from John 17:15-16, in a similar way to how they choose to extrapolate 'no blood transfusions' from Acts 15: 28-29. - FML

This is your claim is it not?

No, it is not. That was my answer to avalanchethecat's question about something else.

My claim about what the Bible's purpose was is on page 18.

Originally posted by FMF
No, it is not. That was my answer to avalanchethecat's question about something else.

My claim about what the Bible's purpose was is on page 18.

Ok fine, whatever. Maybe someone will believe you, I most certainly don't.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok fine, whatever. Maybe someone will believe you, I most certainly don't.

Try this then:

Here are my claims about the purpose of the Bible:

Page 18
All religions ~ including Judaism, Islam and Christianity, and others too ~ serve a purpose as frameworks for social and moral order, and their scriptures lay out the rules and folklore that support these cultural and religious arrangements.

The Bible lays out rules that underpin a particular social and moral order. If you don't think the purpose of the Bible is to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs, then you should just come out and say so.

The setting of rules, power, authority, punishment, order, laws, a sanctioned history and legacy, in order to regulate individuals within a society etc. This is quite clearly what the Bible is about.

The Bible, OT and NT, set rules for the Hebrew people - the nation of Israel - and then for Christendom. I believe this was in order to establish a specific social and moral order and that this was recorded and defined by the Bible. I don't think it's controversial to claim that this was the Bible's purpose.

Now, you have claimed repeatedly that you have "refuted" this claim.

Where? On what page?

Copy paste your refutation of the above claim in your reply to this.

Originally posted by FMF
Try this then:

Here are my claims about the purpose of the Bible:

Page 18
[b]All religions ~ including Judaism, Islam and Christianity, and others too ~ serve a purpose as frameworks for social and moral order, and their scriptures lay out the rules and folklore that support these cultural and religious arrangements.

The Bible lays out rules that under ...[text shortened]...

Where? On what page?

Copy paste your refutation of the above claim in your reply to this.

your claim was that the idea that Christians were to be no part of the political system was particular to Jehovahs witnesses, a claim that now stands refuted. In order to wriggle your way out of your claim being refuted you have attempted to state that it was made in reference to something else avalanchethecat was saying when the scripture itself shows that you are talking nonsense for it states 'they are no part of the world', a direct reference to the idea that was being discussed.

Tell us what this 'something else', was that you answered to avalanchethecat by quoting John 17 - 'they are no part of the world.'

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your claim was... [blah blah blah].

My claim was laid out on page 18. I have reproduced it above. You have claimed to have refuted it. Where is the refutation?

Originally posted by FMF
My claim was laid out on page 18. I have reproduced it above. You have claimed to have refuted it. Where is the refutation?

You are being asked a question about your claims and why you quoted John 17, I suggest you answer it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are being asked a question about your claims and why you quoted John 17, I suggest you answer it.

I already addressed the matter of John 17:15-16 on page 19. You have asserted - repeatedly - that you have refuted my claim about the purpose of the Bible on page 18. Copy paste here the post of yours that refutes it the most clearly.

Originally posted by FMF
I already addressed the matter of John 17:15-16 on page 19. You have asserted - repeatedly - that you have refuted my claim about the purpose of the Bible on page 18. Copy paste here the post of yours that refutes it the most clearly.

This 'something else', what was it FMF?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This 'something else', what was it FMF?

Something else not connected with my claim on page 18. John 17:15-16 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the claim I have made about the purpose of the Bible.

Originally posted by FMF
Something else not connected with my claim on page 18. John 17:15-16 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the claim I have made about the purpose of the Bible.

It has a bearing on the claims that you were making with reference to 'something else' and also on the text which contained the reference, that being the idea the Christians were non political was due to a particular interpretation of Jehovah Witnesses. What this something else is seems to be a mystery. Perhaps you can elucidate?

Originally posted by FMF
Something else not connected with my claim on page 18. John 17:15-16 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the claim I have made about the purpose of the Bible.

Let us take your idea that the Bible was written for political purposes.

How are we supposed to reconcile this with the historical facts that the Christians did not initially hold public office or serve in the army and were described by a historian as being a non-political group.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It has a bearing on the claims that you were making with reference to 'something else' and also on the text which contained the reference, that being the idea the Christians were non political was due to a particular interpretation of Jehovah Witnesses. What this something else is seems to be a mystery. Perhaps you can elucidate?

My claim on page 18 has nothing to do with John 17:15-16. You have repeatedly stated that you have refuted my contention that the Bible sought to establish social and moral order. Where is your refutation of this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Let us take your idea that the Bible was written for political purposes.

Just address the actual claim I made about the Bible's purpose. It is on page 18.

Originally posted by FMF
Just address the actual claim I made about the Bible's purpose. It is on page 18.

Please answer the question, how are we supposed to reconcile your claim that the Bible was written for political purposes with the historical evidence that has been presented. It is your claim that the Bible was written for political purposes, is it not?