[joe707]

Re: What the heak is wrong with you people?

I'm going to have to ask you for some examples, because I've read the Bible dozens of times and have found no incompleteness nor any woolly statements. Granted, some verses, when removed from the surrounding context, may be confusing, but everything makes perfect sense when you read the whole book.

It is incomplete simply because - being time-bound - it can not accommodate every future scenario. God may not change but the world does. The KJV1611 Bible may be sufficient to provide general guidelines – guidelines that need some interpretation, as you have given with the TV example below. Why did God not tell his people specifically what TV programs to watch? Two possible reasons I can think of: (1) it is an oversight; one of many. Or, (2) his Creation is complete in every way, therefore TV is not part of his Creation. So all the more important that we should specifically be warned against it, don't you think? And without having to rely on men (imperfect beings) interpreting/extrapolating (imperfect modes of reason) from a set of general rules (imperfect laws) on my behalf. I don't want to be gravely mislead, after all.

If someone comes up to you to share a juicy bit of gossip, and you scowl at them for doing so, they'll shut up about it.

So it's not talking about a medical condition of the tongue? A ‘backbiting tongue’ is really a metaphor for gossip?

Priests at nearby heathen temples were basically pimps. They had temple prostitutes who turned their earnings into the priest. Here, God is forbidding those kind of shenanigans at His churches.

Including, presumably, the price of a dog being brought in? He can’t mean homosexual prostitutes, otherwise He would have said homosexual prostitutes. Why does God want to deceive me?

The Israelites were about to invade the promised land. Here, God is promising to kill all the bad-guys.

Talk of arrows being drunk with blood? Sounds like another metaphor here. Some would say that all this language is metaphorical. Others would even say that it is mythopoetic, requiring tools of interpretation and imagination to extract meaning beyond the literal. Just like other texts. But LBC doctrine specifically denies this.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Joe707's Questions

I have to say Pascal’s wager seemed a ridiculous way to approach such serious matters when I first saw it, and remains so for me

I have written a larger exposition of Pascal's wager here: Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout?

Perhaps you will have a different view after reading that.

Two possible reasons I can think of: (1) it is an oversight; one of many. Or, (2) his Creation is complete in every way, therefore TV is not part of his Creation.

How about (3) The Bible gives us enough information that a saved Christian who has read the Bible can tell whether a particular TV show glorifies sin. Anything that glorifies sin is sin, including certain TV shows, so there is no need to list individual TV shows. Besides which, if God went ahead and described each and every future TV show, it would rob the writers of their free will.

So it's not talking about a medical condition of the tongue? A ‘backbiting tongue’ is really a metaphor for gossip?

It isn't a metaphor at all. It's a synonym. If you aren't familiar with a word, look it up in the dictionary.

Backbiting: The act of slandering the absent; secret calumny. 2Cor.xii

So yes, you could say that if someone doesn't understand basic English or is too lazy to look up unfamiliar terms in the dictionary, then that person might need some outside help understanding the Bible. I suppose you got me there.

Including, presumably, the price of a dog being brought in? He can’t mean homosexual prostitutes, otherwise He would have said homosexual prostitutes.

Sorry, I skipped that part because the meaning should be obvious. Neither whore's wages nor animal sacrifices of dogs were acceptable offerings to God.

Talk of arrows being drunk with blood? Sounds like another metaphor here.

No, that's not a metaphor either. The word "drunk" has multiple senses. The second sense of the word "drunk" is "Drenched or saturated with moisture or liquor."

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[joe707]

Re: Joe707's Questions

Good point about the free will of TV writers (although it would only rob them of their free will if they were already cognizant of scripture?) What I wanted say here though, is that even the LBC cannot have recourse to completely literal interpretations of the Bible without these problems of interpretation.

See, I was pretty sure Deuteronomy 23:18 referred to homosexual prostitutes, using the linguistic traditions of the day, rather than dog sacrifices (or even the price of dogs, which is actually the literal reading for some). That, to me, would be consistent with the semantics of other passages of the KJV1611. And I bet we both could endlessly debate whether stone or metallic arrowheads were actually permeable to liquid. But let’s not, perhaps I got these wrong!

There are other passages far more crucial, far more devastating even, where semantics are concerned. You and I might read them differently. The problem with any natural language is that meaning is not precise – that’s why the rules for a perfectly precise language end up being formulated in predicate logic. But then, what has predicate logic to do with truth anyway? You know how it is; some things you read with the eyes and the mind, and some things you have to read with the soul. Ha ha!

Anyhoo, I hope we can set aside matters of semantics and logic for a bit. I am much more interested in the real meat and bones of the issue, and these are but appetizers. Brother Temperance knows this is important stuff.

Friend, God Himself is indefensible on grounds of logic alone. You just need to accept Him based on faith.....

I will try and look at your Pascal’s wager link soonish.

Thanks Pastor.

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Re: Joe707's Questions

Landover Productions? That’s an intriguing idea, and slightly strange, but I am all ears.

There is nothing strange about it.

I have to say Pascal’s wager seemed a ridiculous way to approach such serious matters when I first saw it, and remains so for me.

I refer you to Pastor Billy-Reuben for absolutely the last word on that subject.

Re: hamburgers – would you put your faith in someone who approached your house daily to demand hamburgers, and paid you nothing?

Believe me Joe, I'd be thrilled if some of the people who demand payments from me on what seems a daily basis would take hamburgers instead. I'd give them hamburgers they would never forget.

Would you trust someone who promised only future payment, in a timescale that you were utterly unable to comprehend in mortal life, knowing full well the crippling pain that that hope and fear brought you?

I might not, Joe. But 78% of Good Christian Americans will. It's that last twenty-two percent we are after. The ones who grow up to be scientists. Being a scientist means your life is a failure and you get buried in socks that don't match and a pocket protector.

[joe707]

Re: Joe707's Questions

I might not, Joe. But 78% of Good Christian Americans will. It's that last twenty-two percent we are after. The ones who grow up to be scientists. Being a scientist means your life is a failure and you get buried in socks that don't match and a pocket protector.

Ha! I hope you find a matching pair of socks for your trip. Customs on the mainland can be quite harsh on that kind of thing coming from the outposts.