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

false dichotomy: accept my Bible interpretation / admit you disbelieve scripture

Expand Messages
  • wayoboy
    In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was subsequently judged by ALL of
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed
      to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was
      subsequently judged by ALL of the orthodox Church to be completely
      wrong? Of course, there have been many. Joseph Smith springs to
      mind. Smith made exactly that claim his whole life and now nearly
      200 years later we have millions of people duped into a belief
      system from which very, very few escape. Why? Even though all of
      Smith's assertions that can be disproved have been disproved, still
      the Mormon church goes on growing by leaps and bounds. Only Smith's
      absurd pronouncements regarding the world after this world (such as
      it being perpetual sex for a man with as many women as he likes and,
      again for men, that they will progress to godhood in due course)
      remain undisproved. All of Smith's pronouncements regarding the
      history of the Americas are laughable falsehoods. Ditto for his
      assertions in any number of other fields. And, most compelling of
      all, his lifestyle is shown to be that of just another lecher with a
      particularly persuasive come-on to young women.
      So, what's the point? The point is that it is dangerously simplistic
      to claim to have eviscerated your opponent's view by screaming
      louder than all others that "MY VIEW IS THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE
      BIBLE!" Mary Baker Eddy made that claim all her life, too.
      The only alternative to a screaming match is to 'reason together'.
      Young earth creationists should climb off their high horse, sit down
      and reason together with those who also take the Scriptures
      seriously. Stop pretending that the pure meaning of scripture enters
      directly from the ink on the pages of the Bible (which one would
      that be?) into their brains and their brains only where it remains
      in pristine condition throughout their life. For once in your life
      admit that you may be wrong and seek, in proper Christian humility,
      to judge whether Hugh Ross (and other old universe creationists like
      him) follow proper Biblical hermeneutics or not. If you apply this
      same kind of criteria to a charlatan like Joseph Smith you see what
      an obvious manipulative liar he was. Smith's bible said exactly what
      he wanted it to say and faithfully served Smith's selfish purposes.
      Smith's life was utterly consistent - always advancing his own
      lustful, worldly interests. Do you see the same marks in Hugh Ross?
      It's really not that hard. Right discernment, that is. Whether it's
      writ large as in Joseph Smith or the garden-variety would-be tyrant
      in your local body of believers. They all display the same obvious
      characteristics: arrogance and selfishness. And while you're at it,
      you might get an objective, uncowed opinion on the degree you
      evidence arrogance and selfishness in your own life. Actually this
      second endeavor (honest criticism) ought to preceed the first
      (criticizing old universers) - it will have a dramatic effect on
      whether you judge with righteous judgement or not.
    • Mark Whorton
      Okay. Not sure I see the point of your subject line, but let s do just that critical analysis. And while we are at it, swap Hugh Ross s name and replace it
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay. Not sure I see the point of your subject line, but let's do just that critical analysis. And while we are at it, swap Hugh Ross's name and replace it with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Jonathon Sarfati.

        I've stated it before that I am convinced that these three are much more interested in advancing their ideology than they are pursuing truth.

        I know Hugh well enough to know that he is a man of unquestionable integrity. Perhaps he might get some facts confused sometimes, but heck, I can't go to the grocery store for more than 3 items without a list, so I'm willing to cut him some slack. He may even push a new discovery for a decimal point or two more than I might sometimes, but he is making a point. But integrity, honesty, and a commitment to advance the kingdom of God? Hugh is above reproach (along with Fuz as well) in my opinion.

        I wish I could say the same for Hovind, Ham, and Sarfati.

        Blessings,
        Mark Whorton

        wayoboy <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed
        to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was
        subsequently judged by ALL of the orthodox Church to be completely
        wrong? Of course, there have been many. Joseph Smith springs to
        mind. Smith made exactly that claim his whole life and now nearly
        200 years later we have millions of people duped into a belief
        system from which very, very few escape. Why? Even though all of
        Smith's assertions that can be disproved have been disproved, still
        the Mormon church goes on growing by leaps and bounds. Only Smith's
        absurd pronouncements regarding the world after this world (such as
        it being perpetual sex for a man with as many women as he likes and,
        again for men, that they will progress to godhood in due course)
        remain undisproved. All of Smith's pronouncements regarding the
        history of the Americas are laughable falsehoods. Ditto for his
        assertions in any number of other fields. And, most compelling of
        all, his lifestyle is shown to be that of just another lecher with a
        particularly persuasive come-on to young women.
        So, what's the point? The point is that it is dangerously simplistic
        to claim to have eviscerated your opponent's view by screaming
        louder than all others that "MY VIEW IS THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE
        BIBLE!" Mary Baker Eddy made that claim all her life, too.
        The only alternative to a screaming match is to 'reason together'.
        Young earth creationists should climb off their high horse, sit down
        and reason together with those who also take the Scriptures
        seriously. Stop pretending that the pure meaning of scripture enters
        directly from the ink on the pages of the Bible (which one would
        that be?) into their brains and their brains only where it remains
        in pristine condition throughout their life. For once in your life
        admit that you may be wrong and seek, in proper Christian humility,
        to judge whether Hugh Ross (and other old universe creationists like
        him) follow proper Biblical hermeneutics or not. If you apply this
        same kind of criteria to a charlatan like Joseph Smith you see what
        an obvious manipulative liar he was. Smith's bible said exactly what
        he wanted it to say and faithfully served Smith's selfish purposes.
        Smith's life was utterly consistent - always advancing his own
        lustful, worldly interests. Do you see the same marks in Hugh Ross?
        It's really not that hard. Right discernment, that is. Whether it's
        writ large as in Joseph Smith or the garden-variety would-be tyrant
        in your local body of believers. They all display the same obvious
        characteristics: arrogance and selfishness. And while you're at it,
        you might get an objective, uncowed opinion on the degree you
        evidence arrogance and selfishness in your own life. Actually this
        second endeavor (honest criticism) ought to preceed the first
        (criticizing old universers) - it will have a dramatic effect on
        whether you judge with righteous judgement or not.






        ---------------------------------
        Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Penn
        Okay. Not sure I see the point of your subject line, but let s do just that critical analysis. And while we are at it, swap Hugh Ross s name and replace it
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Okay. Not sure I see the point of your subject line, but let's do just that critical analysis. And while we are at it, swap Hugh Ross's name and replace it with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Jonathon Sarfati.

          I've stated it before that I am convinced that these three are much more interested in advancing their ideology than they are pursuing truth.



          *** That is because you don't like their blanket trust in the word of God. If you trusted Jesus, you would have believed him when he said it was safe to do so.






          I know Hugh well enough to know that he is a man of unquestionable integrity.

          *** What a sick joke this line is! I and many others have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hugh Ross is a liar who tells blatant lies in furthering his positions. Men of integrity do not have to do this. Hovind, Ham, and Safarti certainly don't. Your slip is showing.


          Mark


          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark Penn
          In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was subsequently judged by ALL of
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed
            to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was
            subsequently judged by ALL of the orthodox Church to be completely
            wrong?


            *** Yes. The Israelites who were but a small remnant that did not bend their knees to Baal as the majority did comes to mind. If you remember, they were the only ones that had God's respect. The Church at Smyrna comes to mind also. They were forced to hide in caves over their refusal to compromise their beliefs. God had nothing but kind things to say about both groups.







            Of course, there have been many. Joseph Smith springs to
            mind. Smith made exactly that claim his whole life and now nearly
            200 years later we have millions of people duped into a belief
            system from which very, very few escape. Why?



            *** He was and is much like Hugh Ross is why. The clear word of God is not enough for neither one of them so they both factor in their own ideas from other sources than the inspired scriptures and act as if these outside sources came from God himself. I am not the least bit surprised that you don't see the parallels.





            So, what's the point?


            *** The point is that you hate the word of God and those that respect is and follow it. You hate them so bad that you make ridiculous analogies such as this.





            The point is that it is dangerously simplistic
            to claim to have eviscerated your opponent's view by screaming
            louder than all others that "MY VIEW IS THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE
            BIBLE!" Mary Baker Eddy made that claim all her life, too.


            *** LIAR! To say such a things proves that you have no idea of what you speak on this issue.



            Mark


            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mark Whorton
            Pennster, I m not even sure why I m responding to your nonsense. I guess your fruit hangs a little too low to not pick. By blanket trust in the word of God
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 22, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Pennster,
              I'm not even sure why I'm responding to your nonsense. I guess your fruit hangs a little too low to not pick.

              By "blanket trust in the word of God" do you mean a closed-minded simplistic ideology that fails to follow the admonition of Scripture to examine what you believe? I'm really having trouble seeing how what I said has anything to do with failing to trust Jesus, but if that makes you feel good, then more power to you.

              You are really a piece of work. Calling Danny a liar, accusing me of not trusting Jesus, slandering Hugh, and then holding up Hovind as an example of integrity! Have you ever really examined what Hovind says to see if it is really true? Have you ever thought that you might be wrong in your neatly packaged little worldview?

              OK, enough of the pointless typing.

              Mark Whorton

              Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach15065@...> wrote: Okay. Not sure I see the point of your subject line, but let's do just that critical analysis. And while we are at it, swap Hugh Ross's name and replace it with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Jonathon Sarfati.

              I've stated it before that I am convinced that these three are much more interested in advancing their ideology than they are pursuing truth.



              *** That is because you don't like their blanket trust in the word of God. If you trusted Jesus, you would have believed him when he said it was safe to do so.






              I know Hugh well enough to know that he is a man of unquestionable integrity.

              *** What a sick joke this line is! I and many others have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hugh Ross is a liar who tells blatant lies in furthering his positions. Men of integrity do not have to do this. Hovind, Ham, and Safarti certainly don't. Your slip is showing.


              Mark


              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              ---------------------------------
              Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mark Whorton
              So now I see -- I should have seen it all along. Thank you so much Mr. Pennster for pointing out the obvious. According to Pennster, Danny: you hate the
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 22, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                So now I see -- I should have seen it all along. Thank you so much Mr. Pennster for pointing out the obvious. According to Pennster, Danny:

                "you hate the word of God"
                "[you hate] those that respect is (sic) and follow it."
                "You hate them so bad (sic) that you make ridiculous analogies" (now there's a real measure of hatred if ever I saw one).
                "[you are a] LIAR!"
                "you have no idea of what you speak on this issue."

                Well at least we didn't find out that you have no idea of what you speak in general, your ignorance is just restricted to "this issue." Whew, that's a relief.

                Pennster must have the gift of prophecy to glean so much truth from so few words. I suspect he has the gift of mercy and helps also.

                Mark Whorton


                Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach15065@...> wrote: In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed
                to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was
                subsequently judged by ALL of the orthodox Church to be completely
                wrong?


                *** Yes. The Israelites who were but a small remnant that did not bend their knees to Baal as the majority did comes to mind. If you remember, they were the only ones that had God's respect. The Church at Smyrna comes to mind also. They were forced to hide in caves over their refusal to compromise their beliefs. God had nothing but kind things to say about both groups.







                Of course, there have been many. Joseph Smith springs to
                mind. Smith made exactly that claim his whole life and now nearly
                200 years later we have millions of people duped into a belief
                system from which very, very few escape. Why?



                *** He was and is much like Hugh Ross is why. The clear word of God is not enough for neither one of them so they both factor in their own ideas from other sources than the inspired scriptures and act as if these outside sources came from God himself. I am not the least bit surprised that you don't see the parallels.





                So, what's the point?


                *** The point is that you hate the word of God and those that respect is and follow it. You hate them so bad that you make ridiculous analogies such as this.





                The point is that it is dangerously simplistic
                to claim to have eviscerated your opponent's view by screaming
                louder than all others that "MY VIEW IS THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE
                BIBLE!" Mary Baker Eddy made that claim all her life, too.


                *** LIAR! To say such a things proves that you have no idea of what you speak on this issue.



                Mark


                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                ---------------------------------
                Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mark Whorton
                OK, I blew it here. I thought these quotes were from Danny s response to the original post but I was incorrect. Looks like Pennster is making these claims
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 22, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  OK, I blew it here. I thought these quotes were from Danny's response to the original post but I was incorrect. Looks like Pennster is making these claims about the original author of the post and not Danny.

                  All of you can rest easier -- Danny really is the good guy we suspected.

                  Sorry for the confusion about Pennster's target.

                  Whorton

                  Mark Whorton <whortms@...> wrote: So now I see -- I should have seen it all along. Thank you so much Mr. Pennster for pointing out the obvious. According to Pennster, Danny:

                  "you hate the word of God"
                  "[you hate] those that respect is (sic) and follow it."
                  "You hate them so bad (sic) that you make ridiculous analogies" (now there's a real measure of hatred if ever I saw one).
                  "[you are a] LIAR!"
                  "you have no idea of what you speak on this issue."

                  Well at least we didn't find out that you have no idea of what you speak in general, your ignorance is just restricted to "this issue." Whew, that's a relief.

                  Pennster must have the gift of prophecy to glean so much truth from so few words. I suspect he has the gift of mercy and helps also.

                  Mark Whorton

                  Mark Penn <yeshuahameshiach15065@...> wrote: In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who claimed
                  to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures but was
                  subsequently judged by ALL of the orthodox Church to be completely
                  wrong?


                  *** Yes. The Israelites who were but a small remnant that did not bend their knees to Baal as the majority did comes to mind. If you remember, they were the only ones that had God's respect. The Church at Smyrna comes to mind also. They were forced to hide in caves over their refusal to compromise their beliefs. God had nothing but kind things to say about both groups.







                  Of course, there have been many. Joseph Smith springs to
                  mind. Smith made exactly that claim his whole life and now nearly
                  200 years later we have millions of people duped into a belief
                  system from which very, very few escape. Why?



                  *** He was and is much like Hugh Ross is why. The clear word of God is not enough for neither one of them so they both factor in their own ideas from other sources than the inspired scriptures and act as if these outside sources came from God himself. I am not the least bit surprised that you don't see the parallels.





                  So, what's the point?


                  *** The point is that you hate the word of God and those that respect is and follow it. You hate them so bad that you make ridiculous analogies such as this.





                  The point is that it is dangerously simplistic
                  to claim to have eviscerated your opponent's view by screaming
                  louder than all others that "MY VIEW IS THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE
                  BIBLE!" Mary Baker Eddy made that claim all her life, too.


                  *** LIAR! To say such a things proves that you have no idea of what you speak on this issue.



                  Mark


                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  ---------------------------------
                  Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mark Penn
                  Pennster, I m not even sure why I m responding to your nonsense. I guess your fruit hangs a little too low to not pick. By blanket trust in the word of God
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 23, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Pennster,
                    I'm not even sure why I'm responding to your nonsense. I guess your fruit hangs a little too low to not pick.


                    By "blanket trust in the word of God" do you mean a closed-minded simplistic ideology that fails to follow the admonition of Scripture to examine what you believe?




                    *** Practice what you preach for a change. That would me something new for you. We true believers, not you of course, know to test all things against the word of God. We don't need you nor Hugh Ross to tell us how it should read as if the both of you were there during creation and are privy to info that God, Jesus, and Moses did not have. As such, your observations mean nothing.










                    I'm really having trouble seeing how what I said has anything to do with failing to trust Jesus, but if that makes you feel good, then more power to you.



                    *** Of course you don't get it, that is the point and the whole problem with your theology and your view on science. If you were as smart as you would have us believe, you would "get it".







                    You are really a piece of work. Calling Danny a liar, accusing me of not trusting Jesus, slandering Hugh, and then holding up Hovind as an example of integrity! Have you ever really examined what Hovind says to see if it is really true? Have you ever thought that you might be wrong in your neatly packaged little worldview?



                    *** If things were different than what the book of Genesis tells us, then God would have said so. He didn't! He was the only one there after all.

                    It is a pure and simple fact that it is not possible to honestly say you trust one whose word you do not believe. Hence those that claim to know Christ and yet add to his word to arrive at positions such as Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creation are in fact liars for claiming to know him and trust him.

                    Mark


                    ---------------------------------
                    Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mark Penn
                    So now I see -- I should have seen it all along. Thank you so much Mr. Pennster for pointing out the obvious. According to Pennster, Danny: *** Nope as usual!
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 23, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      So now I see -- I should have seen it all along. Thank you so much Mr. Pennster for pointing out the obvious. According to Pennster, Danny:

                      *** Nope as usual! I did not reply to Dr Faulkner and this was not addressed to him and you know that. His posts need not be addressed as the science and logic therein is not so flawed and full of errors and lies as such that comes from the Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists.

                      The fact that you would apply a reply to another to Dr Faulkner is but more proof that your ilk is not above outright lying to prove your case. Then again I already knew that.

                      Mark


                      ---------------------------------
                      Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Dave Oldridge
                      ... I highly doubt it. I mean to be COMPLETELY wrong, you d have to be pretty perverse. Has Orthodoxy declared many who made such claims to be heterodox?
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 23, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > In the history of the earth, has there ever been someone who
                        > claimed to be rightly interpreting the Christian scriptures
                        > but was subsequently judged by ALL of the orthodox Church to
                        > be completely wrong?

                        I highly doubt it. I mean to be COMPLETELY wrong, you'd have to
                        be pretty perverse. Has Orthodoxy declared many who made such
                        claims to be heterodox? Certainly, and such declarations
                        continue to this day.
                      • aigsfavoriteperson
                        LOL, You hold up Hovind as your model of integrity - Far more than your slip is showing! ... beyond a reasonable doubt that Hugh Ross is a liar who tells
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 26, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          LOL, You hold up Hovind as your model of integrity - Far more than
                          your slip is showing!


                          > *** What a sick joke this line is! I and many others have proven
                          beyond a reasonable doubt that Hugh Ross is a liar who tells blatant
                          lies in furthering his positions. Men of integrity do not have to do
                          this. Hovind, Ham, and Safarti certainly don't. Your slip is showing.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.