|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 10, 2010 19:46:12 GMT -8
It's in the quote I put in my post (part of it anyway). Apparently it was edited out of the original sometime today after my post.  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 10, 2010 19:56:44 GMT -8
Moritz- Did you edit it because you were afraid us crazy Christians would start burning things down and sending death threats if you pointed out too many contradictions in the scriptures?  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 11, 2010 7:34:00 GMT -8
Apparently it was edited out of the original sometime today after my post. Nope. I edited my post 7 minutes after having posted it (11:07 a.m.). Your post appeared at 11:52 a.m., almost an hour later. Is it possible you copied my original post into another document? Cause I saw that you were online when I posted it and I also saw that no member was online when I removed it 7 minutes later and nobody had replied in the meantime. Either way, I decided to remove the part you quoted because I figured it would distract from the other point I wanted to treat ( and I was scared you “crazy Christians would start burning things down and sending death threats”).  I disagree that all interpretations are academically responsible. But how can you disagree with that when I never made such a statement? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 11, 2010 7:55:04 GMT -8
Ok. Sorry. Good. I'm glad you agree that not all interpretations are academically responsible  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 11, 2010 17:55:39 GMT -8
Thanks for the explanation. Actually, when I hit the reply button, it is not uncommon for it to be an hour or more before I actually complete the post. That's because, as the father of three young boys, my free time is measured in random 90 second increments ;D Usually when you see me on-line, I'm probably logged in, but not sitting at my computer. Come to think of it, pursuing any free time at all at this point is fool's errand and only leads to tears  . I've gotta be nuts. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 14, 2010 7:56:28 GMT -8
Ok. Sorry. Good. I'm glad you agree that not all interpretations are academically responsible You and your dirty little tricks...  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2010 6:44:25 GMT -8
Chris, thanks for your input!  But if we read it as an unfolding story of God's restoration project for human kind, it's much easier to see how God is revealing His plan to humanity through various dispensations, each one illuminating the previous one. Just one short comment: regardless of the question of whether seeing the Bible as “an unfolding story of God's restoration project for human kind” undoes the supposed contradictions or not, I want to state that analyzing the book assuming that it is the revelation of God’s word is not an academically correct (or “responsible” - to stick to Josh’s wording) approach. From the academic perspective, such an assertion can at best be the conclusion, but certainly not the premise. I know you know that. It’s more intended for the record.  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 16, 2010 6:52:14 GMT -8
Point noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2010 17:19:38 GMT -8
But, once it is a conclusion, then it can become a premise. If a responsible conclusion, then it is a responsible premise.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 18, 2010 2:22:53 GMT -8
But, once it is a conclusion, then it can become a premise. If a responsible conclusion, then it is a responsible premise. But we're not at the conclusion yet, are we? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2010 7:51:41 GMT -8
Some of us are, some aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Sept 18, 2010 8:54:54 GMT -8
LAME. If that's the case, there obviously must be no Absolute truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2010 17:00:23 GMT -8
My point was simply that from our perspective, having established the assertion, it can be a "responsible" premise. It was just a tiny side note. Kinda sorry I even went there |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 20, 2010 20:12:12 GMT -8
That's true from OUR perspective, it's a responsible premise. I agree with that. But Moritz simply said that from an academic perspective, it's a conclusion at best and not a premise. I have no problem agreeing with that either. I wouldn't expect anyone to come to our perspective from academics. I don't believe an academic study of scripture alone provides all the data one needs to form our perspective. Kirby wrote: Respectfully Kirby, I think that is non-sequitur. Non-consensus doesn't debunk the claim of absolute truth. But even as I'm writing this, I'm realizing that you were probably being tongue in cheek there and I'm just too dim witted (and tired) to catch it.  Let me know if that's the case and I'll shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Sept 21, 2010 15:06:16 GMT -8
I just thought it sounded a lot like "let's agree to disagree" which I hate. Yeah, the Absolute Truth thing was tongue in cheek, but by no means shut up! |
|
. I've gotta be nuts. 
