Bias

[Smellin Coffee]

Rest assured that I do care about you my friend!

Your argument is the same one that Muslims try to make about the message of Christ being changed and perverted over time so I will respond in the same manner as I would to them with the exception that you know better!

The onus is upon you to make your case regarding the accuracy and authenticity (or lack thereof) of the New Testament scriptures! We have the witness of manuscript evidence going all the way back to the first century plus we have the writings of the Church fathers who used the same scriptures we use today. I am quite confident that the book I have on my desk is the word of God and even more so since leaving the KJVO crowd!

The scriptures are clear and easily understood. It is only obscure to those who do not want to acknowledge and believe what it has to say. They are willfully ignorant, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and they wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.

What is even worse is that you have been to Bible College and even though admittedly inferior in its instruction, it provided a great bit of truth which is over and above that of the overwhelming majority of the human population which currently inhabits this planet! You have a great bit in which to give an account and for this I greatly fear for you! You will certainly have the greater damnation on the day of judgment!

Yes, I do care and because I do, I will speak the truth! If I did not, I would just laugh along with others regarding your state of apostacy!

Couple of points.

1. I have made case about the New Testament Scriptures. I've reiterated time and again the conflict Paul had with the teachings of Jesus and how so many first century Christians separated from Paul. In addition, James was written to combat Pauline theology.

2. The scriptures are NOT "clear and easily understood". If they were, there would be no debate, no difference of doctrines, no denominationS of the Christian faith. Your argument is about clarity being found in a singular hermeneutic, that of white Western Evangelicalism.

3. Funny how you quote II Peter. The penman (probably not Peter) was warning about Paul. He said Paul was difficult to understand which could have been translated "non-sensical" so those that "wrest to their own destruction" was about those who followed Pauline teaching. Remember, "scriptures" simply meant "writings" and were not considered canonical by the penman. Judaism recognized the Law and Prophets as being authoritative and Writings were meant to be more of what we today would consider commentary.

4. I no longer fear judgment because it is a tool in an effort to gaslight people into fear.

5. You do now know you are speaking the truth. You are speaking what you believe to be true but again, this is where bias comes into the picture. Just because you interpret the Bible a specific way doesn't mean it is THE "right way" to interpret it. It certainly is most logical to you but there are others of different cultures of different heritages of different faiths IN JESUS that could be true whereas yours might not be true.

6. I do not deny apostasy. Everybody is a heretic to somebody and no doubt I am a heretic to Christians (among others). So be it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...shrug...

So now the goalposts have shifted. The point was about whether or not I was trying to recruit Christians out of their personal faith. You couldn't provide a quote of mine where I expected my belief to be adopted by others so now you are moving on to subject content as opposed to purpose of my posting.

I would also suggest that at some basic level ANY discussion about theology, religion and even philosophy in general has some root in the ethics (or "moral claim" as you word it) because we all cannot be but relatively biased and those topics tend to at least touch the concept of morality as a base.

So yeah, any argument I make about a deity or religious practice or piety or even civil ethical standard will be through my relativism but again, it doesn't mean such is meant to be a sales pitch in attempt to convert others to what I choose to believe.

But you have the right to project such about me, should you so choose.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I am invoking the concept of "oughtness". From your atheistic/agnostic relativism you CANNOT objectively argue for a moral worldview that should be followed by anybody but yourself as the rule-maker for your own religion. There is no such thing as "your truth and my truth", but rather only Truth, else if there's no God then the oughtness of "truth"claims disappears completely and indeed the preference of chocolate vs vanilla is as equally morally compelling as the Holocaust. If there is no God then there is no objective basis for ANY of your claims to what I (or anybody else) should or should not do. Don't move past that thought too quickly. You have a brain, no condescension intended here, but stop and think for a moment. I'll say it again, as you know it has to be true, that if there's no God, then all of your, my, Hitler's and everybody else's opinion is nothing more than human philosophy rooted in subjective reasoning. If that premise is granted, and it HAS to be, then your motives for stating your beliefs are immaterial to the oughtness of their ethical value. In layman's terms, if there's no God then nihilism makes sense and Smellin's opinions (and ALAYMAN's too) don't amount to a hill of beans. Motives don't matter in your scenario/worldview, because the basis for morality is ALWAYS relative and lacking in objective transcendent value. They are rooted in subjective opinion for any given moment in time. On the other hand, if there's a God who grounds morality and truth in Himself then the oughtness that is inherent to all of our moral choices has to be viewed in the light of His purpose(s).

 

[Ransom]

The point was about whether or not I was trying to recruit Christians out of their personal faith.

Fortunately, it doesn't take a Hyles-Anderson education to see that you don't have one to recruit them to.

 

[Ekklesian]

LOL!

I'm not looking for freedom to do those very things that are historically tenet to religion (lie, steal and kill) nor am I looking for freedom to have multiple sexual partners.

Not that it matters but I am monogamous and I've had sexual contact with only one person my entire life and next month, I will have been married to her for 35 years now. I have zero desire to have sex with anyone else. But keep on projecting...

You said,

It allows me freedom to live according to my ethics and love for my neighbor as I interpret it.

So it has something to do with your interaction with your fellow man, and will involve what you think your responsibility to him is. So, if it isn't about doing him (or his wife, or his dog), then it's about his life or his property and where you think you should yield to him in one or both of those very broad and comprehensive categories.

Just asking you to be more specific. What, specifically, is it that you think you're free to do that biblical ethics would deny you?

 

[FSSL]

Exegesis is deconstructing a passage in the original languages. It is all with the goal of shedding wrong presuppositions and gaining a perspective through the lens of the biblical writer.

Eisegesis is foisting ones opinion on a passage, thinking this new perspective sheds presuppositions. In fact, it does the opposite. Its all about confirming wrong presuppositions and ignoring any effort to understand the passage.... just applying it as one sees fit.

The OP graphic does nothing to debunk a proper understanding. It merely recognizes that others have come to the same exegetical conclusions.

 

[Ransom]

Exegesis is deconstructing a passage in the original languages.

I would hesitate to use the word "deconstructing," though by it I assume you meant something more along the lines of "analyzing" or "closely examining."

In a hermeneutical context, deconstruction has a particular meaning. It's a system of close reading that seeks to find the internal ambiguities and contradictions inherent to the text, thereby "deconstructing" (i.e. dismantling, disintegrating) its structure and opening it up to alternative interpretations.

I'd argue that deconstruction itself is a form of eisegesis. It doesn't clear up ambiguity and confusion in the text--rather, it generates even more of it, and presumably the reader is now able to choose whichever alternative interpretation best suits him. On the other hand, the biblical doctrine of perspicuity says that the Scriptures are clear and comprehensible to careful readers.

 

[FSSL]

Point well taken. I was working hard to use an equivalent to Smellin's point. Probably, too hard

Exegesis involves looking at all of the individual parts of a passage and seeing how they relate to the whole. I haven't run across "deconstruction" as a technical term in hermeneutics. I will have to look into that.

 

[Ransom]

I haven't run across "deconstruction" as a technical term in hermeneutics. I will have to look into that.

Prepare to have your eyes glaze over.

Deconstruction was invented by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, who is incomprehensible. The best-known American deconstructionist was J. Hillis Miller. If you want to go right to a primary source, you might find him somewhat more accessible.

 

[Starlifter]

Hey Smellin'. Long time no see. Has RAIDER been around to say hello?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You said,

So it has something to do with your interaction with your fellow man, and will involve what you think your responsibility to him is. So, if it isn't about doing him (or his wife, or his dog), then it's about his life or his property and where you think you should yield to him in one or both of those very broad and comprehensive categories.

Just asking you to be more specific. What, specifically, is it that you think you're free to do that biblical ethics would deny you?

"Biblical ethics" contains a relative perception so I will answer based on the religious behaviors I interacted with and participated in while Fundagelical.

But first, responsibility toward others is not at all complicated. It comes down to whether or not another's autonomy is being encroached. This is where relativism sets its boundary (IMHO), so it is disingenuous to say that I should have no argument with Hitler because he acted relative to his beliefs.

Now back to the "specifics" like you asked. There are a whole lot of items where I now feel free that I can't even list them all. Though not exhaustive, here are some areas in no particular order of importance, but rather as they jumped into my head in the moment.

I feel free to review and the freedom to accept various hermeneutics. I have the freedom to hear doctrines as espoused in sermon by women, folks of color and queer folks. I am free from the need to colonize (evangelize).

I feel free from the pressure to be patriarchal to my family. I don't need to adhere silly rules such as the "Billy Graham Rule" simply for the sake of "avoiding appearances of evil". I no longer need to conform to a specific system of beliefs to be accepted in and by community. I am no longer bound by the need to be "absolutely right" so I can embrace uncertainty.

I am now free to live for the moment without concern about eternal consequences or a silly idea about a rapture. I no longer have to attempt to paper over biblical contradictions but rather embrace them in their beautiful messiness and its brutal honesty. I have freedom to push back on things I choose to concerning exegesis without fear of being shunned or being put on someone's watchlist as a potential heretic.

I now don't have to hide my emotions. I can experience everything from euphoria to grief in their fullest form without having to appear as if "God is in control" or "they are now in heaven so we shouldn't grieve". I am free to embrace the void in my life rather than expect a God to fill it "someday". I don't have to try to fill that void with religious behaviors, a theology, God, consumerism, free sex, psychedelics, , alcohol, or even things like activism and physical fitness. I can now live with my incompleteness with joy and empathy to extend such grace to others.

I don't have to worry about who my friends are, who I hang out with. I no longer live in fear of immigrants or gay and queer folks. I am now able to appreciate folks who are unlike myself and see the beauty and value they bring to our world. My belief system doesn't need to support nationalism, capitalism or rugged individualism. I now have the freedom to support and love whoever I want for whatever reason I want without their conformity or even agreement with my expectations. I have discovered the world is no as scary as it is made out to be by religious folks.

So no, freedom isn't about sleeping with someone outside of marriage (though there is possible nuance for that to be allowed, depending on how it affects one's other relationships). Freedom after leaving Evangelicalism and Western Christianity is so much deeper than just "rule breaking". Freedom allows me to be me, just as I am, an incomplete mess and I don't need (or want) to fill that void. I am free to live each moment and not be bound by the expectations of others.

I'm sure I could have added more to this list but that was just off the cuff. Hope that explains things for you.

 

[voicecrying]

I feel free to review and the freedom to accept various hermeneutics.

Me too.

I have the freedom to hear doctrines as espoused in sermon by women, folks of color and queer folks.

Me too.

I feel free from the pressure to be patriarchal to my family.

Me too.

I don't need to adhere silly rules such as the "Billy Graham Rule" simply for the sake of "avoiding appearances of evil".

Me too.

I no longer need to conform to a specific system of beliefs to be accepted in and by community.

Me too.

I am no longer bound by the need to be "absolutely right" so I can embrace uncertainty.

Me too.

I am now free to live for the moment without concern about eternal consequences or a silly idea about a rapture.

Me too.

I have freedom to push back on things I choose to concerning exegesis without fear of being shunned or being put on someone's watchlist as a potential heretic.

Me too.

I now don't have to hide my emotions.

Me too.

I can experience everything from euphoria to grief in their fullest form without having to appear as if "God is in control" or "they are now in heaven so we shouldn't grieve".

Me too.

I don't have to try to fill that void with religious behaviors, a theology, God, consumerism, free sex, psychedelics, , alcohol, or even things like activism and physical fitness.

Me too. God already filled the void.

I can now live with my incompleteness with joy and empathy to extend such grace to others.

Me too.

I don't have to worry about who my friends are, who I hang out with.

Me too.

I no longer live in fear of immigrants or gay and queer folks.

Me too.

I am now able to appreciate folks who are unlike myself and see the beauty and value they bring to our world.

Me too.

My belief system doesn't need to support nationalism, capitalism or rugged individualism.

Me too.

I now have the freedom to support and love whoever I want for whatever reason I want without their conformity or even agreement with my expectations.

Me too.

I have discovered the world is no as scary as it is made out to be by religious folks.

Me too. Or as scary as the media makes it.

I am free to live each moment and not be bound by the expectations of others.

Me too.

Not only am I free in Jesus Christ, but I am secure. There is no more void.

 

[voicecrying]

3. Funny how you quote II Peter. The penman (probably not Peter) was warning about Paul. He said Paul was difficult to understand which could have been translated "non-sensical" so those that "wrest to their own destruction" was about those who followed Pauline teaching. Remember, "scriptures" simply meant "writings" and were not considered canonical by the penman. Judaism recognized the Law and Prophets as being authoritative and Writings were meant to be more of what we today would consider commentary.

It seems with this comment that you are dismissive of Paul's writings based on the "difficult to understand" part and equating those who follow Pauline teaching to those who wrest scripture to their own destruction. However, if you back up to the previous sentence, the writer says much wisdom was given to Paul. It is those who get carried away with the error of the lawless (next sentence) who are the ones who wrest scripture to their own destruction.

 

[ALAYMAN]

…

But first, responsibility toward others is not at all complicated. It comes down to whether or not another's autonomy is being encroached. This is where relativism sets its boundary (IMHO), so it is disingenuous to say that I should have no argument with Hitler because he acted relative to his beliefs.

So, if Hitler would’ve only taught and merely thought that the Jews should be wiped off the face of the Earth, but never “encroached on their autonomy” physically then it would’ve been a completely neutral and an amoral statement for him to say all Jews should be exterminated?

 

[Ekklesian]

LOL. It appears freedom involves making up your own definition of "specific," when you want, too. There sure was a pile of vagueness in that response.

So no, freedom isn't about sleeping with someone outside of marriage (though there is possible nuance for that to be allowed, depending on how it affects one's other relationships). Freedom after leaving Evangelicalism and Western Christianity is so much deeper than just "rule breaking". Freedom allows me to be me, just as I am, an incomplete mess and I don't need (or want) to fill that void. I am free to live each moment and not be bound by the expectations of others.

In other words, freedom is being your own god. There is a Satanist at my place of employment who tells me exactly the same thing.

It's the same old lie that corrupted Adam.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

LOL. It appears freedom involves making up your own definition of "specific," when you want, too. There sure was a pile of vagueness in that response.



In other words, freedom is being your own god. There is a Satanist at my place of employment who tells me exactly the same thing.

It's the same old lie that corrupted Adam.

Exactly my point. The choice of a religious belief IS a form of freedom so choosing the faith you believe and practice means you choose your own god. (This applies to every single person.)

Seems your Satanist friend is honest about it whereas you aren't, either by naivety or hypocrisy.

Oh, and there was no lie that corrupted Adam. Had the Edenic myth been true, Adam's eyes were opened and was able to recognize sin. Where's the lie in that?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Exactly my point. The choice of a religious belief IS a form of freedom so choosing the faith you believe and practice means you choose your own god. (This applies to every single person.)

Choosing a lie is NOT freedom, it's the antithesis.

Oh, and there was no lie that corrupted Adam. Had the Edenic myth been true, Adam's eyes were opened and was able to recognize sin. Where's the lie in that?

The lie was in the fact that their gaining the ability to know good from evil was through disobedience by deception. In addition, the lie was in the fact of Eve ever believing that her ability to grasp the knowledge of good and evil was in the same form or likeness of God in His power and ability to possess that knowledge and do good with it.

 

[Ekklesian]

Exactly my point. The choice of a religious belief IS a form of freedom so choosing the faith you believe and practice means you choose your own god. (This applies to every single person.)

Seems your Satanist friend is honest about it whereas you aren't, either by naivety or hypocrisy.

No no no. BE your own god. Have the power and authority of a god.

Oh, and there was no lie that corrupted Adam. Had the Edenic myth been true, Adam's eyes were opened and was able to recognize sin. Where's the lie in that?

You need to read it again. Did they become divine beings by their knowledge of sin?

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Couple of points.

1. I have made case about the New Testament Scriptures. I've reiterated time and again the conflict Paul had with the teachings of Jesus and how so many first century Christians separated from Paul. In addition, James was written to combat Pauline theology.

I have heard no such a thing nor has anyone else aside from the small cult which you have chosen to follow. Paul's ministry was focused upon taking the gospel to the gentiles and the issue was whether gentiles had to convert to Judaism and adopt all of the ceremonial laws and traditions that go with it (Circumcision and so forth). The scriptures are quite explicit concerning this as well as the conclusion of the Apostles and Elders at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Then again, perhaps you also reject the book of Acts since Luke was Paul's "Running Buddy" during his missionary journeys?

2. The scriptures are NOT "clear and easily understood". If they were, there would be no debate, no difference of doctrines, no denominationS of the Christian faith. Your argument is about clarity being found in a singular hermeneutic, that of white Western Evangelicalism.

I beg to differ. The whole of orthodox Christendom agrees upon far more than they disagree. This includes the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as the Western Church. You are the one deviating from the overwhelming majority of historic Christianity and embracing obscure teachings that have been long dismissed as aberrant or heretical.

3. Funny how you quote II Peter. The penman (probably not Peter) was warning about Paul. He said Paul was difficult to understand which could have been translated "non-sensical" so those that "wrest to their own destruction" was about those who followed Pauline teaching. Remember, "scriptures" simply meant "writings" and were not considered canonical by the penman. Judaism recognized the Law and Prophets as being authoritative and Writings were meant to be more of what we today would consider commentary.

Peter was the author but likely penned by another with a differing writing style than whoever penned 1 Peter but no big deal. It is inspired and canonical just the same. It is quite clear to me that Peter is speaking favorably of Paul and the Greek word is "dusnoetos" which literally means "Hard to understand" which is consistently translated as such. Peter is speaking of ignorant and unstable men who are wresting Paul's words to their own destruction. Dare I make the application and say - "If the shoe fits..."?

4. I no longer fear judgment because it is a tool in an effort to gaslight people into fear.

I have no desire whatsoever to "gaslight" or instill fear in you! To what advantage is it of mine to do so? If you do not see your standing one day before the Lord Jesus Christ as being a fearful thing, then you truly are a fool!

5. You do now know you are speaking the truth. You are speaking what you believe to be true but again, this is where bias comes into the picture. Just because you interpret the Bible a specific way doesn't mean it is THE "right way" to interpret it. It certainly is most logical to you but there are others of different cultures of different heritages of different faiths IN JESUS that could be true whereas yours might not be true.

It really is no great mystery regarding what has been written in the scriptures. Most of it can be understood using a simple historical-grammatical approach. Does everyone agree upon everything? I think not. Many here (on the FFF) disagree on matters of eschatology, cessationism, and matters related to election and predestination but I am quite confident that most here are unified on the absolute essential doctrines which define historic orthodox Christianity.

6. I do not deny apostasy. Everybody is a heretic to somebody and no doubt I am a heretic to Christians (among others). So be it.

It should be deeply disturbing to you that your views are so far removed from historic orthodox Christianity!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You said,

So it has something to do with your interaction with your fellow man, and will involve what you think your responsibility to him is. So, if it isn't about doing him (or his wife, or his dog), then it's about his life or his property and where you think you should yield to him in one or both of those very broad and comprehensive categories.

Just asking you to be more specific. What, specifically, is it that you think you're free to do that biblical ethics would deny you?

Sorry I missed the question when originally asked until you brought it to my attention in the other thread. "Biblical ethics" is a relative term with relative meaning so I don't know if the below would apply or not, but below is a list based on 5 decades of Fundagelical churches I've attended.

Off the top of my head (and I'm sure I could probably come up with more):

Freedom from the glorification of violence and retribution
Freedom from the need of perfection/sinlessness (I.e., the need for sanctification/repentance)
Freedom from the guilt of being responsible for sending someone else to hell
Freedom from the need to scare others with "hell fire"
Freedom from the guilt of doing things for other people without the need to evangelize
Freedom to listen to listen and heed female and queer voices teach theology
Freedom from the need to make biblical texts univocal
Freedom to set boundaries against religious narcissists
Freedom from the spiritual control of others' hermeneutic interpretations
Freedom to believe outside the Evangelical/Fundamental theological framework
Freedom to find healing outside of biblical texts and pastoral counseling
Freedom to enjoy the Bible as literary as opposed to literally
Freedom from the idolatrous pursuit of wholeness and completeness
Freedom to learn wisdom from sources outside Christianity
Freedom to have "non-godly" friends
Freedom to disagree with what is taught from the pulpit and still be respected
Freedom to treat women as equals
Freedom from having to look over my shoulder at who I might offend
Freedom to be who I am without needing excuse
Freedom to love people for who they are instead of who they are supposed to be

 

[Ekklesian]

Sorry I missed the question when originally asked until you brought it to my attention in the other thread. "Biblical ethics" is a relative term with relative meaning so I don't know if the below would apply or not, but below is a list based on 5 decades of Fundagelical churches I've attended.

Off the top of my head (and I'm sure I could probably come up with more):

Freedom from the glorification of violence and retribution
Freedom from the need of perfection/sinlessness (I.e., the need for sanctification/repentance)
Freedom from the guilt of being responsible for sending someone else to hell
Freedom from the need to scare others with "hell fire"
Freedom from the guilt of doing things for other people without the need to evangelize
Freedom to listen to listen and heed female and queer voices teach theology
Freedom from the need to make biblical texts univocal
Freedom to set boundaries against religious narcissists
Freedom from the spiritual control of others' hermeneutic interpretations
Freedom to believe outside the Evangelical/Fundamental theological framework
Freedom to find healing outside of biblical texts and pastoral counseling
Freedom to enjoy the Bible as literary as opposed to literally
Freedom from the idolatrous pursuit of wholeness and completeness
Freedom to learn wisdom from sources outside Christianity
Freedom to have "non-godly" friends
Freedom to disagree with what is taught from the pulpit and still be respected
Freedom to treat women as equals
Freedom from having to look over my shoulder at who I might offend
Freedom to be who I am without needing excuse
Freedom to love people for who they are instead of who they are supposed to be

How about picking just one, and we'll go from there.