Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Which Is More Reliable?/Ross

Expand Messages
  • Saitia
    ... S: Only of your personal faith belief. (It s worth noting that when faith fosters betrayal of intellectual integrity, it has falsified its trust.) ... S:
    Message 1 of 100 , Apr 1 8:43 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "rosariodsouza" <rjds@...> wrote:
      >
      > Prev Ross:
      >
      > Jesus believed that the Bible was inerrant. In fact, he said that
      > every stroke of every letter in it is accurate.
      >
      > S:
      >
      > This is news to me; can you provide evidence for this?
      >
      > Ross:
      >
      > Ah, well now, what kind of evidence are you looking for? For
      > example, if I were to say as follows:
      >
      > "A profound conviction within my soul compellingly admonishes that
      > it would be wrong not to believe that Jesus considered the Bible
      > inerrant. I'm simply yielding intellectual loyalty to the highest
      > dictates of spiritual consciousness."
      >
      > would you accept it as evidence?

      S: Only of your personal faith belief.
      (It's worth noting that when faith fosters betrayal
      of intellectual integrity, it has falsified its trust.)



      >
      >Ross: Or would your rather that I show you a verse in Scripture?

      S: Do you have one that quotes Jesus saying
      ". . .every stroke of every letter in [the Bible]
      is accurate"? (btw, which version— or is it all versions?)

      Thanks,
      Saitia
    • Saitia
      ... S: All real truth is from God, and has value; anyone who rejects or loses eternal life also loses whatever truth they may have garnered, if any, and it
      Message 100 of 100 , Apr 10 9:28 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "rosariodsouza" <rjds@...> wrote:

        > I didn't say truth is relative. I said personal experience is
        > relative.
        >
        > I don't agree that relative truth always has value. Satan's relative
        > truth didn't have value. Neither did that of Judas Iscariot. Neither
        > did that of the Pharisees.

        S: All real truth is from God, and has value;
        anyone who rejects or loses eternal life also loses
        whatever truth they may have garnered, if any, and it
        eventually becomes of value to some one else.
        But no truth is ever lost.





        > Prev S: Have you determined whether your conviction originated in your
        > soul, or in your intellect? We are better off rejecting the Spirit's
        > expression through believing it to be a purely human experience,
        > rather than blunder into exalting a physiological reaction of the
        > mind to the sphere of the divine.
        >
        > Ross:
        >
        > Please define `soul' and `intellect'.

        S: I define the intellect as the mind arena of choice;
        the conscious, material, energy system facilitated by
        the brain, and the seat of the identity of selfhood.
        Experience, wisdom, and judgment are some of the
        more important concomitants of mind.
        I don't have the time to discuss these and other
        attributes like personality, identity, character,
        memory, selfhood, and maturity, but they are all
        important factors associated with the intellect of mind.

        When mind and personality are linked with spirit,
        and held together in a functional relationship by
        life in a material body, the relationship of mind
        and spirit results in a new, and unique value; that is
        the soul. The eternal salvation of a soul is assured
        by the hunger and thirst for goodness, which leads a
        person to develop a singleness of purpose to do the
        Father's will, to find God, and to become like him.

        Every honest attempt of the intellect to communicate
        with its indwelling spirit meets with certain success,
        even though you may not become consciously aware of it.
        But there's never any conflict between true knowledge
        and truth in the soul. There may be conflict between
        knowledge and beliefs in the mind, beliefs that are colored
        with prejudice, distorted by fear, or dominated by the
        dread of facing new facts of spiritual progress. In our
        soul is where God dwells and speaks to the human mind;
        things like fear, prejudice, and dread never emminate from
        the soul; they are the product of the material mind.





        > Prev S: Hmm. So when you came to Numbers 5, for instance, you had
        > a "profound conviction" it was a divinely ordained technique for
        > determining a woman's fidelity to her husband? That the account was
        > in truth and in fact the inerrant Word of God?
        >
        > Ross:
        >
        > Absolutely. What do you find wrong with it? In the OT I think it
        > would have worked every time because would back it up.(sic) Now that the
        > NT has come, these rules of the OT are no longer applicable.

        S: I see. So when a *newer testament* comes,
        the NT "rules" will no longer be "applicable"?
        Or will Christians treat it like the Pharisees
        treated Jesus Christ?




        >
        > Secondly, what prevents the Almighty God from putting the right
        > stuff in the holy water and the dirt to make it work? Do we not
        > today take a pill and distilled water to make miracles happen in our
        > bodies? What is a pill? Is it not dirt (something that is made up of
        > the elements of the earth)?

        S: And BLACK could be WHITE if God would only back you up on this. . .
        God's laws are immutable because it is the way he wants things to
        be done; he doesn't change them to fit the superstitions of men.

        >
        > Prev S: That's just one of the problems one faces when elevating the
        > words of men to the authority of divine revelation. If the Bible had
        > said the earth was flat, otherwise sane men and women would refuse
        > to accept positive evidence that the planet is round.
        >
        > Ross:
        >
        > The Bible doesn't say that the earth was flat, so your point is
        > irrelevant.

        S: It's completely relevant; especially concerning your
        responses above, where you justify drinking dirt to
        prove marital fidelity as the inerrant word of God, because
        "the Bible says" it.


        —Saitia
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.