All we like sheep have gone astray...

[WaterWizard]

These are the words of the prophet Isaiah, spoken seven centuries before Christ's crucifixion:

~

Isaiah 53

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

~

Happy Good Friday

WW

[Dre]

You're a Christian? Interesting...

[WaterWizard]

Yes!

[Dre]

You seem like a pretty enthusiastic one. I'm guessing you were brought up Christian?

[WaterWizard]

Yeah, my faith is important to me! I don't think there is any purpose or meaning in life without it. Was born again at around the age of eight. Got into Reformed Theology at age sixteen.

I believe there are still a few other notes in this subboard of mine concerning the subject. I usually write something on Christmas/Easter at least.

[Dre]

So you're a Protestant then. Are you a Calvinist or Arminian?

Yeah religion is useful for giving people meaning and happiness. They're statistically happier and have lower suicide rates than non religious people. Although they're also statistically less educated (usually due to being poorer) and score something like 6 points lower on the IQ test, but the IQ test isn't an accurate measurement of intelligence anyway.

[WaterWizard]

Definitely a Calvinist. That is the only whole form of Christianity. Arminius ignored huge biblical truths to deliver a more palatable religion. His errors have cropped up since the beginning, and they've been called heresy time and time again. For the past two hundred years, Arminian theology has started to increase again (due mainly to the Wesley brothers), but in the past few years there has been a revival of Calvinistic theology, particularly among younger (college/seminarian) believers.

~

As for religion, it brings a lot of things. To individuals, we can Christ brings this:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Jesus' impact on society is succinctly described here by Philip Schaff:

Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

For me: meaning, value, purpose, and also truth. I also find myself producing more and more of the fruit of the spirit, as described above.

~

As for the correlation between education and faith, I find it fascinating. I don't think we can draw a hard conclusion from it, though. I know and respect a number of Christian men and women who happen to have master's degrees, PhD's, JD's, and MD's.

We can look at a few likely causes for the disparity.

1. While many Christians do "excel" in life in the eyes of society, many are content to rest in the satisfaction and sufficiency of Christ, who said that ultimately we are here merely to a) love God b) love people. Thus, you'll find that those Christians who haven't reached the pinnacle of the educational ladder are probably not disappointed by that at all. There have been countless brilliant and well educated Christians (John Calvin, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, to name three giants), so we certainly can't say that education precludes faith.

2. You mention economic means being a possible cause for the disparity. That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't spent much time considering previously. Of course, that immediately makes me think of one of Jesus' quotes: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." This is really quite true. The more comfortable and secure one is in this life, the harder it is to focus on eternal things. I have seen it firsthand, and I've heard accounts by family and older friends who have seen the resistance a wealthy person can have to the gospel.

~

What do you think about the correlation between education and faith? And what is your IQ? Just curious

[redemption]

I'd whole-heartedly disagree on the Calvinist part there. Why would a loving God pick and choose who he wants to be saved? For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.(John 3:16) God loves all men and gives them an equal chance at salvation.

[WaterWizard]

Redemption, I'd love to discuss the Doctrines of Grace with you sometime. They agree 100% with every verse, including our beloved John 3:16. You won't find Free Will anywhere in the bible, and you'll find countless passages that become senseless or contrary if you adhere to Free Will.

I grew up Baptist (and many baptists treat Calvinism as a curse word, even though the Southern Baptist Convention was founded by staunch Calvinists and the baptists for the last four hundred years have been Calvinists) and before I learned about Calvinism, I was one of the best arguers in my class against it. So I've been where you are. Then I read my bible and realized I had just been making my own assumptions and that my idea of God and soteriology weren't totally biblically based.

The "dilemma" you mention, that God would pick certain people and not others, is not a Calvinist dilemma. It's a biblical truth. When I started looking at all the verses from Genesis to Revelation about election and sovereignty, I realized that I'd let the cat out of the box and I couldn't return to Free Will theology.

We'll talk. I think that with the right scriptural evidence and explanation, you'll agree soon enough. Calvinism is Christianity, I have no doubt.

Looking forward to a discussion.

[Isa]

On a related note (and might be what you discuss - I don't know what Calvinism/Arminius is), what do you think is the most important - the love message of the Bible, or the exact following of it?

[redemption]

Isa What is a love message? The bible teaches Jesus Christ throughout. And the story of Jesus and the church is a bloody one.

@ww. If free will is not true then man makes no choices. And if man makes no choices God is the author of all evil. God sent Jesus to atone for the sins of the world so that man would have hope for life eternal. If God picks and chooses who is saved that takes out the belief part.

[Isa]

Well - "love thy neighbor" and those things. =p Surely you follow Christ because you believe that what he stands for is right and good, not just because you've been told to believe in him? Would you follow and believe in Jesus (and God) if he had spread a message filled with hate towards mankind, dooming everyone to hell?

Let me rephrase myself. What's the Bible for? Is it for Christians to follow word by word because it's the word of God and shouldn't be altered, or is it to be interpret as a product of its time, and therefore not to be interpret word by word, but rather the reader should absorb the general conveyed message that the texts grant to you?
Simplified: Is what the Bible says definitive or not?

[jorgen]

Check out Song of Songs for the Bible's love message.

[redemption]

Apr 11, 2012 16:47:25 GMT -8 Isa said:

Well - "love thy neighbor" and those things. =p Surely you follow Christ because you believe that what he stands for is right and good, not just because you've been told to believe in him? Would you follow and believe in Jesus (and God) if he had spread a message filled with hate towards mankind, dooming everyone to hell?

Let me rephrase myself. What's the Bible for? Is it for Christians to follow word by word because it's the word of God and shouldn't be altered, or is it to be interpret as a product of its time, and therefore not to be interpret word by word, but rather the reader should absorb the general conveyed message that the texts grant to you?
Simplified: Is what the Bible says definitive or not?

Alright the bible does have a love message but people take love to extremes. The bible is the story of Christ first and formost. And I believe the New testament is to be taken word for word. The old Testament should be taken as a general; message for the most part due to the fact Christians aren't under the old law.(My beliefs on many issues differ with my father who is a pastor)

[Dre]

Apr 10, 2012 22:55:43 GMT -8 WaterWizard said:

Definitely a Calvinist. That is the only whole form of Christianity. Arminius ignored huge biblical truths to deliver a more palatable religion. His errors have cropped up since the beginning, and they've been called heresy time and time again. For the past two hundred years, Arminian theology has started to increase again (due mainly to the Wesley brothers), but in the past few years there has been a revival of Calvinistic theology, particularly among younger (college/seminarian) believers.

~

As for religion, it brings a lot of things. To individuals, we can Christ brings this:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Jesus' impact on society is succinctly described here by Philip Schaff:

Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

For me: meaning, value, purpose, and also truth. I also find myself producing more and more of the fruit of the spirit, as described above.

~

As for the correlation between education and faith, I find it fascinating. I don't think we can draw a hard conclusion from it, though. I know and respect a number of Christian men and women who happen to have master's degrees, PhD's, JD's, and MD's.

We can look at a few likely causes for the disparity.

1. While many Christians do "excel" in life in the eyes of society, many are content to rest in the satisfaction and sufficiency of Christ, who said that ultimately we are here merely to a) love God b) love people. Thus, you'll find that those Christians who haven't reached the pinnacle of the educational ladder are probably not disappointed by that at all. There have been countless brilliant and well educated Christians (John Calvin, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, to name three giants), so we certainly can't say that education precludes faith.

2. You mention economic means being a possible cause for the disparity. That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't spent much time considering previously. Of course, that immediately makes me think of one of Jesus' quotes: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." This is really quite true. The more comfortable and secure one is in this life, the harder it is to focus on eternal things. I have seen it firsthand, and I've heard accounts by family and older friends who have seen the resistance a wealthy person can have to the gospel.

~

What do you think about the correlation between education and faith? And what is your IQ? Just curious

I don't want to offend anyone, so I'll try to be careful with how I this.

There is a differently a big correlation between belief in religion and being educated in religion. What I mean by education in religion is not theology, but philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion (PoR) is not understanding doctrine (although that obviously helps), but is the critical analysis of religions, so you often have atheist philosophers of religion. Related fields that are important to the question of religion are things like epistemology, logic (particularly informal logic), and even science in a limited sense.

I am yet to meet or hear of a single person who was educated in these fields before becoming religious (people have turned to belief in a deity, but not religion). There are religious people who are educated in these fields, but they were religious beforehand, and it's usually their religion that gets them interested in these fields.

The reason why people educated prior to being religious don't believe it is because religion is probably the most irrational belief system or idealism there is.

I don't mean that offensively, what I mean is that religion and religious belief numerically commits more logical fallacies than pretty much any other belief system.

For example the idea of 'faith' as a method of belief is actually a couple of logixcal fallacies rolled into one, and in fact is possibly also even a formal fallacy, which is stronger than the more common informal fallacy.

I don't want to get into it because I don't want to offend people and I'm not here to change everyone's beliefs. I don't have anything against religious individuals, I was a devout Catholic for a year. I also actually believe in a diety (although my belief is withering into agnosticism at the moment).

On a less controversial note, as the for the IQ test, I don't like them. They're unreliable because different tests have different grading scales. For example I did one and scored 127, which was above avergae intelligence. 150 was the max, which was basically genius. Then someone else told me that they got in the 170s on their test, which wasn't even on the scale of mine. Also the IQ test only measures how fast you process and comprehend concepts, and that is only one small facet of intelligence, so I don't think the IQ test accurately measures intelligence as a whole.

[cheese]

For example the idea of 'faith' as a method of belief is actually a couple of logixcal fallacies rolled into one, and in fact is possibly also even a formal fallacy, which is stronger than the more common informal fallacy.

Well, I'm not religious, but I don't think many (or any) people believe something on faith alone. Faith is like the last step. Sure you need faith, but also other evidence. Maybe you've felt God's presence, maybe you know friends who have, maybe it's something else. My point is that it's not all about faith.
People use faith all the time. For example, I have faith that an apple won't poison me. I may draw on previous experiences, what I've seen/been told etc. but at the end of the day, I haven't done tests on the apple, I haven't proved it won''t kill me. But I have faith.
That's what I understand when people say they have faith. Faith =/=blind faith.

[Dre]

True, but religions tend to use faith to justify things that they have no evidence or reason to believe.

For example, suppose we discovered scientific evidence that the Red Sea was actually parted. If this were the case Christians would be telling us to believe it due to the scientific evidence, not to do it through an act of faith. In fact, if every claim of religion were to be scientifically proven, then they wouldn't be asking us to believe it on a leap of faith, they'd be telling us to believe it due to the evidence.

So it's not as if they consider a leap of faith a method of equal to science and reason, they simply use it to justify beliefs that have no science or reason behind them.

Faith is also used in circular logic by priests and ministers. When a follower claims they are having doubts, they tell them to simply have faith, which is actually a fallacy because the doubter is doubting that there is something to put faith into the first place. It's not logical to put my faith in something if I don't know it exists, and if I'm using this faith to justify believing it exists, then that actually is blind faith.

Faith is often said to be equal to reason when it comes to knowledge. Christians often argue that a harmony of both is necessary for enlightenment. This is actually a fallacy on a number if levels, because any proposition about faith actually comes from reason (as all truth claims do) meaning reason is epistemically prior to any proposition about faith. It's a fallacy because reason is epistemically prior, yet by saying faith and reason go hand in hand you are saying they are epistemically equal, which they are not. People don't realise any statement you make us a statement of formal logic, and say to that faith is equal or superior to reason as a method of knowledge is using formal logic to reject the formal logic system, which is a formal fallacy.

I could go on and on but I'll leave it at that for now.

[posthuman]

Religious belief is based on faith, but so are certain naturalistic beliefs. We don't know how the Universe began or have a complete fossil record proving evolutionary theory to be entirely true. We have evidence for both, but there is evidence for religious claims as well--though it may be less reliable.

Humans are naturally "irrational". We hold unfounded beliefs about many things--atheists and theists alike. This is because we cannot separate ourselves from our feelings (feelings as in all emotions, passions, and intuitions we have--not necessarily full emotions like anger, hatred, or disgust) and our feelings very often control and override our reasoning. Dre, if you were to have a religious experience, you would not be able to dismiss it as nothing. You may not immediately become a theist, but you would begin to question your current beliefs because of the powerful emotional experience you had.

And the emotional experience need not be so huge. I used to be a militant Dawkins-esque atheist, but after becoming close friends with (and crushing on) a devout born-again Christian girl, I was able to see things from her perspective and understand that faith is not so destructive as I had thought it was. My passion against religious belief had kept me from seeing the other side, and then my feelings for this girl allowed me to expand my mental horizons.

So, basically, our feelings play a large part in directing our reasoning. Our ability to reason is far better at justifying our feelings, at rationalizing, than it is at finding objective truth. This applies doubly for things like moral views and worldviews.


I have my own ideas/opinions/theories as to how religion works and why people believe, but I'll admit that my views in this are not foolproof. I think religious belief is an evolutionary adaptation, but there are arguments against this. I also think that faith can be highly beneficial to society (as well as detrimental), but there are those, like Dawkins, who strongly disagree with this as well.

[Dre]

I did have what I thought to be religious experiences, ironically I too met a Christian girl and tried to look it at from her perspective. After awhile, I found out what I though were religious experiences were explained by sciences, and I found out I was biased because there was a girl in my life.

Humans aren't inherently irrational, we're rational creatures with the ability to be rational. 99% of human beliefs are rational, in the sense that every single little thing we believe (eg. that the tree in front of me is real and not an illusion) is usually the most rational option.

Most things believed through science and the like techincally require a little bit of faith in that we don't know they are abolsutely true, in the sense that most of the beliefs aren't deductively true or logically necessary. But that doesn't mean that they are faith-based beliefs, we have more than enough reason and inductive logic to believe that those things are true, to the point that if you didn't believe them it would be irrational.

For example, you can't technically know with absolute certainty that the object infront of you is real and not an illusion, but to actually believe it isn't real is irrational.

Religious beliefs are faith based beliefs because religious propositions are non-rational (not irrational, there is a difference). What I mean by non-rational is that none of these propositions are rational unless you are religious or consider the religion to be an aunthority. No non-religious person concluded through science or reasoning that there must be a God with a tri persona, or that there was a prophet who parted the Red Sea. These are propositions that are only rational in the context that the religion is true.

So when religious people resort to the theology to convert others or to defend their religion, they are committing the fallacy of circularity because they are using propositions which assume the religion is true to try and show that the religion is true. They are using non-rational propositions outside of the context in which they are rational (when the religion is true).

For religious beliefs to be rational, it would have to be irrational to believe the alternate. For example, it would have to be irrational for the neutral to believe that the world was not designed a loving God, despite the fact that theists themselves were asking the question of how this world could have been designed by a good God before atheists were even allowed to have a public opinion without being punished.

It would have to be irrational to believe that this universe, with its hundreds of billions of galaxies, wasn't all designed for humans, and that humans aren't the centre of this universe. Believing this would also be irrational.

These are just a couple of examples, there are plenty more. Once I learned about the logic of religion and logic in general, I realised that religion commits so many logical fallacies that it would be humurous if it wasn't responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Also, Dawkins is a complete idiot and is despised by every theist and atheist alike that is educated in the topics of God and religion. Scientists aren't any more educated or qualified to make comments on God or religion than a plumber is. The only things science is relevant for are evolution debates and intelligent design debates. But then if you think that every theist is anti-evolution and that intelligent design is the only argument for God then you're way too uneducated to commenting on these issues.

[posthuman]

This is only tangentially related to the original topic and it's somewhat long, but I think it's an important article to get through:

evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Mercier-Sperber-Why-do-humans-reason.pdf

[Dre]

I read a bit of it but didn't have the patience to read the whole thing. What's the point you're trying to make with it? That reason is a flawed method of attaining truth?

[posthuman]

Human reasoning is not meant to attain truth (though it is, sometimes, able to) and has many flaws and biases.

The scientific method is still a strong method of doing so though, because with peer review, the biases of the individual are often removed.

[Dre]

Firstly, the scientific method is based off reasoning. In fact what we call the scientific method is basically what we reasoned to be the most reliable method of attaining empirical truths. Science assumes logical and mathematical truths, and multiple axiomatic philosophical/rational assumptions.

So if you're going to criticise reason, then science goes out the window too, because science is the most rational attempt at attaining empirical truths.

Secondly, that entire paper consisted of arguments that came from reason, so it's contradictory and self-defeating. Pretty much any truth claim one makes stems from reason and be translated into formal logic, so it's self-defeating.

[jorgen]

"Human reasoning is not meant to attain truth (though it is, sometimes, able to) and has many flaws and biases."

Yo, he didn't say human reasoning CAN'T attain truth, just that it's not "designed" for that kind of thing and is therefore inefficient. Of course it's healthy to criticize the inefficiency of human reasoning. It's the whole reason peer review is implemented in the first place.

However, anything attempting to make any more than a very basic existential (read: useless) truth claim about the universe is audacious because it's done empirically rather than deductively (if it's even well-supported at all, that is). You can prove mathematical truths because the axioms are defined a priori; outside of such abstract domains, when you are dealing with truths of the physical sort, the best you can do is create and work within a model that fits the vast majority of observations, not actual truth. This is why "scientifically proven" and strict declarations of causality are such big no-nos in science, even though in practice it seems to be nothing more than splitting semantic hairs.

[cheese]

You can prove mathematical truths because the axioms are defined a priori; outside of such abstract domains, when you are dealing with truths of the physical sort, the best you can do is create and work within a model that fits the vast majority of observations, not actual truth. This is why "scientifically proven" and strict declarations of causality are such big no-nos in science, even though in practice it seems to be nothing more than splitting semantic hairs.

Yeh, Scientific theories are basically models of the Universe that give good, consistent results. That doesn't mean they're "true" or "proven" in any sense, although that is often a logical conclusion to make. In a way it doesn't even matter if they're "true" or not. Newton's theory of gravity was not correct, but it was good enough to get man to the Moon and back.

[WaterWizard]

redemption

Calvinism still allows for human responsibility. We aren't robots. But the bible clearly teaches total depravity, and that first point of Calvinism necessitates the other four points. Election is taught from Genesis to Revelation. Do you think I would believe the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) if it denied that Jesus graciously saved us? Of course not. The most common arguments against Calvinism are all straw men.

Redemption, what denomination are you? That info will help me explain my position in light of yours.

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:3-14

Isa

As Christians our biggest command in this life is to love God and love others. But a Christian would never exchange some sort of general "life of love" for Christ's love. We love because Christ first loved us. So, when we love others, we are loving them through Christ. We are sharing the love of Christ. This is a complex thing, and it involves the command to spread the Gospel, "the good spiel," the "good news." We can't separate our love from our LOVE.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8

"And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:37-40

@others

I'll reply in a bit.

[Dre]

Calvinism debates are futile because neither party has a proper justification of why they consider the scripture an authority, because they consider scripture the dole authority. That's a fallacy because no source can verify itself.

Without external justification for your interpretation, it just becomes a matter of what you were taught or what seems like the best model.

[WaterWizard]

Dre

When both parties agree to assume its authority, then they can debate of the actual content of scripture. After that we can eliminate theological doctrines within Christianity that are contradictory to the text.

And doesn't everything philosophical come down to what seems like the best model? I hardly find it futile to discuss philosophy, politics, etc, within a certain text or system. And the rules are the same there as with doctrinal discussion.

I actually don't think discussing doctrine in this public thread is really appropriate, so Redemption and I will take it to a PM.

Dre/Others

Again, I'll reply to the previous messages in a bit. Making dinner...

[Dre]

I don't see why discussing doctrine here is innappropriate. This is the off-topic section and we're all being civil. There are entire forums dedicated to calvinism debates in other places.

It does matter why you believe the scripture is an authority. For example, Catholics believe in the scripture because the Church tells them too. So their interpretation is based on certain teachings of the Church, which is why not every single teaching has to be in the Bible, because to them belief in the Bible is itself a teaching.

The problem is that when you consider scripture the sole authority (so you're basically saying it validates itself, which is the fallacy of circularity) there is simply no method to measure different interpretations against each other. The only way to do that is to have evidence external to the scripture of what the writers intended etc. But you can't have that with a scripture exclusive interpretation, because the only thing you care about is the scripture itself.

[WaterWizard]

I try not to debate doctrine in mixed company. That's just a personal conviction of mine, although there is perhaps scripture that backs this policy up (Matthew 7:6, etc). No offense, I just think doctrinal discussion is has its place.

And I didn't say it doesn't matter. I just said that when the two participants assume (at least for the sake of the argument) that scripture will be the source from which to draw, a balanced discussion can be had. This contrasts a debate between a Catholic and Protestant (which I just had today and it ended in ceasefire) where scripture is not the only authority.

To a Christian (Protestant), the Word and the Spirit are sufficient guidance. And as I said previously, we can eliminate any doctrines that have scriptural contradictions. For instance, Redemption and I can argue about whether Paul was a man or a woman, and we could come to a conclusion from scripture. After that, it's up to you to accept what doctrine remains or not.

Dre

Let me just address the stuff that was said in the past few days next, and leave the doctrinal discussion to Redemption and me, please? I know we could argue about it, but I don't have the time or energy and I'd like to address what was said previously, before this came up. Thanks.