Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: crustpope on April 02, 2009, 12:52:59 AM

Collin, first of all, there are more than one definition on the infallibility of the gospel.  Second, the wote you pulled did not mention infallibility  it mentioned inspiration which is a totally different thing.

thirdly, who is to say the proverbs and Psalms were not written pre-exile but compliled by post-exile editors?

and about Job, well, i do not believe in a litteral job so im on your side there, but your argument makes suppositions that others would not.  They would say that Job was written in the time period it records, and then compiled or edited in the post exillic period.

I understand where you are going here, but you are making leaps of logic based on assumptions that you need to explain or at least point to your proof or reasons for doing so.

Yes, wisdom literature has a much different textual feel to it and it is written in a much different way that betrays its mesopotamian influences, but most people dont have the benefit of extensive textual criticism under their belt.

plus, the case is not as cut and dry as you assume.

Well, I don't think it's a faulty appeal to authority to say that the majority of Biblical scholars support everything I just said, is it?

Colin, for a philosopher, you have a hard time debating.  Where did I accuse you of a "faulty appeal to athourity" in my passage?  I merely said you made "leaps of logic based on assumptions that you need to explain"  I didn't say they were faulty, I just said you were basically ambushing people out of nowhere claiming something without explaining why.

I mean, I don't exactly have the time or resources to pull out all of the Sumerian/Babylonian syncrontisms (though I did just write an interesting paper on it).

Yeah, but you should probably give us a taste if you are going to drop a bomb like that.  and by the way, I would be inredibly interested in reading that paper if you woudn't mind forwarding it to me.  I love that kind of stuff.  PM me if that is OK with you.

I always laugh at the lunacy of a jedi saying the absolute statement "only the Sith deal in absolutes."

Especially when the Sith consider their philosophy a "larger view of the Force", in other words, obfuscation through subjectivism.

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 27, 2009, 08:46:23 PM

Hypothetically speaking, must all Christians be heroes?

lol i dont think joab should be a hero cause he was a jerk he killed absalom whendavid told him not to. cause absalom got his hair caught up in a tree (dont ask me how you do that!) and joab killed him any ways.  if you ask me he should be brown/red person.

Well, I mean, David took a census of Israel when Joab told him not to so I guess it's all even.

Quote from: Colin Michael on April 02, 2009, 10:22:44 AM

Do explain.

What do I need to explain?  the Emperor told Anakin that he adopts, quote, "a larger view of the Force".  The Jedi are the "narrow thinkers" and the Sith are the "open-minded ones".

From a certain point of view.

So it would be like modernists vs post-modernists perhaps?

Lets just say that Christians still sin. Hey, "Let it be" by the Beatles just started playing on the radio.

Quote from: stefferweffer on March 28, 2009, 09:10:05 AM

We have evil Christians in the game, and they are evil characters.  Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, but fell away.  Same with Simon the Sorceror and Demas.  It seems that the designers of the game agree with scripture, as I read it, that one ceases to be among the "saved" once they start down a dark path of sin and refuse to repent.  (In Simon's case I feel he did fully repent, but that's beside the point).

Well, technically, anyone who leaves would have been never elect to begin with.

Colin, I'm grateful to see some real Biblicists on this board...wow most believers don't even understand election well enough to say that.
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)

 

You missed Mr. Ogian calling Colin a "real Biblicist," while many people on the boards know him for not necessarily adhering to the Bible as truth.

and the irony is he claims he's "christian" when he clearly doesn't act like one

There's a large percentage of Christians who hold the same hermeneutical view of the Bible as I do, the Nazarenes for example. Also, most college professors and scholars will hold a similar view to mine. Many of you received the more extreme end as I shifted from my sola scriptura beliefs to the contextualist system I now adhere to, as I worked out most of the thought processes involved in discussions on this board and others.

If "real Biblicist" is to mean "Biblical scholar" as opposed to "Biblical fundamentalist", then I'd consider it high praise coming from someone getting their masters in theology.

There's a large percentage of Christians who hold the same hermeneutical view of the Bible as I do, the Nazarenes for example. Also, most college professors and scholars will hold a similar view to mine. Many of you received the more extreme end as I shifted from my sola scriptura beliefs to the contextualist system I now adhere to, as I worked out most of the thought processes involved in discussions on this board and others.

If "real Biblicist" is to mean "Biblical scholar" as opposed to "Biblical fundamentalist", then I'd consider it high praise coming from someone getting their masters in theology.

I was going by the first definition actually, so no offense:

Bib⋅li⋅cist   /ˈbɪbləsɪst/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [bib-luh-sist]  Show IPA
–noun

1. a person who interprets the Bible literally.
2. a Biblical scholar.

i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD

You don't believe it's literal? What about Daniel? What about Ezekial? What about Hebrews?

Quote from: Rrulez on May 05, 2009, 04:38:49 PM

Quote from: New Raven BR on May 05, 2009, 04:37:15 PM

i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD

You don't believe it's literal? What about Daniel? What about Ezekial? What about Hebrews?

What about the parables?

Those could be taken litteraly to an extent.

"Literalist" isn't a good word.

"Fundamentalist" fits better: one who takes the Bible to mean exactly what it says as if it is God speaking directly to every given context.

A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time). A contextualist would look at how Paul addressed specific issues and from that speculate Paul's mindset, lifestyle, and personal theological views. A contextualist also would look at the gospels not as much as the words of Jesus but as the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, or John, and identify possible biases as well as the historical events that may have caused each of them to write with different perspectives (for example, Christianity isn't as anti-pharisee until after the fall of the temple; Matthew focuses on Jesus being the Jewish Messiah while Luke focuses on Jesus being the saviour of Jew, Greek, gentile, woman, and slave).