Divine Right

[Mountain Man]

I would rather say you are lazy by pointing to some "context" in which the words suddenly have another meaning without giving any satisfying acount as to how and why.

And now you're being intellectually dishonest. I told you specifically how and why and even directed you to some topics of study to help you understand the reasoning. That you're too ignorant to even read about high context cultures and graded absolutism is not my problem.

[Charles]

And now you're being intellectually dishonest. I told you specifically how and why and even directed you to some topics of study to help you understand the reasoning. That you're too ignorant to even read about high context cultures and graded absolutism is not my problem.

I did read it. But there is still no answer as to why you would say "every person" if it does not go for every person. Why use expressions that would cause such a confusion. And how do you know you are not confused on other areas reagarding salvation and other important parts? You never really got around those problems. It's easy to point to concepts or methods of interpretation but to give a text intepretation using the methods and the concepts is a lot harder. And the last part you have not been able to do. You have not shown why the text needs to use these words instead of other to give an important point. No explanation of what seems a contradiction either.

[Terraceth]

Relevant interpretation from John Chrysostom (note this translation uses "power" instead of "authority"):

"For there is no power, he says, but of God. What say you? It may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be carried on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that; this, I say, is the work of God's wisdom. Hence he does not say, for there is no ruler but of God; but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, there is no power but of God. And the powers that be, are ordained of God. Thus when a certain wise man says, It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman, he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is He that joins together every man that comes to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God."

[Mountain Man]

I did read it. But there is still no answer as to why you would say "every person" if it does not go for every person. Why use expressions that would cause such a confusion. And how do you know you are not confused on other areas reagarding salvation and other important parts? You never really got around those problems. It's easy to point to concepts or methods of interpretation but to give a text intepretation using the methods and the concepts is a lot harder. And the last part you have not been able to do. You have not shown why the text needs to use these words instead of other to give an important point. No explanation of what seems a contradiction either.

It is a convention of human language that context matters. "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse!" Is that a literal statement? What does it really mean? How do you know? What about when your friend says, "You should have come to my party, because everybody was there!" Why would she say "everybody" if she didn't literally mean everybody? Why use an expression that could cause such confusion? Or is there some higher context that allows you to discern her meaning? Those same linguistic conventions don't suddenly go away just because you're dealing with the Bible.

You say I "never really got around [other] problems" but never bothered to say exactly what those problems are. Tell me, Chuckles, what problems are caused by a contextualized approach to Biblical interpretation? Do you have any examples? It's time to get off your lazy butt and do some intellectual leg-work, because simply crying, "But- but- you could be wrong!" isn't an argument. You think I'm wrong? Then put up or shut up.

[Tassman]

Again, there is broad agreement on the central tenets, so I don't really see the issue. The Bible never promises that all believers will be unified in their thoughts. Furthermore, I reject the implied argument that since there is a variety of proposed interpretations that no single interpretation is correct, or that the correct interpretation can never be known.

Sounds good but this is not what happens when it comes to the crunch. You claim to have the right interpretation of scripture and those who interpret it differently are wrong. E.g. remind us of your opinion of Christians who see nothing against homosexuality in the bible as properly understood. And before you launch into Leviticus and Romans remember that for centuries Christians used scripture to justify slavery and the subjugation of women etc.

Funny how skeptics never propose that sort of thinking when it comes to issues of science. Instead, they will claim that through additional research and study, we can get closer to or even arrive at the truth. Well guess what? The same thing is true for theological studies.

False analogy: Science, through additional research and study, can arrive at empirically verified truth. Theology cannot.

[Charles]

It is a convention of human language that context matters. "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse!" Is that a literal statement? What does it really mean? How do you know? What about when your friend says, "You should have come to my party, because everybody was there!" Why would she say "everybody" if she didn't literally mean everybody? Why use an expression that could cause such confusion? Or is there some higher context that allows you to discern her meaning? Those same linguistic conventions don't suddenly go away just because you're dealing with the Bible.

You say I "never really got around [other] problems" but never bothered to say exactly what those problems are. Tell me, Chuckles, what problems are caused by a contextualized approach to Biblical interpretation? Do you have any examples? It's time to get off your lazy butt and do some intellectual leg-work, because simply crying, "But- but- you could be wrong!" isn't an argument. You think I'm wrong? Then put up or shut up.

Still not confronting the issue. Why does it say every person when it does not go for every person? People were killed because of this. The lazy guy is you. I keep asking the same question and you point to simple facts already known and attack my person. Answer related to the text. Everyone can point to context. Jehovas Witnesses do that too. You need to show how it applies to the actual text. Can you do that?

[tabibito]

Still not confronting the issue. Why does it say every person when it does not go for every person? People were killed because of this. The lazy guy is you. I keep asking the same question and you point to simple facts already known and attack my person. Answer related to the text. Everyone can point to context. Jehovas Witnesses do that too. You need to show how it applies to the actual text. Can you do that?

Already stated: it can be taken to apply to everyone. That is, everyone is commanded to be subject to higher authority. So, even emperors are commanded to be subject to higher authorities. ... Where is insisting that "everyone" applies universally going to take you?

[Mountain Man]

Still not confronting the issue. Why does it say every person when it does not go for every person? People were killed because of this. The lazy guy is you. I keep asking the same question and you point to simple facts already known and attack my person. Answer related to the text. Everyone can point to context. Jehovas Witnesses do that too. You need to show how it applies to the actual text. Can you do that?

It's like arguing with my kids. They ask me a question. I answer their question. They don't like the answer so ask me again, I give the same answer. They still don't like it, so they ask again...

[Sparko]

Wow... I already pointed to who wrote it. But anyway where I live it is quite usual to call the books by the name they have got in the Bible. Now, let's get back on topic. I am tired of you always attacking me on all other aspects than the subject matter.

Yeah well it is called "Romans" or "the book of Romans," not "The Romans" which you kept calling it. It is pretty clear you are not familiar with it at all. I only point it out because you have a habit of opining on subjects that it is clear you don't know anything about.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah well it is called "Romans" or "the book of Romans," not "The Romans" which you kept calling it. It is pretty clear you are not familiar with it at all.

This could be a translation issue, not a familiarity issue. Perhaps he's thinking auf Deutsch.

[Sparko]

This could be a translation issue, not a familiarity issue. Perhaps he's thinking auf Deutsch.

could be.

[Tassman]

It's like arguing with my kids. They ask me a question. I answer their question. They don't like the answer so ask me again, I give the same answer. They still don't like it, so they ask again...

Perhaps the fault lies with your unsatisfactory answers.

[Charles]

could be.

It is. And rather irrelevant. But you like to create that sort of noise and attack my person. Rather obvious.

[Sparko]

It is. And rather irrelevant. But you like to create that sort of noise and attack my person. Rather obvious.

What is obvious is that you don't know the subject matter but want to pretend you do.

[Charles]

It's like arguing with my kids. They ask me a question. I answer their question. They don't like the answer so ask me again, I give the same answer. They still don't like it, so they ask again...

I asked for a qualified answer and you could not give one. You also forgot to answer as to how this applies to other parts of the Bible. Perhaps your children can give an answer. Sounds like they don't go for easy solutions. :-)