OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.

Re: Against Fundamentalists, Trinitarians, and those who claim B

Re: Against Fundamentalists, Trinitarians, and those who claim B

1) I do not reject, nor do I despise Scripture. - I revere all of Scripture. However, I don't see the church having that much reverence for it if it puts words in it to support the majority of the church's claims.

2) Your kind - did I name anyone specific? Did I say you? Did I even know you existed until you replied? No.

3) Am I condemning you? I most certainly am putting a charge to Fundamentalist Trinitarians who claim to be biblical - as if that was the whole point of Christianity. My charge was the irreverend dogmatism of poor biblical quality and loose contruction - and condemnation of all those who do not hold to the trinitarian view. Wikipedia (I know this might be the worst source in your eyes) says this on nontrinitarianism:

Critics also argue the doctrine, for a teaching described as fundamental, lacks direct scriptural support, and even some proponents of the doctrine acknowledge such direct or formal support is lacking. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]"[14], "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]…prior to the end of the 4th century"[15], and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia adds, "The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament". The question, however, of why such a supposedly central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this, and for his opposition to infant baptism.

As to if there are some of you who are not like that, of course. But for me, it's almost as if someone decided to pick out all the bad apples and sell me that bushel.

"Even the books within the NT appeal to Scripture outside the OT. Oops! Didn't catch that one, did they?"

- referring, under the assumption that others had similar experiences, to my professor on Bib Lit 1 and 2, that when any reference in the canon is to outside the canon, then it's only that part of the source that is correct.

"Anywhere in the NT where you find him appealing to the authority of "Scripture" is when he is debating with someone trying him. When he teaches, he teaches his own interpretations of God and points out where his theology is evidenced in their scripture."

First, Jesus claims, according to Scripture, to be doing his Father's will, saying nothing that the Father has not told him to say. Jesus says his very food is to do his Father's will. So what ever Jesus is teaching about God is from God, not Jesus' private revelations or musings about God. - ok…so we know it comes from God. I'm not arguing about the ultimate source. We all know babies come from properly times climaxes in the sexual intercourse of male and female bodies (or by artificial insemination), but around here at my college it comes from dancing. Rumor even has it that if you look at a woman, they get pregnant :P . But anyways….God made the world in six days. Six literal or six periods? Did so-n-so really live 900 years, or around 900 years? God made man from the dust of the earth. My question is not of ultimate source, but of method and conduit. Just because whatever Jesus got was from God his father (the father of all of humanity), it doesn't mean God used only Jewish writings or only Jewish prophets, or only Jewish tales.

Second, Jesus told two of his disciples that they were dim witted and foolish because they did not believe all the prophets had spoken about. According to the Scriptures:

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24: 27 - honestly, if we just dropped the Christianise, it might make a whole lot more sense. "Scripture," is church-language for "writings," or more specifically the Writings. Today's OT was then in three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Writings were poetic, and very…licensed in the wordings.

This not Jesus debating a Pharisee but rather teaching his disciples about what the Scriptures said about him.

I should point out that, in my opinion, Jesus appeals to the authority of Scripture and identifies himself intimately with it in ways that are possibly less than obvious to you. 

I feel obligated also to tell you that your low view of Scripture does little for your argument as your argument is, to some degree, based in your reading and interpretation of Scripture.


"This is God's Word, and if you contradict what we say - you're contradicting the Word of God, because this is how you are to interpret it." No actual quote of anyone, but it's the basic message I'm getting from everyone who seems to contradict everyone else's interpretation. The church seems to be condemning itself and all other parts of the world along with it. 

The question I really want to know is, what aspect of your beliefs, what component of your life does orthodox Christianity stand against, or rub the wrong way?

1) Thinking for myself, which leads to me

2) arriving at different conclusions, and therefore want for

3) getting an education, which brings me back to 1.

4) appreciating women - I was raised with a majority of female cousins and 1 sister, no brother, and my aunts. Although I never support what we deem "nazi-feminism."

5) taking care of the body as well as the spirit. Honestly, what is a young Christian male who is unmarried supposed to do when he is not financially able to start of a family? It may be better to marry than to burn, but if I cannot marry without starting on a road through hell, then what am I supposed to do other than to please myself? And yes! it is possible to go it alone without lusting.

6) My choice of music, books, and entertainment. I like to watch the popular things unless they focus on nudity, sex, or murder. However, that stuff in passing, I can ignore it. Desensitization is not a bad thing.

7) Church, church, church, church, church. Sunday morning corporate worship is not the spiritual equivalent of a body shop for a car.

8) Too many questions the church fails to answer or chooses to ignore.