"I'm interested to know why you think Christians are exempt from arguing a case between each other."

I don't think Christians are exempt from arguing a case between each other, but you're conflating 'people' for 'content'.

I'm saying the 'content' - by default - is flawed;
- If all it does is cause one to argue in disagreement constantly from it's inception, thoughout the centuries, seemingly endlessly;
- Then one might argue that this bible stuff is NOT 'the way'.

If millions of people;
generations and generations and generations;
- have argued over this very same stuff for millennia -

Then what's the bigger picture to all this?

What makes either Sells or OzSpen think they above all others are going to come to some consensus or agreement where generations and generations before them obviously could not;

(Because if they did - then Sells and OzSpen wouldn't be arguing about it)

What is this 'belief system' you wish to sell me;
- That you say can 'save me';

What is it anymore than a recipe to feel 'like you have some authority' and argue amongst yourselves?

How in the hell is that going to save me?
- Anymore than lose all sense of myself and waste my life going round in circles whist tying my brain into knots;

Would Jesus sit down patiently and explain things to both Sells and OzSpen so they can come to agreement;
Or would he just knock both their heads together?

OzSpen
This argument is becoming rather strange. If heaven is a material place then it must take up space in the universe. It is not on earth but must be extraterrestrial. Behind the moon is no good, we have looked. Likewise anywhere else in the Solar system. Of course, it could be quite a few light-years away in another part of our galaxy. This is my last post on this thread.

Sells,

<<This argument is becoming rather strange. If heaven is a material place then it must take up space in the universe. It is not on earth but must be extraterrestrial. Behind the moon is no good, we have looked. Likewise anywhere else in the Solar system. Of course, it could be quite a few light-years away in another part of our galaxy. This is my last post on this thread.>>

It is strange because you make it that way. What did Jesus say about heaven? 'In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?' (John 14:2 NRSV).

Jesus did not state it was 'a material place'. Neither did I.

You are promoting your postmodern, deconstructionist, reader-response hermeneutic again.

To Sells. In your last post you said:

"If heaven is a material place then it must take up space in the universe. It is not on earth but must be extraterrestrial. Behind the moon is no good, we have looked. Likewise anywhere else in the Solar system. Of course, it could be quite a few light-years away in another part of our galaxy."

You know arguably you can go in this direction of thought of heaven being a physical place in one way or another. I think it was the parable of the rich man and the poor begger Lazerath, where after both died, the rich man was in a hell like place (or arguably in hell itself), and the begger Lazerath, was being comforted in a heaven like place (if not heaven itself). Based on that description there's no reason to conclude that a physical heaven doesn't exist. But on the other hand there's not enough discription of the people to conclude that they have a physical body either. (They could be the souls living in an afterlife realm just as easily as they are in new living bodies).

My issue with a lot of scholarly debate in the bible, is that often what is debated isn't actually in the bible to confirm or correct it. It's just people flexing their scholarly studies, while arguing over which person has it right. Why not accept the simple answers and trust what the bible says instead of guess at answers people don't know, or make up stuff that is counter to what's in the bible. I know it it must seem too simple to just stick with what you know and say you don't know on the other matters that you can't confirm, but honestly I think that's a better approach then building a theology that is counter to what's actually in the bible. (Let those who aren't Christian come up with explanations that disregard what's actually in the bible. Let Christians actually trust God enough to believe Him and what He's recorded for us in the written word).

AC.

As it is necessary the law be argued in a courtroom among the legal fraternity to achieve a just outcome for the accused and the plaintiff, its correct to believe, argument between Christians designed to establish the correct interpretation of the new law of Christ contained in the New Testament, should be clarified by debate, as were the previous laws of Mose.

It can't be assumed that Christians hold naturally all metaphysical knowledge as a priori to Christian knowledge.

Your point is to assume the teachings of Christ should be straight forward and clear of necessity for argument. It not a reasonable position in view of the facts.

Obviously the scriptures a vague enough to include the points being debated here on this thread, as contestable.

Then you conclude, if there is need for debate regarding the basics of the belief system, then how can you believe becoming a Christian will bring you benefit, and not simply more confusion.

There are options for you. The simple answer is this. There are two basic schools of thought. One less described among themselves as liberal Christians, (viz Sellec); the other as Evangelical, (viz OzSpen).

Evangelicals are often denigrated as fundamentalists, who essentially believe more as you do, that the scripture should be taken at face value, ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.

The liberal believers take a worldly view, and can best be described as humanists. Their view of scripture is one where science is introduced in attempts to justify the vagaries of their creed.

Hopefully you get to the bottom of this text before you succumb to boredom.

Dan

Dan,

I commend you for the reply you made to AC, Posted by diver dan, Friday, 2 August 2019 9:18:48 PM.

Much of what you stated I agree with. However, I'd like to take up this point you made:

<<Evangelicals are often denigrated as fundamentalists, who essentially believe more as you do, that the scripture should be taken at face value, ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.>>

Liberal Christianity, as with Peter Sellick, sometimes has a tendency to be pejorative in calling Evangelicals 'fundamentalists'. This is a Guilt by Association or Ad Hominem (Abusive) fallacy. See: http://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/

My understanding is that Scripture, like all writings, should be taken at face value or as literal. This means that when I read On Line Opinion articles, Captain Cook's diaries, the early church fathers, and the Bible I acknowledge that these writings can contain narrative (which includes figures of speech such as metaphor and simile), biography, teaching, poetry, etc. I read each type of literature in that way.

I consider it to be avoidance by Christians to do what you stated: <<ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.>>

I have come across Scripture verses that have apparent conflict but to this point, after 55 years as a Christian, I have not found one I'm unable to resolve. Old Testament scholar, the late Professor Gleason Archer wrote this 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties' to address this issue. See: http://ia800606.us.archive.org/19/items/B-001-014-054/B-001-014-054.pdf