"Scripture Bombs"?

[Josh]

Kirby and Marcus,

I have been accused to dropping "scripture bombs" from both of you but I really have no idea what you're getting at. When I asked (Kirby) if you meant I was "proof texting" you said no. So, could one of you give me a succint definition of what you're getting at? Because it sure seems like anytime I cite a Scriptural support for something I'm saying you act like it's a faux pas. Rather than guessing what you're meaning and responding to that, I'd rather hear from you both what you really mean by the phrase.

[Kirby]

When I used that phrase, I meant that I felt as if you were relying on scripture alone to make your argument, instead of including other scholastic evidence, philosophical opinions, and natural evidence (at least in that particular case, I have witnessed you using the others many times both on this board and at Pubagetics). I guess I was feeling "bombarded" with your scriptural evidence, and felt you were vis a vis discounting other sources of knowledge.

I am sensitive to that due to my journey. I can not accept Sola Scriptura, so I tend to respond negatively when it is not compared to modern scholastic, scientific, societal, and other sources.

I never meant it to make you feel like it is a faux pas, but rather it was meant sarcastically to remind you that there is more to this particular subject than what scripture has to say. I apologize if that remark seemed insensitive.

Of course I realize that you and I differ in our regard of scripture and it's authority, and generally I try to respect and remember that. Just keep in mind that it will take more than scriptural evidence to convince me of a particular topic.

[Josh]

Thanks again Kirby. I think you actually did explain that well already. It's just now that Marcus jumped on the bandwagon I'm getting a bit paranoid

[Josh]

Marcus?