orion88 Posted March 26, 2012 Author Posted March 26, 2012 And what about cherry-picking quotes from religious books you don't believe in, in order to use them as "gotchas" in debates with your ideological opponents? Is that "biblically based?"Regards,PahoranI don't use them as "gotchas."It's all for the purpose of discussion. When I quote something from an older text (that isnot readily available), it can serve the hearer with a few choices:a) I didn't know that before.b) I view this as a false doctrine.c) I view this as a true doctrine.And from that a conversation begins where we share. I believe teaching sound doctrine is abiblically-based principle.If you love someone, then you won't view them as an ideological opponent.
mfbukowski Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) I don't use them as "gotchas."It's all for the purpose of discussion. When I quote something from an older text (that isnot readily available), it can serve the hearer with a few choices:a) I didn't know that before.b) I view this as a false doctrine.c) I view this as a true doctrine.And from that a conversation begins where we share. I believe teaching sound doctrine is abiblically-based principle.If you love someone, then you won't view them as an ideological opponent.Conversation is nice, but it is a two-way street.It seems to me a few questions have been asked of you with no replies.I am still wondering why we should care if anything is a Biblically based principle or not. After all, if the Bible is just as "valid" as the Zoroastrian Avesta, which it may well be, not to denigrate either one, there is no reason to pick one above the other.So why should we believe that it is relevant, and how could we know it is true, that the Bible teaches "sound doctrine"?And where do you get all you doctrines (like the Trinity, or like a transcendent Platonic God) which are not Biblical?So if you want a conversation, maybe it's time YOU started answeringa) I didn't know that before.b) I view this as a false doctrine.c) I view this as a true doctrine.and give us a good reason for what you believe and why we should listen at all to you. After all,If you love someone, then you won't view them as an ideological opponent. Edited March 27, 2012 by mfbukowski
orion88 Posted March 28, 2012 Author Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) I am still wondering why we should care if anything is a Biblically based principle or not. After all, if the Bible is just as "valid" as the Zoroastrian Avesta, which it may well be, not to denigrate either one, there is no reason to pick one above the other.I believe that the Word of God (as revealed through prophets) is only contained in the Bibleand no other scripture. I can't prove it. I take it on faith as others have faith that their Bookof Mormon is said to contain the fulness of the gospel.So why should we believe that it is relevant, and how could we know it is true, that the Bible teaches "sound doctrine"?Probably for the same reason you hold the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God (if you do).I was reading in Doctrines of Salvation (volume 1) and it said on page 279, "We do not stumbleover baptism and how it should be performed and by whom. We have a clear and perfect understanding of the nature of God. Now, I can find that in the Bible; so can you."I can't find in the Bible, BOM, or the D&C the teaching that Heavenly Father is married and has aresurrected body. I also can't find Mr. Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father was a man whobecame a Deity.Can you?And where do you get all you doctrines (like the Trinity, or like a transcendent Platonic God) which are not Biblical?See http://www.gotquesti...nity-Bible.html It may help.I guess everyone has to decide for themselves if speculative teachings can be consideredsound doctrine or insecure doctrine built on a sandy foundation. Edited March 28, 2012 by orion88
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) See http://www.gotquesti...nity-Bible.html It may help.I guess everyone has to decide for themselves if speculative teachings can be consideredsound doctrine or insecure doctrine built on a sandy foundation.Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him.yeah I know what you mean.Since you believe the Bible for the same reasons we do and for the same reasons we believe the BOM, why are you here?It appears we have different interpretations, both of which are as valid as the other Edited March 28, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 I can't find in the Bible, BOM, or the D&C the teaching that Heavenly Father is married and has aresurrected body. I also can't find Mr. Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father was a man whobecame a Deity.Nope.It's not in either of those places. So?Those are not the only sources of revelation or doctrine, if indeed those are "doctrinal", which is debatable.
Recommended Posts