Doug Phillips is a Tool & Vision Forum is Dead - Part 7

[Curious]

I'm sure there are lots of other reasons, but those are what popped into my head.

I would add to this list, something westie has probably never heard of, intellectual curiosity. Some people are just interested in a wide variety of topics because they like to learn things whether they believe in them or not.

Most of us in this thread have not self-identified what our beliefs are, though a number of people have self-identified as Christian and even a couple have said fundy/fundy-lite, yet he still maintains that we are all mostly non-believers.

I'm convinced he just likes hearing himself talk since he's certainly not spending any time listening.

[thoughtful]

I would add to this list, something westie has probably never heard of, intellectual curiosity. Some people are just interested in a wide variety of topics because they like to learn things whether they believe in them or not.

I actually had that on my list, but trimmed a bit. GMTA.

ETA -- just as church-of-dog was startled by someone using the phrase "church of Doug," I can't think of this guy as Westie, because this adorableness is what that name brings to mind:

[neuroticcat]

And I am a Christian who reads the book of Proverbs and says: No, I would not beat my child with a rod. Obviously. :roll:

We all must exercise discernment and interpretation when we come to the Bible. The Scriptures are not clear. The Bible is not a book of rules (as other holy books from other religions claim to be). If even those closest to Jesus - his followers who walked and talked with him had difficulty perceiving what he said. If even the early church, fresh with the fire of the Holy Spirit had difficulty agreeing on doctrine, how in the world can one group of Christians claim to authoritatively comprehend the Bible?

Like it or not, you ARE interpreting the Bible, and you do bring your cultural, ethnic, gendered and whatever-other-bias to the text. What feels obvious to you is not obvious to others who read the same Bible, nor has it been obvious to Christians throughout the centuries. The problem with claiming to interpret the Bible literally is that you read it through your present Christian culture. It's not only arrogant (as in: finally, we Christians in the year 2014 finally see clearly!) it leaves you "searching the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me that ye may have life."

I remember when Jehovah's Witnesses used to come to my house weekly to do "Bible study". They too proclaimed that the Bible was straightforward, easy to understand - that all you needed to do was "go to the Bible." But of course what they meant is "read the Bible as our leaders have taught us to read it." You really are doing the exact same thing. Treating the Bible like a moral manual is not the Christian life.

[feministxtian]

I would add to this list, something westie has probably never heard of, intellectual curiosity. Some people are just interested in a wide variety of topics because they like to learn things whether they believe in them or not.

Most of us in this thread have not self-identified what our beliefs are, though a number of people have self-identified as Christian and even a couple have said fundy/fundy-lite, yet he still maintains that we are all mostly non-believers.

I'm convinced he just likes hearing himself talk since he's certainly not spending any time listening.

He thinks we're all "non-believers" because we don't necessarily hold to the same "doctrines" as he does. And...I will offer myself as a sacrificial lamb here...I'm a member of a reconstructionist church...

[Curious]

Well, of course not -- that's why I asked you the less inflammatory questions, which you ignored.

He is worse than Ken with the cherry picking what he skips over (oh how I long for the good old days of Ken and Cabinetman). He's completely ignored the link regarding the rod/spanking passages that I posted and FG bumped to make sure he saw it.

At least Ken would eventually give a wall o' text non-answer to most questions.

[church_of_dog]

He is worse than Ken with the cherry picking what he skips over (oh how I long for the good old days of Ken and Cabinetman). He's completely ignored the link regarding the rod/spanking passages that I posted and FG bumped to make sure he saw it.

At least Ken would eventually give a wall o' text non-answer to most questions.

I haven't read any of the Ken threads, but I couldn't help but notice that the call letters of the TV station that interviewed DPIAR and Beall is… …KENS! :lol: :lol:

[thoughtful]

He is worse than Ken with the cherry picking what he skips over (oh how I long for the good old days of Ken and Cabinetman). He's completely ignored the link regarding the rod/spanking passages that I posted and FG bumped to make sure he saw it.

At least Ken would eventually give a wall o' text non-answer to most questions.

I think one of the reasons I'm tempted to answer Westchamps is that I got strict with myself shortly after Ken arrived (very busy weeks for my work), and missed most of Ken and all of Cabinetman. In fact, I haven't even had a chance to go back and read the threads.

Maybe he's my Ken substitute. :lol: Splkenda? Saccharken? Oooh, if he was a substitute for Mr. Maxhell, he'd be Steve-ia.

edited for riffle

[Curious]

He thinks we're all "non-believers" because we don't necessarily hold to the same "doctrines" as he does. And...I will offer myself as a sacrificial lamb here...I'm a member of a reconstructionist church...

I'm just currently annoyed by his broad brush strokes because he's being so damn contradictory (why I expect better I'm not sure). I'm what I call a Recovering Catholic ;) I'm agnostic leaning toward atheist, I guess. I don't disbelieve in spiritual or I guess supernatural things, so I don't know that I exactly completely rule out the possibility of a higher being or higher beings, but I don't think if one (or ones) exist they work exactly like the fundies think they do (at least I certainly hope not) ;)

I do believe in the FSM, naturally :)

[Curious]

I think one of the reasons I'm tempted to answer Westchamps is that I got strict with myself shortly after Ken arrived (very busy weeks for my work), and missed most of Ken and all of Cabinetman. In fact, I haven't even had a chance to go back and read the threads.

Maybe he's my Ken substitute. :lol: Splkenda? Saccharken? Oooh, if he was a substitute for Mr. Maxhell, he' be Steve-ia.

Not much of a substitute :( Ken was annoying after a while (after the mask started to slip. I actually didn't mind him the first week or 2), but this one is a different breed, IMO. Higher on the narcissist scale maybe :shifty-kitty: I think Ken actually enjoyed his time here initially, too. It was probably nice to talk to people that didn't hate him and weren't always passive aggressive at every turn like he seem to get at home ;)

[church_of_dog]

Maybe he's my Ken substitute. :lol: Splkenda? Saccharken? Oooh, if he was a substitute for Mr. Maxhell, he'd be Steve-ia.

edited for riffle

Argh and lol! Don't tell Zsu… :lol:

[usmcmom]

Old enough to enlist in the military and kill people or be killed, but not old enough to take responsibility for letting someone know if she was being sexually harrassed against her will? For 5 years? On a regular basis?

One cannot enlist in the military at age 15, which is when the abuse started. A person can sign his/her own enlistment papers at 18 or have parental signatures to enlist at 17. In many states, a young person cannot even drive alone at 15. You are expecting a lot out of a young girl who likely could not even drive herself to the grocery store.

We get it! You think she deserved it. You think she should have stopped it. You think she is as responsible as Doug. You, in no way, want Dough to have to take all the blame for raping this girl. There. Isn't that what you've been trying to say amongst all your bickering over Bible verses?!

[doggie]

So, the Bible is the inspired word of god. In other words in the BC time god was totally OK with stoning children and selling ones daughter into slavery. However, after he became a papa he changed his mind on this.

GOD IS A FLIP-FLOPPER!!!!!

the biggest problem is god never read humans for dummies before he wrote the bible and it shows.

[lipstickgoalie]

I've not only listened to the other points of view stated in this thread, I have responded again and again (hence my quick rise in post count).

Without a common frame of reference, discussion is difficult. I believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most of you here seem to believe it is no more than a book of anecdotes and fables, if that. As a Christian, I think it is the most important book in existence. Most of you seem to give it little or no importance at all, it means little or nothing to you. And yet you want to argue interpretation and true meanings of passages of Scripture in a book that means little or nothing to you? You don't recognize it as the inspired Word of God and you don't recognize it's teachings. Yet you want to school me on the Bible really not meaning the things it clearly says. Strange. Why not just say "I don't agree with the Bible and don't consider it to have any authority over my life" and leave it at that?

We have a common frame of reference. Just because I don't believe that the bible is meant to be taken, in its entirety, literally does not mean that I do not recognize its historical and cultural significance. Most of early western literature is based on the bible. The crusades, the Puritans, the founding of Rhode Island and Massachusetts- bible. Justification of slavery and segregation in the American south- bible. Do you get where I am going here?

And I know that you interpreted my saying fundamentalist Christianity was and is anti-intellectual as my saying Christian homeschoolers are anti-intellectual. I never said that. I think that many fundamentalist homeschoolers are woefully uneducated in science and certain aspects of critical thinking but I don't think they are, as you stated "bumpkins". (There are of course exceptions to every rule)

My point stands. Fundamentalist Christianity was a reaction to linguistic studies of the bible. (Among other things) by studying the text in the original and contrasting that with translations as we know it can illustrate many things. Errors in translation mainly. Context of certain words are important, especially in languages in which a word can have multiple similar meanings but have different and very distinct meaning in very distinct circumstances. The context of the original text is vital.

And why am I interested even though I do not identify as Christian? Well because the intersection of religion and politics throughout history is interesting. How religion impacts culture is really interesting. And how certain groups of Christians, largely fundamentalist Christians, try to limit my personal rights and freedoms based on their personal beliefs really matters a great deal to me. Todd Aiken, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum used a version of Christianity as part of their rhetoric and I don't like to criticize things if I haven't even made the attempt to understand where they coming from. I don't think you can say the same.

[Marian the Librarian]

Here's a crazy thought - maybe Westchamps IS Dougie, coming here in disguise to do some serious fogging and baiting!!! :lol:

[doggie]

Here's a crazy thought - maybe Westchamps IS Dougie, coming here in disguise to do some serious fogging and baiting!!! :lol:

no not that much weenie wagging going on.

[usedtobenice]

Here's a crazy thought - maybe Westchamps IS Dougie, coming here in disguise to do some serious fogging and baiting!!! :lol:

I absolutely wondered the same thing!

[ladyamylynn]

I absolutely wondered the same thing!

I thought I saw a twinkle out of the corner of my eye!!!

[ShesCrafty]

I thought I saw a twinkle out of the corner of my eye!!!

And when I read his posts, I hear the faint sound of cellos in the background. MORE CELLOS!!

[formergothardite]

Suggest you do a little deeper study on that particular scripture to see if perhaps there is some context necessary to fully understand/interpret that scripture. My guess is yes. Otherwise, Jesus himself would be condemned to hell fire, as He said in Luke 24:25, "He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"

Context and studying deeper into what the words of the Bible meant in the original text is what I've been saying all along, you seemed to have disagreed with this when it came to other scriptures such as the ones on the rod and cursing. Why the sudden change with this verse?

[formergothardite]

Quoting this for Westchamps because it is a perfect example of why you can't just go on what the English translation says. For example there are NINE Hebrew words for the time of childhood all meaning different periods of childhood. Translating it to just "child" misses the context of the original writings and gives an inaccurate impression of what is being said.

Quoting this again because it is very telling that Westchamps has avoided addressing it. Especially now that he is claiming there is a lot of room for nuance when it comes to other verses. :roll:

[Tesseract]

westie wrote: No, I would not stone my child or sell my daughter as a slave. Obviously.

Then you are not doing it right, according to the Bible and your belief that it is the plain language inerrant word of god. :roll:

[formergothardite]

Ironically, in this discussion, I have stated multiple times that I had no problem with various people having different points of view on whatever the particular thing was that we were discussing. This is America, and you can have freedom of religion or freedom from religion if you want. Yet there are many in this discussion who don't extend the same courtesy to me. They seem determined not to rest until they get me to admit that the Bible is in fact just a collection of stories and has no real meaning. No "live and let live" when they're the ones who think they're in the right. Funny.

I'm assuming that you would vote in favor of gay marriage since doing so is not living and let live and is trying to force your religious beliefs on others. Is this a correct assumption?

No one here is trying to take away your freedoms, this is just how discussions and debates work. You give your opinion, people give their opinion on why they disagree with you. If you don't want to debate your beliefs it was very unwise to come here. I have not seen anyone say that you had to admit that the Bible is a collection of stories that has no real meaning, the point was that you often took passages and took them literally without looking at the context in which it was written or even the meanings of the original words. You also seem to flip-flop a lot on what and when you take things literally and when you don't.

[Maxwell]

I think one of the reasons I'm tempted to answer Westchamps is that I got strict with myself shortly after Ken arrived (very busy weeks for my work), and missed most of Ken and all of Cabinetman. In fact, I haven't even had a chance to go back and read the threads.

Maybe he's my Ken substitute. :lol: Splkenda? Saccharken? Oooh, if he was a substitute for Mr. Maxhell, he'd be Steve-ia.

edited for riffle

I would like to take this opportunity to say that my username is entirely ficticous and any resemblence to any actual person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Carry on.

[thekate]

I would like to take this opportunity to say that my username is entirely ficticous and any resemblence to any actual person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Carry on.

Whatever, Steve. We always knew you read here.

[westchamps]

Wow. I scored a 40 :embarrassed:

Mind you, I think that's because I'm bilingual in British English and American English swearing. I can actually swear in 11 different languages. It was my party trick when I was 11 -- Missionary Kids are badass!

Just to make Westie blush: You Bollockfaced Shitnubbins of a Piers Morgan.

Wish you hadn't called me Piers Morgan. That does make me blush, and not in a good way. :lol: