Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
You can do it very conveniently in the comfort of your house, with your bible.
I have done it before.
So just because you have done it means got trend? I call that a case of projection, not trend!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So just because you have done it means got trend? I call that a case of projection, not trend!
BIC
Why don't you go try it yourself? Extreme innature verses and moderate verses. THen classify them into "still being practiced" and "not being practiced".
Fits nicely.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So just because you have done it means got trend? I call that a case of projection, not trend!
I started this topic just to say that CHC as christians has a right to practice 10% tithing because they are merely obeying what is written in their Holy Book, the Bible.
So I don't see why other christians should be so offended by them practicing tithing and offering their first "fruits" to God.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Why don't you go try it yourself? Extreme innature verses and moderate verses. THen classify them into "still being practiced" and "not being practiced".
Fits nicely.
Sorry. I am not in the habit of doing such things, to see which verses I like or dislike, or which I think is extreme or moderate, to see whether I want to obey or not. That is NOT the way to approach Scripture. I suggest you pick up Gordon Fee's book to disabuse yourself of such a flawed approach to the Bible.
Originally posted by Tcmc:I started this topic just to say that CHC as christians has a right to practice 10% tithing because they are merely obeying what is written in their Holy Book, the Bible.
So I don't see why other christians should be so offended by them practicing tithing and offering their first "fruits" to God.
I have no issue if anyone wishes to set aside 10%, 20%, 30%, 1%, or even 99% of his income to give, so long as he has decided this for himself, and not under compulsion. What I am against is Christians putting other Christians under some legalistic yoke by appealing to a faulty interpretation of Scripture. And mind you, in the NT giving was NEVER for building dedicated church buildings to house thousands of believers and to pay salaries for pastors.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Sorry. I am not in the habit of doing such things, to see which verses I like or dislike, or which I think is extreme or moderate, to see whether I want to obey or not. That is NOT the way to approach Scripture. I suggest you pick up Gordon Fee's book to disabuse yourself of such a flawed approach to the Bible.
BIC
Flawed or not, don't think it is up to you to decide. For me, I tried and it worked. I mean, its just a suggestion for you to try too.
I already told you - group the commands into "moderate" and "extreme in nature". THen study the two groups and see which group of commands is being practised still.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Flawed or not, don't think it is up to you to decide. For me, I tried and it worked. I mean, its just a suggestion for you to try too.
I already told you - group the commands into "moderate" and "extreme in nature". THen study the two groups and see which group of commands is being practised still.
Not up to me to decide, but up to you to decide? Duh....
Again I say, your approach is a terrible way to approach Scripture.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Not up to me to decide, but up to you to decide? Duh....
Again I say, your approach is a terrible way to approach Scripture.
BIC
I don't know terrible or not.
But it works!! Name yourself some verses and try!
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
I don't know terrible or not.
But it works!! Name yourself some verses and try!
Of course it will work lah. I am sure you can think of other approaches and see that it "works" and thus justify why you rejected the faith.
Bottom line: Flawed methodology will begat flawed results which begat flawed conclusions.
But I think you have digressed far from your thread topic.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
I don't know terrible or not.
But it works!! Name yourself some verses and try!
Of course it will work lah. I am sure you can think of other approaches and see that it "works" and thus justify why you rejected the faith.
Bottom line: Flawed methodology will begat flawed results which begat flawed conclusions.
But I think you have digressed far from your thread topic.
Anyway, for what it's worth you should read this http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-apply-today.html
discuss so long... any conclusions? definitely no :)
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:discuss so long... any conclusions? definitely no :)
Happy, give.
Not happy, dun give.
People dun give a damn if you not happy that people dun give.
Charity not happy if you not happy that people give.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:discuss so long... any conclusions? definitely no :)
If your definition of conclusion is that all must agree on one thing, then no. But if you are asking if there is any conclusion, then yes. There are conclusions, question is which conclusion is the best conclusion to conclude with.
Point is, one has to make up his mind and evaluate the arguments of both sides, don't just ask "So what's the conclusion?" because even if everyone conclude one view it still doesn't mean it is necessarily the right view. The right conclusion is not necessarily that which is endorsed by the majority.
I don't think people should ever take the bible literally. Not only is it something that should be taken into context (like the time it was written and what kind of culture they had then), it is also pretty much subject to interpretation which makes almost everything in it very relative.
But if CHC wants to give 10% then I don't mind if it's all voluntary anyway. As long as no one is being coerced, only persuaded, then it's their own loss. We all have the right to spend our money as we wish. If they want to believe in whatever the CHC wants then to each one's own, yeah?
Originally posted by Harry Santos:I don't think people should ever take the bible literally. Not only is it something that should be taken into context (like the time it was written and what kind of culture they had then), it is also pretty much subject to interpretation which makes almost everything in it very relative.
But if CHC wants to give 10% then I don't mind if it's all voluntary anyway. As long as no one is being coerced, only persuaded, then it's their own loss. We all have the right to spend our money as we wish. If they want to believe in whatever the CHC wants then to each one's own, yeah?
Why shouldn't the Bible be taken literally? I would argue that the Bible should be taken literally, in a plain and straightforward manner, to take history as history, poetry as poetry, allegory as allegory, figure of speech as figure of speech, according to the norms of the language being used. This is also known as the historical-grammatical approach. See http://creation.com/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Why shouldn't the Bible be taken literally? I would argue that the Bible should be taken literally, in a plain and straightforward manner, to take history as history, poetry as poetry, allegory as allegory, figure of speech as figure of speech, according to the norms of the language being used. This is also known as the historical-grammatical approach. See http://creation.com/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally
BIC
In fact many christians today do not take many parts of the bible literally, like genesis, revelations etc.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
In fact many christians today do not take many parts of the bible literally, like genesis, revelations etc.
I am well aware of that fact. Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible. The critics know that if they can destroy the foundational book of Genesis, on which rests all the major doctrines of the faith, they can destroy the faith of believers. Sad to say many believers have compromised and even attack God's Word in this area.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I am well aware of that fact. Genesis is the most attacked book of the Bible. The critics know that if they can destroy the foundational book of Genesis, on which rests all the major doctrines of the faith, they can destroy the faith of believers. Sad to say many believers have compromised and even attack God's Word in this area.
BIC
I mean, isn't it very prideful of you to put down other christians who believe Genesis is metaphorical?
Just because their beliefs are different from yours, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong.
Also, i think nonchristians will be more inspired by Genesis if it's metaphorical than if it's literal...
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
I mean, isn't it very prideful of you to put down other christians who believe Genesis is metaphorical?
Just because their beliefs are different from yours, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong.
Also, i think nonchristians will be more inspired by Genesis if it's metaphorical than if it's literal...
Firstly, that is an ad hominem charge and leaves the issue unaddressed. The issue is whether Genesis is to be taken as literal history or as metaphor, and not that the person taking a stand is considered prideful. I have come across people who condescendingly called those who take Genesis literally as obscurantist fundamentalists. Do you consider that prideful? If not, why?
Secondly, you are not doing justice to me. I never said that just because someone's beliefs differed from mine therefore they are wrong. This has NEVER been my position. If that had been so, then there would have been no need for me to argue for my views at all! Yet my approach has always to show WHY the beliefs I hold is true and WHY the opposing views are not.
Thirdly, why would a metaphorical Genesis be inspiring? And in what sense? If one reads the Bible one will realise that Jesus and the writers of the NT take Genesis to be literal history. Jesus' lineage was traced to Adam as a REAL person, He did not have a metaphor for a human ancestor! There also a host of other implications if one takes Genesis as mere metaphor, not least of all is the question, "So if Genesis is metaphor, can one really know what REALLY happened since we should not take Genesis as literal history?"
I dunno... I belief that the Garden of Eden is/was on another planet and the exile of the duo includes interplanetary travel...
Am I wrong?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:I dunno... I belief that the Garden of Eden is/was on another planet and the exile of the duo includes interplanetary travel...
Am I wrong?
Whatever...
My believe would render young earth theory false. Yes you, young earth creationists...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:My believe would render young earth theory false. Yes you, young earth creationists...
Whatever...
BTW, Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist too. There you go.
"Jesus also says: “That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias … ”. And in Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul says of God: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”."
Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Jesus also says: “That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias … ”. And in Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul says of God: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”."
Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
Playing fallacy-detective again?
So which term has more than one meaning?