Protestantism

» paper_turtle - IMHO

Recently
.
... amidst all the heated rhetoric, I've seen some words which (IMHO) are worthy of more attention:
.
.
Twice__Pardoned, "Anti-God, Anti-Bible" thread, post #40
When all that people do it is go in circles it starts to become about them and not what they're saying...
.
.
From my POV Steve is absolutely correct. What I have seen, over the past few days are some people who seem to be so invested in their ideas that they are beginning to lose sight of the real human beings who are also presenting their ideas.
.
What I have seen here recently borders on mob psychology, and I'm pretty close to joining Steve in saying adios.
.
.
redback, "God and Children" thread, post # 9
The NT is God's realisation He made a mistake with the OT has to be amongst the options advanced to explain.
. . .
.
There must have been some incredibly thick-headed people in ancient times that whatever profound message was needed, had to be delivered by a piece of metaphoric 4x2 hardwood across their skulls. We're in good company. I think we're equally thick headed.
. . .
Nope...I really need to get my sense of spirituality from the Bible and other sources DESPITE these messages.
.
.
Yuppers-you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, focus your attention on what speaks truth to mind ****and**** spirit, and let the rest go.
.
.
Brian, "Resurrection" thread, post #163
Well, I reject divine dictation of the Scriptures - . . . I believe God inspired Scripture THROUGH the humanity of its writers. I think that this dimension is lost with a lot of folks who trumpet the Bible as the "Revealed Word of God." . . .
.
.
Phil, "Resurrection" thread, post #164
But, once you go down the Road of Infallibility you are running down a one way street with no outlet--a cul de sac. There's only one way out.
.
Best not to go down that road in the first place. Why? Because--no matter that it is or is not divinely inspired--in the final analysis, the Bible is a work created by human beings.
.
.
HeadZenCards, "Focus" thread, post #22
Today I am thankful for the realization that the negative associations I perceive are because of the way I interpret them.
.
.
Notice that Brian is making a distinction between the Bible as divine dictation, and the Bible as something guided by inspiration. I did not see him, here, make a claim for infallibility. In fact, the idea that it was inspired rather than dictated leaves quite a bit of room for the possibility that those fallible humans who were inspired might have gotten some (ir maybe even a lot) of the details wrong.
.
What puzzles me, though, is this:
Some of the Suite participants who have spoken in the past about the dangers of Biblical literalism seem to be protesting against the Bible from a purely literalist standpoint. And further, they seem to think that the Bible should be editorializing as it is written. How about allowing the reader the opportunity to think for himself? How about letting the reader feel his own horror at a presentation of genocide in the Bible, and conclude the ****people**** who believed this was God's word were mightily screwed up.?
.
Ollie proclaims an awareness that his negative associations are the result of his choice to interpret them negatively, yet he keeps presenting his negative interpretations of the Bible, other participants (and whatever else) as something transcending mere opinion. This, too puzzles me.
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle