| Subject: And Maybe all are wrong |
Author:
Brian
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/17/02 11:28pm
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "There are very many denominations of Christianity" on 05/17/02 3:09pm
>>In your going back to the "ORIGINAL idea" do you
>>have access to any ancient biblical manuscripts that
>>the rest of us are denied access to?
>I have access to a lot of books, written by
>people who probably know a lot more about this subject
>than we both do.
So? Are these authors in agreement on the ORIGINAL idea? Do they have access to documents not available to us? Unless they provide a clear case for what the original idea was, how do you know, among the competing religions, which best retains the original idea?
>>Or is there some reason to think that your concept
>>of the ORIGINAL idea is a better one than ones put
>>forth by others who differ with you?
>..... I don't know that it is any "better" or "worse",
>but it is probable that what I have written is more
>likely to be closer to what really happened.
What are you referring to by “what I have written”? And for what you have written to be closer, please explain – closer than what? And what is the standard you are using to determine that you are closer?
>> .... Why does it then have to follow that He has
>>ever since inspired / communicated with people? Is it
>>possible that (as some religions hold) the message
>>delivered in the Bible was sufficient and complete?
>..... It is far more likely that God has done all
>sorts of things. Clergy is unable to make God shut up
>nor can they control what God does or doesn't do. Very
>probably God has communicated with all who are "tuned
>In" to God, even if they are NOT Christians.
You have a hard time being definite in your ideas. “more likely” … very probably”. And make your responses specific to the question, not some pie-in-the-sky generality that can be applied to everything from Swiss cheese to modern poetry. Your original claim, unambiguously stated, was that if it was true that God inspired the authors of the Bible, then He has continued communicating with people since, and we must be heedful of these messages. Can you support the conclusion you say follows from the premise?
>>>>What do you mean when you say"these more recent
>communications must not be ignored"? <<<
>..... It's not enough to only "believe in God", but we
>are required to OBEY God.
But is it not sufficient to assimilate the message that God put in the Bible? If we need something that did not make it into the Bible, how about those who had only the Bible before the new message was delivered?
>> What more recent communications? The ones that
>>came through the Branch Davidians, or Jonestown? How
>>about the recent scriptures claimed by the Mormons? <<<
>..... Those who are in communication with God know
>what I mean.
Beautiful dodge. The Mormons claim to be led by a prophet who has the same rights and powers that the prophets of old did. Since this sounds pretty clearly like being in communication with God, the Book of Mormon must be part of the new communication that we must heed, right?
>> .... to state it as an absolute logical conclusion
>>means you can prove it.
>..... As far as I know, nobody can prove what
>God does or what God is like. Can you? No bible
>passages can do that either.
You are the one who phrased it in an unambiguous logical form. Now are you implying that what you said was not true?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 