Got Doubts?

[John317]

The point still stands. You don't have any proof of that, thus it's not objective. An objective proof would be God talking to us like He did to Moses. In the very least, the proof would be an angel sighting at your local church, or reference from a secular historian confirming miraculous deeds of the God of Israel, and the empire that it's grown into under the wisest man that ever lived (who ironically ended up being not so wise).

All you have is claims to objective truth. Are you going to use these claims as proof?

Are you in agreement that your idea of inspiration is not what the Bible teaches?

Or does it matter to you whether the Bible teaches it or not? I ask this question seriously and not ironically because you seem to be saying that the Bible is not an important way of measuring truth for you. Maybe I'm mistaken, though.

[fccool]

Totally off topic but is that Viktor Tsoi in the 2nd picture under Osama? I was reading his wiki and he had some pretty progressive ideas for his time. When Radiohead released their album for free online a few years ago that was a big deal. Looks like Tsoi was already doing that (not online obviously) decades before.

That's correct. Back in the Soviet Days, the rock bands where pretty much underground, and performed in apartment parties. It was illegal in Soviet Russia not to have a job , so all of the band members would work part time as coal shovelers by day, and rock musicians by night.

But, the point that ties Tsoi into discussion is that Tsoi was made a hero, because the nation needed a hero that would stand as a symbol against the current establishment. That's why Tsoi was popular among people, because he was a symbol of the ideas that they were promoting at that particular time.

If Tsoi would come merely 10 years later, he would be a rather obscure musical figure with half-baked Russian rock lyrics and scene.

When we speak about Moses, Elijah, Christ... of their own, these characters personify certain ideals. The details of their lives are largely omitted and deemed unimportant outside of certain narrative purpose that they serve.

I think its important to take into consideration when discussing Biblical interpretation.

[John317]

What I am finding interesting and shocking is how much in agreement with each other are the atheists, agnositics, and "progressives". I do not mean to say that all people who view themselves as progressives would be in agreement with what is being posted on the Forum by others who see themselves in that light, but I do find it significant that they rarely discuss the issues with the atheists and agnostics when the latter attack the Bible, Christianity, or Ellen White.

[John317]

According to the Bible, inspiration has to do with the Holy Spirit giving visions, dreams, and thoughts, as well as helping the person write out those dreams and visions.

Originally Posted By: fccool

That's called "possession" and not inspiration.

I know you must be joking. But that word is not used in the Bible in reference to anything even remotely connected with the origin of the Bible. "Inspiration," however, is.

It means "God-breathed."

It is here:

Quote:

2 Tim. 3:16-17

All Scripture is breathed out [KJV inspired] by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righ teousness, [17] that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I take it that 1 Peter 1: 20-21 is another verse whose veracity you more or less outright reject:

Quote:

And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, [20] knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

Back in the Soviet Days, the rock bands where pretty much underground, and performed in apartment parties. It was illegal in Soviet Russia not to have a job , so all of the band members would work part time as coal shovelers by day, and rock musicians by night.

But, the point that ties Tsoi into discussion is that Tsoi was made a hero, because the nation needed a hero that would stand as a symbol against the current establishment. That's why Tsoi was popular among people, because he was a symbol of the ideas that they were promoting at that particular time.

If Tsoi would come merely 10 years later, he would be a rather obscure musical figure with half-baked Russian rock lyrics and scene.

I never heard of Tsoi. Was this in the 1970s?

Did his Rock band sound anything like the Beatles or some other British or American band?

How old were you in those days?

I'm interested in Soviet society. Were all jobs at that time assigned by the state? What kind of choices did you have? Could anyone attend university while working?

Originally Posted By: fccool

When we speak about Moses, Elijah, Christ... of their own, these characters personify certain ideals. The details of their lives are largely omitted and deemed unimportant outside of certain narrative purpose that they serve.

I think its important to take into consideration when discussing Biblical interpretation.

You don't appear to see them as being who they were and being in the Bible because of God's salvific activity.

Please give some brief examples of how you apply this principle to Christ's death and resurrection or to Moses' writing of the book of Genesis.

Do you believe Elijah is alive and in heaven?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

There is a computer program available that will generate the patterns from any text you feed it. It completely debunks the idea that numerology has anything to say other than there are patterns in all language.

When you think about it. Duh!

Hope you don't mind but I'm going to take the advice of Mr. Dark and question everything you're saying here.

Can you prove what you are saying-- I mean offer some concrete evidence and documentation?

[cardw]

But the point here is that the numerical patterns are based on a single Greek text, and there is no attempt to change the text in order to arrive at a particular numerical pattern. Therefore your theory or explanation falls flat.

Actually it is not based on a single text. Panin used the W&H text as a basis, but added variants in order to increase the number of patterns. It is quite easy to prove when we look at one particular claim by Panin.

Panin's report on the last twelve verses of Mark begins with the observation that there are 175 = 25x7 words in the Greek text. Well in the Wescott and Hort text there are only 172. In fact you can't find 175 in any of the major texts. Panin even published his own Greek text, carefully tweaked to provide the patterns that he most liked.

So the deeper you get into this the more you find flaws.

So John your claim that there was no attempt to change the text is flat wrong.

[Gerr]

If you look at my opening response, it was a question - how one is to balance between "questioning everything" and taking God at His word. It is one thing to:

"ESV | ‎1 Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.

‎‎NASB95 | ‎1 Th 5:21 °But examine everything carefully; hold fast °to that which is good°; 47.8% difference

‎‎NIV84 | ‎1 Th 5:21 °Test everything°. Hold on to the good.

and another thing to question everything in the sense of doubting everything. Otherwise we end up:

ESV | ‎2 Ti 3:7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

NIV84 | ‎2 Ti 3:7 always learning °but never able to °acknowledge the truth.

Yes, I agree, I should have at least looked at the link before responding. I'll do better next time.

[Tom Wetmore]

Down a similar rabbit hole - Bible Code .

I wonder if we look carefully at the code of a digital picture or of a bit of digital music we might find a new order of mystical meaning?

[fccool]

Sure, people will find meaning in anything. That's how horoscopes and psychics work . There's a general pattern that can be applied to just about anything, and the people fill it with their own intimate details and apply it to themselves.

Sort of reminds me of this song:

Quote:

Are you listening? (Whoa,oh,oh,oh,oh,oh)

Sing it back. (Ah,oh,oh,oh,oh,oh)

So tell me what do I mean (tell me what do I mean, uh oh, uh oh)

When words lose their meaning (When words lose their meaning)

I was spinning free (Whoa,oh,oh,oh,oh,oh)

with a little sweet and simple numbing me

Yeah, stumble til you crawl (Whoa,oh,oh,oh,oh,oh)

Sinking into sweet uncertainty

So, I find it ironic that this song is about nothing really, and it's a call for people to invent their own meaning and turn it from very simple lyrics into a complex concept which is still very uncertain . Even my explanation of this song is (maybe it is about drug use, LOL), but that's the reality of finding a pattern and infusing it with meaning that you yourself give. It works with virtually anything.

I find it to be very much the same in terms of reading the Biblical interpretation. Some preachers talk for an hours to explain a couple verses that they read in the Bible. And they pull all sorts of cross-reference material and complex "keys to interpreting this verse".

Just like in this song, it's very easy to infuse something with meaning that may not even be there.

[Igakusei]

What's funny to me is that when people come up with similar 'proofs' for the Bhagavad Gita, or Quran, or any other holy book, people like John will balk and come up with a hundred different legitimate, well-reasoned objections as to why they don't work. But then someone does the same thing with the Bible, and they'll drop their critical thinking like a rock and defend it to the death.

[skyblue888]

Doubting was the way of the Greek and it was foolishness since one can never be sure of something unless he has raised all possible doubts and how can one be sure that he has raised all possible doubts? Never.

So you see the foolishness of doubting the Word of God? "Thy word is truth." John 17:17. All that the truth expect from us is that we believe it even if we don't understand it. God has promised that if we believe what He says because He says it, He will give understanding. That is wisdom and the other is foolishness.

sky

[skyblue888]

The reason why there is so little of the Spirit of God manifested is that ministers learn to do without it. They lack the grace of God, lack forbearance and patience, lack a spirit of consecration and sacrifice; and this is the only reason why some are doubting the evidences of God's word. The trouble is not at all with the word of God, but in themselves. They lack the grace of God; lack devotion, personal piety, and holiness. This leads them to be unstable, and throws them often on Satan's battle-field. I saw that however strongly men may have advocated the truth; however pious they may appear to be; when they begin to talk unbelief in regard to some scriptures, claiming that they cause them to doubt the inspiration of the Bible, we should be afraid of them; for God is at a great distance from them.— Vol. I, p. 383. {GW92 246, 247}

John, this is a great quote. Okay it is found in Testimonies, Vol.1. Just checked it out.

sky

[cardw]

The reason why there is so little of the Spirit of God manifested is that ministers learn to do without it. They lack the grace of God, lack forbearance and patience, lack a spirit of consecration and sacrifice; and this is the only reason why some are doubting the evidences of God's word. The trouble is not at all with the word of God, but in themselves. They lack the grace of God; lack devotion, personal piety, and holiness. This leads them to be unstable, and throws them often on Satan's battle-field. I saw that however strongly men may have advocated the truth; however pious they may appear to be; when they begin to talk unbelief in regard to some scriptures, claiming that they cause them to doubt the inspiration of the Bible, we should be afraid of them; for God is at a great distance from them.— Vol. I, p. 383. {GW92 246, 247}

John, this is a great quote. Okay it is found in Testimonies, Vol.1. Just checked it out.

sky

This is what you write when you notice your best and brightest are catching on to the scam.

[fccool]

Doubting was the way of the Greek and it was foolishness since one can never be sure of something unless he has raised all possible doubts and how can one be sure that he has raised all possible doubts? Never.

So you see the foolishness of doubting the Word of God? "Thy word is truth." John 17:17. All that the truth expect from us is that we believe it even if we don't understand it. God has promised that if we believe what He says because He says it, He will give understanding. That is wisdom and the other is foolishness.

sky

So, your solution of not being able to be sure of something is to find one thing you are sure of because it tells you to be sure ?

Do you see any foolishness in that?

[Igakusei]

Not just foolishness, but irony. lots of irony.

[fccool]

Quote:

This is what you write when you notice your best and brightest are catching on to the scam.

I would not call it a scam. Perhaps a better word would be - establishment. Establishments are not necessarily scams. Many begin with noble intentions, but devolve into manipulation for their own survival.

We have similar establishments such as government with which you can't disagree on taxation principles for example. These ideas are enforced, because they are done and decided whether you agree or disagree.

But, usually people forget that in antiquity, the government and religion were the same entity. That's why religion is largely political in nature, when it comes to certain laws, and understanding. It was enforced by means of death penalty.

Geordano Bruno was not fighting church over matters of theology. He contradicted orthodox view of universe, which in fact contradicted church dogma. He was correct when he said "Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it"

The greatest fear of any establishment is loosing control. Without control, these people would have to have a different jobs that they are not trained for. Without control, all these people would have is their belief systems that people are free to disagree with.

The same goes for dependence. There're psychological reason why women stick with abusive husbands:

- They hope that the husbands would change

- They don't want to start over

For them, the fear of starting over is greater than the fear of being humiliated and beaten time after time. And the establishments, be it political, or religious, thrive on such concept. And such concept carries over to virtually any sphere of human relationships that you go to, be it religion, politics, science, law, economics, education, healthcare, government. You name it.

People are not encouraged to think independently, because it does not play into orthodoxy of the establishment. Likewise, people are not taught that it's better to start over right, than trying to fix something that's so terribly flawed (look at our economy, lol) So, historically, any such people were received with fear. Today, it's not much different.

Establishment is an organism that fights for its survival by any means necessary.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Doubting was the way of the Greek and it was foolishness since one can never be sure of something unless he has raised all possible doubts and how can one be sure that he has raised all possible doubts? Never.

So you see the foolishness of doubting the Word of God? "Thy word is truth." John 17:17. All that the truth expect from us is that we believe it even if we don't understand it. God has promised that if we believe what He says because He says it, He will give understanding. That is wisdom and the other is foolishness.

sky

So, your solution of not being able to be sure of something is to find one thing you are sure of because it tells you to be sure ?

Do you see any foolishness in that?

I ask you again, How can one be sure of anything if he won't believe until he has raised all possible doubts? How can he be sure he has raised all possible doubts?

Just because one may not fully understand everything the Bible says, is that a suficient reason to doubt it? Over the years I have found that if I am willing to wait until God sees fit to explain a difficult passage of Scripture that soon or later the explanation comes most of the times in very unexpected ways.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

This is what you write when you notice your best and brightest are catching on to the scam.

I would not call it a scam. Perhaps a better word would be - establishment. Establishments are not necessarily scams. Many begin with noble intentions, but devolve into manipulation for their own survival.

We have similar establishments such as government with which you can't disagree on taxation principles for example. These ideas are enforced, because they are done and decided whether you agree or disagree.

But, usually people forget that in antiquity, the government and religion were the same entity. That's why religion is largely political in nature, when it comes to certain laws, and understanding. It was enforced by means of death penalty.

Geordano Bruno was not fighting church over matters of theology. He contradicted orthodox view of universe, which in fact contradicted church dogma. He was correct when he said "Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it"

The greatest fear of any establishment is loosing control. Without control, these people would have to have a different jobs that they are not trained for. Without control, all these people would have is their belief systems that people are free to disagree with.

The same goes for dependence. There're psychological reason why women stick with abusive husbands:

- They hope that the husbands would change

- They don't want to start over

For them, the fear of starting over is greater than the fear of being humiliated and beaten time after time. And the establishments, be it political, or religious, thrive on such concept. And such concept carries over to virtually any sphere of human relationships that you go to, be it religion, politics, science, law, economics, education, healthcare, government. You name it.

People are not encouraged to think independently, because it does not play into orthodoxy of the establishment. Likewise, people are not taught that it's better to start over right, than trying to fix something that's so terribly flawed (look at our economy, lol) So, historically, any such people were received with fear. Today, it's not much different.

Establishment is an organism that fights for its survival by any means necessary.

I have to agree with you here.

sky

[fccool]

Quote:

I never heard of Tsoi. Was this in the 1970s?

Did his Rock band sound anything like the Beatles or some other British or American band?

Tsoy was in late 70s, early 80s. He really did not see the reason to perpetuate certain ideas that were not working, especially if there was a pressure from society for him to be something, when he wanted to be something else.

My dad in a way was very similar in his views back then. He was a pro basketball player, which these basketball players back then would play for local clubs and were written in to have fake jobs since it was considered immoral to receive money for something of that nature. The same went for much of the celebrity culture back in those days. The idea was that one is to use the talents for "Blago obshestva" - the good of society rather than oneself. It was a great idea, only it did not really work well, and Tosoy showed that there are loopholes that make the entire construct meaningless, while the rest of the society ends up slaving away for benefit of the people who understand the nature of such control from top down.

My dad was telling me stories how he broke his shoulder and could not "work"/play for a while. Obviously did not have any money to see specialists who would take care of the injury. He would go and buy jeans from people who came from Poland, by trading them for some cheap memorabilia that was in demand back then. He then would sell it to student for equivalent of $150-$200 back then, and such was his support till he got proper medical fix.

Quote:

How old were you in those days?

I was fairly young. By I remember a lot of things quite vividly. It was not as bad as they paint it here.

Quote:

I'm interested in Soviet society. Were all jobs at that time assigned by the state? What kind of choices did you have? Could anyone attend university while working?

No. You were still applied and hired, but the state took responsibility for virtually anyone who did not have a job. There were hardly people who were begging on the streets. Those people were taken, re-trained and rehabilitated. Likewise, the education was free, and students received stipend while they were studying. The housing was free for anyone. You had to stand in line for a while as the new apartment complexes were built, but you would not pay for it, except for some administrative fees here and there.

As far as students working, yet they could work while in the university. There were usually trade schools which were at night, and the actual colleges that were full-time. All of the students were required to take a week work trips to Collective Farms where they harvested the food. It was actually pretty fun experience.

[fccool]

Quote:

I ask you again, How can one be sure of anything if he won't believe until he has raised all possible doubts? How can he be sure he has raised all possible doubts?

I don't believe such is the idea. One does not have to raise all possible doubts that continent of Australia exist. You can buy the plain ticket and visit. Even indirect evidence is fairly solid.

Such is not the case with Biblical concept of God. There's more evidence for existence of Australia, for example, than proof of certain Biblical claims. So, why should the doubt be such a terrible thing in such case?

Quote:

Just because one may not fully understand everything the Bible says, is that a suficient reason to doubt it?

I've never claimed that I did not fully understand everything that Bible says. It's precisely because I understand what it says why those doubts are present. I actually have theological credential as I minored in Bible. In college I've memorized, dissected things to the point of breaking things down word for word and making 100 of required observations on 3-4 sentences in the Bible. And that went on and on.

There are numerous perspectives to consider, and it's generally people who study it thoroughly with open mind become those who end up questioning certain concepts.

Quote:

Over the years I have found that if I am willing to wait until God sees fit to explain a difficult passage of Scripture that soon or later the explanation comes most of the times in very unexpected ways.

You can always explain things away. It does not mean that the explanation is from God. The explanations that I usually see rule out any possibility of context going against Biblical claims. If one takes it as a starting point, why should we expect any other results?

Imagine approaching the car repair with idea that everything works fine, and that it's your own perspective which needs fixing. No matter how much you twist your perspective, not matter how much you believe that everything is fine with the car and that you are doing something wrong... if you rule out such possibility, and the car is broken... no amount of waiting will fix it.

[cardw]

Quote:

This is what you write when you notice your best and brightest are catching on to the scam.

I would not call it a scam. Perhaps a better word would be - establishment. Establishments are not necessarily scams. Many begin with noble intentions, but devolve into manipulation for their own survival.

I think you are right. I don't think Ellen White was being directly malicious, but I do think she had enough ego invested that it caused her to not be completely honest.

She writes in her personal letters that she fears becoming an infidel. So obviously these questions were creating some conflict in her as well. She just wasn't willing to face it head on.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: fccool

So, your solution of not being able to be sure of something is to find one thing you are sure of because it tells you to be sure ?

Do you see any foolishness in that?

I ask you again, How can one be sure of anything if he won't believe until he has raised all possible doubts? How can he be sure he has raised all possible doubts?

[CoAspen]

What I am finding interesting and shocking is how much in agreement with each other are the atheists, agnositics, and "progressives". I do not mean to say that all people who view themselves as progressives would be in agreement with what is being posted on the Forum by others who see themselves in that light, but I do find it significant that they rarely discuss the issues with the atheists and agnostics when the latter attack the Bible, Christianity, or Ellen White.

Maybe it's because there is no need felt to argue with them about such when they don't believe in them to begin with. If there were comnmon ground to discuss, okay. The Bible, Christianity and EGW are faith based not fact based. If they observe and see nothing being expressed that disuades them, why continue to argue? They can not be called 'discussions' when the samo-samo goes on.

Quite often it is best to say 'this is the way I beleive' and let it go. There is much to agree 'with' atheists, agnostics, etc. They simple view some things in life different.

If Christianity has to constantly defend its self, then maybe we should be asking ourselves...why?

[fccool]

It's essential to know and understand how Christians view other people. I think that the quote below from John sums it up fairly well

Quote:

The Devil inspires people to doubt the Bible as God's word. He also inspires SDAs to question and doubt the ministry and work of Ellen G. White.

All who are not under the control of the Holy Spirit are under the control of Satan, whether they realize it or not.

This view leaves no room for possibility of genuine reasons for doubt. It all becomes a work of Satan, who apparently controls those who doubt.

Thus there this paradoxical view of God's influence. If people do something good, then it's because Holy Spirit controls them. If they do something bad, then they are under influence of Satan.

Where does personal decision fits in the middle of this view of humanity? Are people just leaves blown about by God's or Satan's influence?

If Holy Spirit controlling you because you don't question or deny certain things, and Satan controlling me because I do question and deny certain things... where does it leave us? In essence you are dividing people into camps of us and them. In reality, there's no such distinction. There's no terrible thing in the world that's not worth forgiving, because all of us capable of it give right programming and circumstances. Such is the beginning of empathy.

What kind of father values the rules more than he values the life of their child? "Son, I told you that if you ever lied to me, then you deserve death. I love you, but I have to kill you now." It's ludicrous Any person is worth forgiving no matter what they've done, and not matter how horrible their acts are.

If you need some religious book to tell you that one perfect man died for you in order for you to begin to empathize and see the need to love and to help other people around you... something is terribly wrong here. Especially if one is expected to put a check box under every point of some orthodox dogma.