I think that conversation falls into the "not worth it" category... but which Bible? which canon, which translation of which language, etc.?
Is there a specific ISBN number for the specific bible that is the infallible, inspired word of God?
My point is that if you believe the Bible to be true, you can discuss issues on the same level. If you do not believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, then there is a chasm that can hardly be bridged.
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
My point is that if you believe the Bible to be true, you can discuss issues on the same level. If you do not believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, then there is a chasm that can hardly be bridged.
Huh? Can hardly be bridged? Have you always been on the same side of the chasm that you're on now? So, what's wrong with conversing across the chasm? One or the other may actually convince the other to cross it. Isn't that what a burden for the lost should inspire you to do? Isn't that what 1 Peter 3:15 is all about?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Huh? Can hardly be bridged? Have you always been on the same side of the chasm that you're on now? So, what's wrong with conversing across the chasm? One or the other may actually convince the other to cross it. Isn't that what a burden for the lost should inspire you to do? Isn't that what 1 Peter 3:15 is all about?
Sorry, strawman argument.
When one person wants to discuss the tenets of the faith, and God's plan for humanity based on scripture, and another says, "I don't even believe God inspired the Bible", then all you have is a philosophical or literary discussion, much as you'd discuss Socrates, or Keats.
And most people on an Apostolic forum are not interested in that type of discussion. If you want to discuss a book for the sake of discussing a book, join Oprah's book club.
In order to have Biblical discussions that pertain to faith, salvation, and holiness in general, it's imperative for both parties to believe that the Bible is the "book".
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
When one person wants to discuss the tenets of the faith, and God's plan for humanity based on scripture, and another says, "I don't even believe God inspired the Bible", then all you have is a philosophical or literary discussion, much as you'd discuss Socrates, or Keats.
And most people on an Apostolic forum are not interested in that type of discussion. If you want to discuss a book for the sake of discussing a book, join Oprah's book club.
In order to have Biblical discussions that pertain to faith, salvation, and holiness in general, it's imperative for both parties to believe that the Bible is the "book".
This just doesn't sound right to me. People with the truth should be willing to dialogue and be questioned, don't you think?
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
This just doesn't sound right to me. People with the truth should be willing to dialogue and be questioned, don't you think?
How many times can you say, "Well, the Bible says", and someone returns with "I don't even believe the Bible"?
What's the point in the discussion?
Now, there are many other subjects that CAN be discussed, and as I mentioned yesterday, it's great to fellowship our commonalities and if we can avoid the "hot buttons" the discussion is very lively and beneficial.
All I'm referring to is the topic of scriptural discussions.
It's hard to discuss scripture if one party doesn't believe in it at all.
I mean, if a scripture clearly says one thing, and someone comes back with, "Yes, it says that, but I don't believe it", or "Well, I don't believe the Bible is God's word", what else can you discuss???????
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
How many times can you say, "Well, the Bible says", and someone returns with "I don't even believe the Bible"?
What's the point in the discussion?
Now, there are many other subjects that CAN be discussed, and as I mentioned yesterday, it's great to fellowship our commonalities and if we can avoid the "hot buttons" the discussion is very lively and beneficial.
All I'm referring to is the topic of scriptural discussions.
It's hard to discuss scripture if one party doesn't believe in it at all.
I mean, if a scripture clearly says one thing, and someone comes back with, "Yes, it says that, but I don't believe it", or "Well, I don't believe the Bible is God's word", what else can you discuss???????
I think there is a point where you are correct but there is also a point where things can and should be discussed, but this type of discussion would likely be much more challenging.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
This just doesn't sound right to me. People with the truth should be willing to dialogue and be questioned, don't you think?
ILG, it's not a matter of being "willing to dialogue and be questioned." In real life" I try to answer any question I'm asked, unless it's patently disrespectful or impertinent. And even then, I've been known to come back with an answer (without returning the same tone).
However, this forum is not an evangelistic field, IMO, and I don't come here to persuade others to be Christians, or to convince them that I'm doing the right thing by being a Christian. There are numerous forums that are there for the sake of arguing those points--just for the sake of the argument. I come here for several reasons, and evangelism isn't one of them. There's a real, hurting, needy world out there, and not much of it, really, is here. This forum is comprised (mostly) of believers, and people who used to be believers and want to maintain a connection. Not many rank sinners on here, that I'm aware of.
Therefore, I feel perfectly at ease to choose my conversations based on personal interest, and I feel no obligation to persuade others to believe. Those who need persuasion can receive that from any number of other posters. That's not something that I find the need to do. There have been many times in the past when Michlow's posts have been in complete contradiction to my own values, and even with God (IMO), and I haven't really felt the need to go down the list, point by point, and show everything I feel is out of line with scripture. I may dialogue a little, but once I'm done with the conversation for whatever reason, I don't have any personal obligation to remain in the fray. It's not that Michlow isn't "worth it", personally. It's just that some things people have to arrive at on their own, perhaps by divine revelation, even, and unless God speaks to me something profound that I must share--this is just me expressing myself for my own enjoyment, and dialoguing for my own enjoyment. If something bores me, or is tiresome, or isn't interesting, or irritates me, I'll probably drop it and move on. I have better things to do with my time, than to participate in conversations that I find sad, depressing, irritating, tiresome, tedious or boring.
That is not to say that I think Michlow (or Brad) is sad, depressing, irritating (okay, sometimes ), tedious, tiresome, and she's certainly never boring. But I do believe I have the option to only participate in the conversations that interest me, for whatever reason, as does any other person on this forum. I reserve the right to say, for any reason, "I really don't care to participate in this conversation."
Further, if I have reached a conclusion based on scripture, then I see no need at all to continue to discuss a matter just for the sake of it, unless I find it entertaining for some reason.
This forum is only a very small piece of my world. And it will only remain a piece of my world as long as I find it to be a pleasant piece. I'm a member here for purely selfish reasons. And I'm not a masochist. I don't deliberately subject myself to unpleasantness, when I could be outside working in the garden, showing Sarah how to use an abacus, reading to Jeffrey, playing the piano, reading my favorite books, organizing my house, or any number of other things that I have to enjoy.
If that doesn't make sense, then I don't know how to make it any clearer.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
This just doesn't sound right to me. People with the truth should be willing to dialogue and be questioned, don't you think?
In order for dialogue to take place, there has to be a platform for that dialogue to stand on-- there has to be some absolutes, some "givens" or the dialogue will be wasted with two or people talking to each other, but not with each other.
Not all talking is dialogue, not all communication is fruitful. There are some conversations not worth having.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
In order for dialogue to take place, there has to be a platform for that dialogue to stand on-- there has to be some absolutes, some "givens" or the dialogue will be wasted with two or people talking to each other, but not with each other.
Not all talking is dialogue, not all communication is fruitful. There are some conversations not worth having.
Bingo.
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
), tedious, tiresome, and she's certainly never boring. But I do believe I have the option to only participate in the conversations that interest me, for whatever reason, as does any other person on this forum. I reserve the right to say, for any reason, "I really don't care to participate in this conversation." 
And I'm not a masochist. I don't deliberately subject myself to unpleasantness, when I could be outside working in the garden, showing Sarah how to use an abacus, reading to Jeffrey, playing the piano, reading my favorite books, organizing my house, or any number of other things that I have to enjoy.
Hybrid Mode
