It's not about understanding its about people trying to play mind games in the name of intellectual supremacy. For the past god knows how many posts, OWB been plyaing this chess game of 'here's what I said, but is that what I really, meant? or did I mean this instead? no here's what i really meant'. It's just a game of mind fuck and he's just doing it cause he thinks he can back a few people into a corner and may be impress try to impress some people with what he percieves as his own intellectual prowess. People like me, neodude, and to a certain extent xexon have been calling him on it. And that's what it takes to have an actual debate. You have to call the points and when people start playing mind fuck you have to call them on it. I for one am getting tired of the non-sense so let's get back to the topic. What does everyone really think of the no Bible scriptures rule?
This is what I said: Since then, both neodude and woodsman have accused me of saying that I was taking a “high” road and that xexon was taking a “low” road. As I have pointed out the post is merely a paraphrase of the song “Loch Lomond” anyone wanting to can look the song up. They will find no concept of a “high” road and a “low” road. They will find mention of two roads one called high road and one called low road. The person singing the song says he can get to Scotland first because he no longer will see his true love on the banks of Loch Lomond, so it would seem the that low road is shorter and without him stopping to see his true love he’ll easily get to Scotland first. If you will note, in the above quote I gave the shorter road to xexon thus giving him a head start. What more do you want? You want me to take the shorter road? Now I’m being accused of and I quote: “play mind games in the name of intellectual supremacy. For the past god knows how many posts, OWB been plyaing this chess game of 'here's what I said, but is that what I really, meant? or did I mean this instead? no here's what i really meant'. It's just a game of mind fuck and he's just doing it cause he thinks he can back a few people into a corner and may be impress try to impress some people with what he percieves as his own intellectual prowess. Honestly what I said seems pretty simple to understand, no mystery. I have not said it means this and now it means that. I have always maintained that it means the same thing. So I have to ask; who really seems to be playing mind games here? Ps By the way xexon has not "called me on it" as you say. Actually xexon has not posted since I posted the above quote, one way or another.
I can live with it, although I think it can be inhibiting sometimes. For example, was Jesus born of a virgin? The only reason to think He was is the Bible, and you can't settle the issue by paraphrasing. It's a matter of what specific Hebrew and Greek words mean in the context of scripture. But if it's o.k. to cite rather than quote scripture, as Skip says, we can go to the source and read the language for ourselves.
I think it's in how you do it. If you're quoting scripture to back up a clerical point like the one you describe, then there's no problem. If you quote scripture AS your point, then that's the big issue.
I'm all for it too man, if people only quote scripture under the premise that the scriptures somehow "prove" their religioin. I mean, if it's something along the lines of backing up their concept of what their religion represents, though, they should be free to do so, but that's more inter-religion debate anyway. *edit: nvm then
Yeah and that's really what the whole debate is about. Most of the fundamentalists that come on here are the the Jack Van Impe 'book speak' type, thinking the scripturwe is somekind of positive proof of what they believe and therefore nothing more needs to be said. I may be wrong but I don't think Skip has a problem with the occasional scripture to back up a point or two here and there.