loganmule

I've characterized myself from time to time as a moderate Christian, in that I have for the most part kept the faith I was brought up in, but look at much of scripture as metaphor and not literally true (e.g., Jonah getting swallowed by a whale). In so doing, I've smugly allowed fundamentalists their belief in the literal truth of the Bible, even though they would reject my position.

The January '05 Playboy Forum piece by Sam Harris called "Who Needs Religious Moderation?" was a hell of a wake up call for me. As he put it, "The problem with religious moderation is that it doesn't permit anything critical to be said about religious literalism. By failing to live by the letter of the texts--while tolerating the irrationality of those who do--we betray faith and reason equally." Basically, he concludes that we should reject intolerant faiths, be it fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam or others, in favor of a belief system drawn from facts and reason, putting fundamentalists on the fringe, rather than having them in the middle (not just Bush, but 35% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, according to Gallup, and another 48% accept it as the "inspired" word of God).

The complacent part of me wants to find a flaw in his argument, but I can't ignore the logic of it. I think that the deepest truths can be found anywhere, including fiction. It's time for me to reject those who would reject me, I guess.

I would be interested in moderates and fundamentalists alike weighing in on this, and strongly recommend the Harris article to all.

martinguerre

i'm not sure where Harris gets his definition of moderation. i consider myself to be a moderate...i am not fond of literalizing scripture, but i am not fond of excessive innovation, either.

i do NOT think this is an effective call for rejection. some of the most important conversations i have had are as a moderate talking to the conservative. i don't have to convince them to beleive like i do. what my goal in speaking is to make them aware that my viewpoint is Christian...that it is grounded in scriptures, based in the traditions, and looks to the cross as the central moment of my faith.

the key assumption to this arguement is that the moderate cannot be in conversation. talk to modernity and the projects of secularism. let them know why you hold the values you do, and be an advocate for those values. talk to the project of fundamentalism, show them that there is Christianity outside their walls. Confront them when they make violence, but confront them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Lebell

Fortunately or unfortunately, Jesus did not say to only love your brother if he loved you first.

He said to love your brother as yourself.

The trick is to love your brother as a Christian while still trying to pursuade them to what you believe is politically correct.

If you lose in the political arena, the former requirement still applies.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

SecretMethod70

I've read some interesting things regarding Christian pluralism (pluralism is NOT relativism!) by a Christian theologian named Stanley J. Samartha. I'd highly recommend checking out his writings - there's a book called "One Christ - Many Religions" which is basically a progressive series of essays compiled together. If you do a search at the library, his essays have been in other books as well, such as "No Man is Alien," edited by J. Robert Nelson. Anyway, I think pluralism addresses these points fairly well.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

loganmule

I think a central point of the article was that you CAN'T convince fundamentalists to believe like you do. It is axiomatic that if the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of God, then anyone who takes a contrary view, with regard to even one passage of text, is wrong, from a fundamentalist's point of view. The other problem for me, as a moderate, is that it would be disingenuous to on one hand reject the literal truth of some scripture, and at the same time presume that I can tell the difference between passages meant to be read as metaphor and those which are literally true. I call myself a Christian, as you obviously do also, but fundamentalists would disagree. If the Bible is in fact the literal and inerrant word of God, then they would be right; if not, they're wrong. Personally, I don't buy in to original sin. This alone, even accepting everything else, makes me a heretic in the eyes of a fundamentalist.

martinguerre

if by convince...you mean "beat to death with selections of your favorite scripture" then you're right. i should know...i've made this mistake many many time before.

the solution, and i dare say the solution to most problems in life, is relationship. i can think of many people who did not want to say i was Christian for a long time..and it took a while to show them otherwise. but instead of trying to prove their arguements wrong, i focused on two things. Showing them where their assumptions were, and unfolding my argument in as Christian a manner as i could.

I wouldn't even say this. Frankly, i don't think it's even possible to construct a unified "literal reading." And i know there's no unified "they."

There's no there there. So take a deep breath, a sigh of relief. It is not possible that you are in opposition to a monolith of orthodox belief that weilds the threat of the biggest gun of all creation.

You've found yourself, with others, in part of the historic contestation for what Christianity means.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

loganmule

I appreciate your thoughts, martinguerre, and will continue to reflect upon them. Maybe I'm just bummed out and need to get away from the issue for a while. I see the compassion, humility, absence of judgment and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus as sublime, and aspire to do justice to that by emulating him. In the face of that, I've been judged not to be a Christian by many close to me, including my brother, because I can't accept that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.

tecoyah

I have been hesitant to post in this thread.....as many consider me to be, well.....not Christian.They are indeed correct. I would point out however that I am who I am because I have researched the scriptures and compared the books to each other, I still do so.
The term Christain....and the term Pagan have much more in common than most would care to accept. They both are meant to encompass a vast group of individual mindsets that have only a core belief as a basis for discussion, and thus relationship. Having read much of the Many versions of Christian scripture.....I was for some time confused as to what was accurate, and what was Falsehood. My understanding changed with the acceptance that there is no "Wrong" interpretation of these texts, but instead an endless supply of correct beliefs, based on personal spirituality.
In short.....if you have read one version of the Bible or another, and you become a more loving and caring person because of it.....you are a Christian in my mind. I am in some ways a Christian in my mind....but do not use the term simply because I find labels a hinderence to my own soul growth. Thus I allow myself to be called Pagan primarily because others who use this term have a like mindset, and do not feel the need to debase the path of anyone.

You can all be Christian.....if that is what you want to be, and No One has the right, or understanding to judge your faith.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

abaya

Well said, Tecoyah. Thanks for your post, despite your hesitation.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Sage

I think that in order for one to be a "moderate" anything, there has to be a cut and dried definition of what the extremes are. In Christanity, I don't think anyone would agree to those extremes- I mean, I suppose I could see some pentacostal fundameltalists as being on one extreme, but I see the other end of that spectrum being a liberal Christian, which I don't believe to be Christian at all... But I digress.

Jesus wants you to follow Him, this is the basis of Christanity. He told you what to do, His teachings are what matter. I think a lot of people have a tendency to forget that when Christ was born, the Old Testament went out the window because people don't have to uphold the covenant with God anymore, now they can believe in Christ and be saved. So focus on what Jesus said, and if your interpretation differs from someone else's, that's OK.

My mom and I were once talking about something, and I said "yeah, but didn't Jesus say to love everyone?" and my mother accused me of being a flaming liberal. SO know that it's subjective, just like everything else.

loganmule

I agree with you, Sage, that it's subjective, and for that reason I see tecoyah's approach to spiritual growth to be equally valid to mine. If heaven/enlightenment can be said to be a destination, there are different roads to it having different names, in my view. We also share the view that to be a Christian means to follow Jesus, if by that you refer to his actions rather than everything he is reported to have said.

Semantics admittedly gets to be a problem, even for fundamentalists, who argue over the accuracy of translations and the nuances of languages spoken 2000 years ago. At a minimum, however, I think (based upon my fundamentalist brother's statements to me) a fundamentalist would say that to be a Christian means one must accept that Jesus died as a payment for our sins, original and otherwise, and then physically rose from the dead, and that only by accepting him as personal savior may one come to know heaven rather than being condemned to hell. I can't accept that a kind, loving, humble, compassionate, selfless person able to withhold judgment goes to hell if he or she can't swallow all of this. Incidentally, according to scripture, Jesus affirmed the truth of the Old Testament, which I guess is why it is so often cited in sermons, notwithstanding the new all inclusive covenant with God (which means the Jews, all others initially being left out, couldn't hack the terms of the original covenant...but I digress also).

It would be nice to hear from those who characterize themselves as fundamentalists. Are there any of you out there?

asaris

I tend to think that, if 'Christian' is going to be a useful term, it needs to be limited to those who believe the contents of the Apostles Creed. Otherwise, it'll just go the way of gentleman, which used to mean something specific, but now just means 'nice guy'. I'm not judging anyone here; "I do not even judge myself". But I do think we should try to keep words useful. Note that the AC doesn't say anything about scripture being inerrant.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

archpaladin

I am and I am not. I won't use the term as a descriptor, but I consider myself far more fundamentalist than most people I imagine posting here. In truth, I believe that because faith varies from individual from individual you can't adequately label people like this. Christianity is meant to be a term to describe those who follow Christ. I think this is possible regardless of whether we believe certain verses in the Bible are inerrant or not. For example, one's belief in the specifics of the book of Jonah, IMO, has no bearing on your salvation. However, start tampering with what is literal in regard to what Jesus said and did and your salvation may be in trouble.

I think Tecoyah's post was well thought out and insightful, though I do have one disagreement, and this concerns the correctness of all interpretations of text. If we accept that there is a God, and that the Bible is His word, then we must accept that there are wrong interpretations to the Bible because we believe the Bible is what God has to say. Otherwise we're putting words in God's mouth. This is not to mention that of two mutually exclusive interpretations of text, it is obvious that one must be wrong. If we only take part of the Bible to be God's word, we're left with the task of sorting out what is allegory and what is truth. If we get it wrong (and because there's a lot of text to work through, there's a good chance that we'll get at least one thing wrong), we're still putting words in God's mouth because we're altering what He did and did not say. Finding out what books constitute the Bible, their accuracy to the original texts, and their interpretation from the original languages - these are the reasons we have Biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists. If you're not satisfied with their answers, then look at the evidence yourself. If we take none of the Bible to be true that's a different issue altogether.

Getting back to the start of the thread, I don't think it's possible or even encouragable to throw off fundamentalism or any other stance on the literal interpretation of text. I think that it's best to encourage everyone - regardless of where they are on the spectrum of literal interpretation - to discuss ideas and challenge people from all other points on the spectrum, because it is only by this that truth can be separated from fiction. I think one issue with "moderate" Christianity is that it can promote laziness and a lack of evaluation of belief which can stifle spiritual development - though I know that not all "moderate Christians" are this way.

__________________
This space not for rent.

asaris

I don't think that's right. I think that with all text, and the Bible is no exception, there's no such thing as a true interpretation. There are better and worse interpretations, and there are false interpretations, but no one true interpretation. I'll give two examples from scripture. First, the Song of Songs can be read either as a celebration of the love of a man and woman or as an allegorical celebration of the love between humans and God. But its not the case that one of these is false and one of these is true. On the on other hand, you can argue that one's a better reading of the text -- personally, I think the first interpretation is a better reading than the second, but I could be wrong about this. Second, it's clear that scripture (not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole) teaches that Christ was the Son of God. Any interpretation which denies this is simply a false interpretation.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

archpaladin

Indeed, those views are not conflicting, but those views are not mutually exclusive. That's why I specifically mentioned mutually exclusive views, because two mutually exclusive views cannot coexist. It is also a characteristic of mutually exclusive views that one can be labelled true and the other false. An example of two mutually exclusive views would be one individual regarding one portion of text as literal, and another person regarding it as allegory or fiction. Either the text is literal or is not, thus one view is wrong, and one view is correct. Another conflicting view would be the considering the godhead of Christ, as asaris already mentioned. If asaris is getting at the point that one passage in Scripture may have multiple non-exclusive interpretations, then all I'm doing is agreeing. However, this gets to my original point. Depending on how convicted you are that the Bible is inspired by God, the more likely you are to take a single-interpretation stance to portions of text that others consider ambiguous, for reasons that I've already given.

__________________
This space not for rent.

loganmule

You can't have it both ways, archpaladin. Jesus is reported in scripture to have validated, as true, everything in the Old Testament. Therefore, to not accept that Jonah was indeed inside the belly of a whale is either a direct refutation of what Jesus said, or an admission that Jesus was misquoted. Personally, I believe (and hope) that Jesus was misquoted a lot, the divinely inspired writings of men no more likely to be 100% literally true and accurate, ultimately, than uninspired writings. It's a huge leap, and must be made on faith alone to exclusion of all logic, to say that because scripture was divinely inspired, it must be the literal and inerrant word of God. I'm not lazy for failing to make that leap, but rather mostly focused on what Jesus did and the meaning of that instead of what others said he said.

roachboy

i understand the idea that the bible must be interpreted literally to be at once the absolute height of arrogance and almost mind-boggling in its naievete.
arrogance in that it assumes direct communication between finite understanding and the infinite.
naieve in that the whole system has to rely upon a loose-to-arbitrary notion of "inspiration" to operate at all to the exclusion of problems with the texts themselves, problems created (for example) by the fact that before the council of nicea there were lots of gospels being generated by various writers, each with an equivalent claim to divine inspiration (who decides what is and is not so inspired anyway?) and that the selection from amongst them at nicea was predicated more on matters pertaining to hierarchy (which texts would fit best within a hierarchical church) than anything else. that a major trend within protestant forms influenced by luther, working within a framework of nominalism-lite, chooses to ignore these problems changes nothing about them.

the bible is obviously an extremely complex, heterodox assemblage of texts. interpretation is a very difficult process in with texts like these even under the best of circumstances. the notion that divine inspiration could be twisted around to imply that the texts are written in such a way that someone who does not read with any particular regularity or intensity could understand what is going on seems to me folly. or vanity.

as for the olarger tactical question (how to moderates deal with thier far right counterparts) that requires more time than i have at the moment, so defer i will.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

next morning: the moderate vs. the fundamentalists

i would think that the rise into mass politics of the christian right would pose a real problem for moderates because the right uses much the same language as the moderates to stake out positions.

at the very least, moderates would have to emphasize the diversity of positions within christianity--in others words, christianity is not a single thing, despite the commonalities of belief in theological terms---and the right does not get to define it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

fishin

The Bible is a collection of texts that as a Christian, I believe is the inerrant, inspired "God breathed" Word of God. I think the amazing thing is that God used the medium of words to convey to us His thoughts. It's mind boggling to wrap your mind around that fact. Anyways, biblical interpretation needs to be done in much the same way as literary interpretation. The genre of the text needs to be considered, the author's intentions, the context, etc. For example, the Psalms are largely poetic. You would not necessarily read these words completely literally. However, the Gospels are narratives-- recordings of history, and thus should be read literally (example: Jesus died and resurrected) as is much of the Old Testament. I know this doesnt answer most of the comments here, but just my thoughts...

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.

WillyPete

Not picking a fight here Loganmule, but which passage mentions this?
You've mentioned that this is 'reportedly' so twice, but I can't recall such a verse myself.

Remember, that in Jesus' time there was no such thing as the old Testament. It was THE law and scripture to them.

fishin

I don't think Jesus ever made a direct statement like that but He certainly understood the scriptures to be the word of God. He quotes it repeatedly throughout His own lifetime.

As an aside: "All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" -2 Timothy 3:16-17

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.

WillyPete

Personally, I'd take Christ's own example that you shouldn't take everything literally that you read in the scriptures.

He was accused of working on the Sabbath after he had picked some wheat from the field he was passing through and husking it in his fingers. (which according to Mosaic law was punishable)
He then used that opportunity to teach of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law with the question of what one of them would do were their ox to fall in a pit on the sabbath. They realised they couldn't fault him on that and left him.

And Fishin, that quote in Timothy is before Paul's own words were included in the modern canon and before other works such as John's were written. With that in mind does Paul refer to past works, current (his time) works or all works written by men chosen by God? If it only refers to works up until the time of the epistle, then any works after are discredited. If it includes later works by other men of god, then it stands to reason that even modern works by so-called men of god should be considered as scripture and used for teaching.

fishin

WillyPete, that's an interesting thought and the canon of Scripture is a topic which would hijack this thread. But as for Paul's own words, 2 Peter 3:16 puts Paul's epistles on par with the whole of scripture.

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.

WillyPete

ok. *put's hands up*

When people start quoting reference without adding the quote itself, due to being so familiar with the subject, that's when I realise I've brought a knife to a gunfight.
I'm off to go play with lego now. I understand lego.

fishin

Sorry WillyPete!

"15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

I included verse 15 to show that verse 16 is indeed talking about Paul...

Legos are fun (but not as easy to understand as one would think)

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.

archpaladin

You misinterpreted what I said. My statement was that belief (or lack thereof) in certain aspects of the Bible have no bearance on your salvation because they are not related to your beliefs in the ressurection of Jesus and his claims to being the son of God. At the time, I made no claim as to their accuracy. (If you were interested in my beliefs, I assure you that I believe Jonah's story and the rest of the OT to be true.) This is why I said that the more one has conviction about the Bible being the inspired word of God, the more one is likely to take a single-interpretation stance. People are capable of believing in God and being saved while still wrestling with what the rest the Bible says.

As to Jesus's validation of the OT.......Jesus at least validates the story of Jonah in Matthew 12:39-40 when he speaks of the sign of Jonah, so perhaps my example of the belief in Jonah's story was not well chosen. I believe there are also a few other instances where he validates other OT passages, but they do not come to mind at the moment.

Not to sound accusatory or argumentative, but I think this is a veritable load of crap. When the infinite speaks in terms of the finite, the finite can understand what is being said. The infinite does not have to disclose all of its nature for the finite to grasp at least a portion of what it talks about. Indeed, the very relationship between the infinite and the finite prevents the full understanding of the former by the latter, but some understanding still is possible. As to naievete, I defer to the Biblical historians. They shall do a far better job of arguing the position than I.

This is why religious individuals read their scriptures on a constant basis. I imagine that whomever you got this notion from is a little misguided themselves about religious practice.

I defer to loganmule's response to my own earlier statements. Definitions are concrete things - the identification of something is done by observing both what it is and what it isn't. The right must therefore be capable of defining what Christianity is, because that sets one of the extremes on the belief spectrum and very ardently says "what is" and "what isn't". Concordantly, I think it's the moderates who do not get to define what Christianity is, becuase many do not take a solid stance on the matter, and a definition shrouded in vagueness is no definition at all.

__________________
This space not for rent.

loganmule

You are a more trusting soul than I, archpaladin, to equate the level of one's conviction of the inspiration of scripture with the likelyhood of its accuracy...I guess I'm more jaded when it comes to the notion that people will get the message which was intended by God, much less wrestling with the issue of whether God wanted us to fully understand it all the time. The disciples were confused about the mission of Jesus, for example, and see also Mark 4:11-12 (now I've gone and made my head hurt).

That said, I concur that salvation and confusion about the literal truth and "real" meaning of scripture can coexist.

SecretMethod70

loganmule, I agree on both counts. I don't think you're untrusting either - you're just rational. And there are plenty of people within Christianity who are also rational. More than you'd think based on the kind of press often received (much like many Muslims are unlike those often represented in media).

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Holdem Dvorak

Hello all,

I really shoulden't reply to this thread because I am a denouced catholic. But I am familiar with some christian beliefs. I will admit that I am no longer religious at all.

But I respect religious people a lot.

Being brought up as a catholic I quickly learned that most of them knew JACK about the bible. Most just go to church and listen and learn that way. Most Christians I have met are quite Biblical and have a wide knowledge of the scriptures and testaments and what have yous.


The problem with trying to find a flaw in Mr. Harris' playboy thingy(or probably Father or Rev. Harris) is that he is drawing a conclusion based on logic, and believe it or not (I haven't read his statements) it appears to be sound. But not all sound arguments are true to the same people. The truth is, Mr. Harris cannot prove a flippin thing. He provides the facts, the truths and what have yous. You choose truth in your religion. Heck you are Christian too darnit.

In fact that is why I got a C in logic. Yeah I'm just too smart for A's or B's. Logic teaches you with examples that you must either imagine to be true or imagine to be false.

This argument is very complex. And I believe the truth lies in you. What do you believe?


You should take some logic, its good for you. It doesn't cause kidney stones, just headaches and vomitting.

Your Pal,
HoldemD

WillyPete

No problem Fishin, just felt out of depth.

Whilst not a confirmed philosopher or great thinker, here's the way I see it.

Because of the nature of the bible, one can take certain verses both literally and figuratively.
Obviously the historical data in it are meant to be literal, as so-and-so either begat someone or they didn't.

Question: Would a supreme being, realising the trouble these humans cause and the way they argue, dictate verbatim exaclty what he meant? How would this translate into the different languages anyway?

How about rather using stories, parallels and ambiguos quotes that you know will appeal to present and future readers?


For instance, not necessarily scripture, but wise words that I've heard accredited to Sun-Tzu:
"Meet the enemy with the tip of your sword in his face."

Although it seems very simple, there's so many meanings you can draw from this line depending on your outlook.

1: Never meet an enemy when unprepared.
2: Always be ready to fight anyone you call an enemy.
3: Never call someone an enemy unless you are prepared to kill.
4: Don't talk, do.
5: Use the most effective art of your tools or skills when approaching a challenge.

As we see from this, all of the above is good and commonsense advice, but that one line says them all.
Why not give such advice to humans and let them draw from it as they need and as their understanding develops.

With this in mind, I think someone who claims to believe in the bible as the word of God need to be neither a literalist (is that a word?) or liberal in their understanding of its contents, but with enough understanding to allow both and to draw from both literal and figurative meanings as needed to face life's challenges in a christian manner.

The same would apply to any specifically religious text.

fishin

WillyPete, you make some good points, but I dont think they refute the idea of taking the Bible as literal and the Word of God. In your example quote, for example, no one in their right mind would take Sun-Tzu's words literally (unless that was his obvious intention-- was it from some battle manual?). Again, the author's original intention is crucial to appropriately interpreting the words, in this case, the words in the Bible. Without this, the words become clay in the hands of the reader as opposed to the Word of God.

A quick example, "I can do all things through Him who gives me strength." Millions misinterpret Paul's words here to mean that by God's strength, we can do anything. Seems logical, but in the context of the writing, Paul is referring to the fact that he can endure all hardships that he faces because of the strength that God provides. A misinterpretation of such scripture can lead people down roads that Paul (nor God) had intended. In such cases, those who interpret this way will be pretty disappointed, I would think when they realize that they can not "do everything."

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.

asaris

Actually, Mr Dvorak, the reason you got a C in logic appears to be the fact that you don't understand what a sound argument is. If an argument is sound, it's conclusion must be true. That's just what it means for an argument to be sound; that its premises are such that, if they are true, the conclusion must be true, and its premises are true. Perhaps you meant 'valid'?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

WillyPete

Yup.
Flying without wings is bad for your health.

Sun Tzu wrote principles for military and other leaders, yet they are just as applicable in religion and business. The same with the Bible.

Were I to be less literal, I could use that verse you quoted and turn it to my own needs. (not necessarily evil all the time.)
"I can do all things through Him who gives me strength."
It could also be applied to the fact that a political leader can do anything with the help of the nation. Not quite the same reason as originally written, but accurate nonetheless.
A quote like that could have been used to garner public support for the race to the moon or even, with a bible quoting leader like Bush, to rally people into supporting the trip to Mars or worst of all, a military draft. As you say, not quite what God intended, but valid uses.

I feel that if the use is noble in its aim, why not use it?

Holdem Dvorak

I don't see how you can implement formal logic in all of this. Thats all I was trying to get at. And yeah, I meant valid. Actually I got a C in logic because I only took 3 out 5 tests.

What is true, and what you believe to be true. How on earth can you set up a freakin truth table for that?

I strongly believe that formal logic can only be set up in two ways here.

Belivers VS Belivers

and

NonBelivers VS NonBelivers

questone

I think the amazing thing is that God used the medium of words to convey to us His thoughts. It's mind boggling to wrap your mind around that fact.

fishin

WillyPete, the key is in your words "not quite what God intended." Most people's reasons for quoting scripture is to give credibility that it is coming from the "Word of God." True, you can take various meanings from the text-- some noble and helpful. But you can certainly use text to extort, manipulate, deceive, justify.

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.