tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8881181921669200465..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Teach us to number our daysRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49551787673828584582007-07-04T18:10:00.001-04:002007-07-04T18:10:00.001-04:00Anonymous said:I have many problems with such diat...Anonymous said:<BR/><BR/><B>I have many problems with such diatribes as yours.</B><BR/><BR/>1. Merriam-Webster defines a diatribe as "a bitter and abusive speech or writing." How does Steve's post fit into this definition?<BR/><BR/>2. Actually, Anonymous' comment is a far better example of a diatribe.<BR/><BR/><B>For one, I think many people mistake such exhaustive arguments as being necessary for faith, when in fact they are almost antithetical to faith because of their single-minded pursuit of certainty. How does this pursuit of certainty jibe with Heb 11:1? It pursues the sight of that which is not seeable and then claims to see it. I really don't get it.</B><BR/><BR/>After reading Anonymous' diatribe, I can see how things like reason and logic might get in the way of his (I'll assume he's a he) argument to have faith in faith.<BR/><BR/><B>Another problem I have with such arguments is they make every little detail as important as the big picture. You even say as much.</B><BR/><BR/>1. Where does Steve "say as much"?<BR/><BR/>2. What makes Anonymous think some "details" aren't as "important" as "the big picture"? Doesn't it depend on the "details" in question as well as what "the big picture" is -- which Anonymous fails to give us?<BR/><BR/><B>How can you spend so much time, for instance, picking apart the various interpretations of the word "day" when there are so many hungry people in your town.</B><BR/><BR/>1. How does Anonymous know we don't help feed the hungry in our communities? Is he omniscient like God?<BR/><BR/>2. Steve did much more than simply "[pick] apart the various interpretations of the word 'day.'" To imply otherwise is unfair.<BR/><BR/>3. Why can't someone do both -- feed the hungry and blog about a topic of interest or even engage in apologetics? <BR/><BR/>4. What's wrong with engaging in debate and argument with a specific goal(s) in mind? For example, knocking down certain shoddy arguments could possibly help people rethink their beliefs.<BR/><BR/>5. Anonymous is commenting here. Why is he spending so much of his time commenting here rather feeding the hungry people in his town?<BR/><BR/><B>When I read this, I can almost see your phylacteries and tassels.</B><BR/><BR/>1. What's wrong with phylacteries and tassels in and of themselves? Is Anonymous anti-Semitic? <BR/><BR/>2. Or is he alluding to the Pharisees? Is he insinuating we are hypocrites? If so, is he in a position to know how we lead our lives?<BR/><BR/><B>I disagree with you on many things, but I think you are swallowing camels, and I don't want to join your game for fear I will strangle on a gnat.</B><BR/><BR/>Instead, what Anonymous has done is to write an invective-laced diatribe against us without engaging in actual argumentation. Yep, that's much better! :-)<BR/><BR/><B>All of my many, many questions and doubts about the Bible and Biblical apology are put to rest by Christ's assertions in Matt 7:12 and 22:40. Those apparently are not satisfactory for you.</B><BR/><BR/>Gene has already dealt with Anonymous on this point and much, much more. Anonymous would do well to read Gene's comments and engage them. Oh, wait, but that would mean Anonymous would have to use reason and logic in lieu of insults, castigations, and other sorts of invective. We can't have that, now can we? Oh well.<BR/><BR/><B>Your arguments don't do anything to help anybody improve their relationship with Christ.</B><BR/><BR/>We've received email from others to the contrary. Some have even mentioned this in previous comboxes.<BR/><BR/><B>But if your aim is to defend Christianity (which is different from defending the Bible)</B><BR/><BR/>Not that I disagree, but I'd love to hear Anonymous' reasons for making the distinction.<BR/><BR/><B>then you should do that the way Jesus did. Visit the poor, the orphans, the disenfranchised, the prisoners. Go to stonings and convict the stoners.</B><BR/><BR/>1. Speaking of which, why does Anonymous throw stones at us for engaging in apologetics? Perhaps we are his "weaker" brethren who don't know any better. Why does Anonymous sneer at us from atop his high horse (e.g. comparing us to hypocrites) rather than, say, lovingly helping us to understand that what we're doing is mistaken?<BR/><BR/>2. Not to mention, if we are wrong to post what we post, how does Anonymous propose to help us without recourse to reason and argumentation?<BR/><BR/>3. BTW, John 7:53–8:11 is arguably a later interpolation.<BR/><BR/><B>Love everyone. Some people won't ever get it. Certainly all of the logical arguments in the world won't change their minds. However, a few well-timed visits to their death beds just might.</B><BR/><BR/>1. Not only is it true some people won't ever "get it," but no one will ever "get it" without the grace of God. <BR/><BR/>2. Perhaps <I>some</I> people will "get it" by the grace of God.<BR/><BR/>3. Much of this assumes we're writing to convince non-Christians. We could also be writing to strengthen other Christians. Or because it interests us. Or whatever. We could have mulitple goals in mind.<BR/><BR/>4. How does Anonymous know we don't visit people on their deathbeds or in hospitals or prisons or wherever else?<BR/><BR/>5. Again, why is Anonymous spending so much time writing a comment rather than visiting people on their deathbeds or wherever else?<BR/><BR/>6. I wonder if Anonymous is an Arminian?<BR/><BR/><B>Be aware that there is danger lurking in the certainty that you have about your logic.</B><BR/><BR/>1. Hm, and what kind of certainty about logic does Anonymous think we have?<BR/><BR/>2. As Gene already pointed out, Anonymous has set up a false dichotomy between faith and reason, as if the two were opposed to one another.<BR/><BR/>3. To turn the tables, wcoulde likewise say to Anonymous: "Be aware that there is a danger lurking in your faith in faith."<BR/><BR/><B>It's called self-sufficiency and arrogance. If you are not careful, you will wake up some morning wondering how God got so far away from you.</B><BR/><BR/>1. It's true that without the grace of God and promises of God to keep us, we would be undone. And not only us, but every Christian -- including Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>2. Such a realization should humble us and cause us to depend more and more on Christ our Savior and our God. <BR/><BR/>3. However, notice that Anonymous issues threats couched in ominous warnings to us. Notice he describes us as "self-sufficient" and "arrogant," as if he has an inside track to our hearts like God does. And notice how Anonymous cautions that our relationship with God may be jeopardized as a result of our pride, as if an anonymous commenter on the faceless internet is in a position to judge our lives before God. Based on his accusations against us, does Anonymous live up to his own standard as a humble, loving Christian?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50542119288985536282007-07-04T13:49:00.000-04:002007-07-04T13:49:00.000-04:00No comment on my last paragraph? Does it hit a li...No comment on my last paragraph? Does it hit a little too close to home?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7899214971414986972007-07-03T18:25:00.000-04:002007-07-03T18:25:00.000-04:00Anonymous believes in the Jesus of sentimentality,...Anonymous believes in the Jesus of sentimentality, it seems. Notice the selective appeal to Scripture. Matt. 7:12 is part of the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is a reiteration of the true spirit and meaning of the OT Law. Of course, Matt. 22:40 speaks of both tables of the Law, not just the second. Apparently, Anonymous missed that.<BR/><BR/>And, for the record, the texts cited by Anonymous have zero to do with "the Bible and Bible apology." Perhaps they do in his or her context free universe of citation, but not the real world.<BR/><BR/>For anonymous, Jesus loved everybody, but anonymous misses what Jesus says about sin, death, hell, etc. He doesn't pay attention to the covenant lawsuit Jesus brought against not only the Pharisees and Sadducees but the whole nation itself. He also negates passages like John 6, part of which is a rather interesting section on the doctrine of election itself. Anonymous reduces Jesus message to a book on ethics. His Jesus is the Jesus pre-passion, divested of the offending bits at that, not the Jesus of reality, the one post-passion, the Risen Lord who reigns over heaven and earth as King.<BR/><BR/><I>I have many problems with such diatribes as yours. For one, I think many people mistake such exhaustive arguments as being necessary for faith, when in fact they are almost antithetical to faith because of their single-minded pursuit of certainty. How does this pursuit of certainty jibe with Heb 11:1? It pursues the sight of that which is not seeable and then claims to see it. I really don't get it.</I><BR/><BR/>Anonymous apparently thinks that faith and reason are not complementary. His or her definition of "faith" owes more to 19th century liberal Christianity than Scripture. In Scripture faith and reason are not opposed. What stands in opposition is faith and sight.<BR/><BR/>And how does Anonymous propose to understand the Bible if not be exegesis? All Steve has offered really are the exegetical options that underwrite his theological position. Perhaps Anonymous is content to live with his or her vision of a reasonless, exegetically free version of Christianity. But without the truths of Scripture, which, ironically Anonymous cites along the way, upon what basis does his or her faith rest?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57066832479105894372007-07-03T16:46:00.000-04:002007-07-03T16:46:00.000-04:00I have many problems with such diatribes as yours....I have many problems with such diatribes as yours. For one, I think many people mistake such exhaustive arguments as being necessary for faith, when in fact they are almost antithetical to faith because of their single-minded pursuit of certainty. How does this pursuit of certainty jibe with Heb 11:1? It pursues the sight of that which is not seeable and then claims to see it. I really don't get it.<BR/><BR/>Another problem I have with such arguments is they make every little detail as important as the big picture. You even say as much. How can you spend so much time, for instance, picking apart the various interpretations of the word "day" when there are so many hungry people in your town. When I read this, I can almost see your phylacteries and tassels.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with you on many things, but I think you are swallowing camels, and I don't want to join your game for fear I will strangle on a gnat.<BR/><BR/>All of my many, many questions and doubts about the Bible and Biblical apology are put to rest by Christ's assertions in Matt 7:12 and 22:40. Those apparently are not satisfactory for you.<BR/><BR/>Your arguments don't do anything to help anybody improve their relationship with Christ. Now, if your aim is to defend the Bible against the tyranny of Science and what passes for Culture, you need as many arguments as you can get. <BR/><BR/>But if your aim is to defend Christianity (which is different from defending the Bible), then you should do that the way Jesus did. Visit the poor, the orphans, the disenfranchised, the prisoners. Go to stonings and convict the stoners. Love everyone. Some people won't ever get it. Certainly all of the logical arguments in the world won't change their minds. However, a few well-timed visits to their death beds just might.<BR/><BR/>Be aware that there is danger lurking in the certainty that you have about your logic. It's called self-sufficiency and arrogance. If you are not careful, you will wake up some morning wondering how God got so far away from you.<BR/><BR/>Signed,<BR/>Been ThereAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52175014711371535512007-07-03T16:32:00.000-04:002007-07-03T16:32:00.000-04:00:::YAWN!!!::::::YAWN!!!:::Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12807993807698919152007-07-03T04:01:00.000-04:002007-07-03T04:01:00.000-04:00A link to William Henry Green's paper was given wh...A link to William Henry Green's paper was given which shows why there's a strong likelihood that there are gaps in the geneologies of the opening chapters of Genesis. ( ie. this one http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/creation_green.html). <BR/><BR/>I'd like to give another link to the same paper, and a link to one by Dr. John Millam<BR/><BR/>Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies? by William Henry Green http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml<BR/><BR/>The Genesis Genealogies by Dr. John Millam http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/the_genesis_genealogies.shtmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com