Divine Inspiration or Divine Dictation?

[Magnus]

I'm sorry for being late to respond, I had to walk back from a store.
I must be missreading you, as I fail to see the relevence of your post. It has already been mentioned that the bible has been edited, by men, while knowledgable, clergy are still flawed. As such of course contradictions will occur, but they don't effect day to day lives on layman, they are not too uncommon, a few pop up ever century. I don't see why simply allowing the church the ability to discuss such matters in council is a bad thing.
Prehaps you can help me on that.

I understood you to say that people ought not to study the Bible for themselves.  Please direct yourself to my criticism of that view.

You referenced contradictions that exist in the Bible, I'll assume all of Bart Ehrman's point are true, it doesn't actually matter.
You still have not offered any reason why theology should not be a particular thing to clergy.
Nor have you argued any counter point to Clergy being closer to god, than a layman.
So I still fail to see the relevence of your posts unless you are willing to argue atleast one of those points.

[crazy canuck]

Do you have a reason for why people should not study the Bible other then they might be lead astray.  Do you think that no one other then the Clergy should read it?  Do you think the Clergy infallable? 

[The Minsky Moment]

In what respect are clergy closer to God?  Is this true of all clergy of all the faiths in the world or only some?

[grumbler]

The argument of the theologian is not based solely on the text of the bible, nor on simply the surrounding text. As such your Scholasticism reference has little to do with God and his worship. It simply undermines any "critical" anaylisis, "logic" along with it. Leaving only pure faith in God. The reason any true theologian has more weight than you, is that he, to some degree, acts as an envoy of God. A true theologian is of course a man of the cloth, and as a man of the cloth. Be he a priest, bishop or the Pope, if you are so lucky as to hear his words, you can subscribe far more to him then to your own thoughts.

I actually have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  Faith requires no learning at all.  I would be a moron to place more value inthe words of a Pope than in the faith I feel myself, because no Pope knows me as well as I do.

All that the pope, priests, bishops, etc have is an artificial position created by other men, not by any gods.  If gods exist, they do not need to filter their words through intermediaries.  They can communicate directly with me at any time.   Whatever truths religions contain, they are subjective truths, not objective ones.  Which is to say that, if salvation occurs, it occurs to the individual.

[garbon]

If gods exist, they do not need to filter their words through intermediaries.  They can communicate directly with me at any time.

Of course, it is entirely possible that they do not want to.

[grumbler]

Of course, it is entirely possible that they do not want to.

Of course, it is also entirely possible that they do not want any priests or popes to claim the right to interpret their words as well. 

[Neil]

You still have not offered any reason why theology should not be a particular thing to clergy.

He doesn't have to.  The idea that theology is uniquely the property of the clergy is an ancient, outdated idea that isn't held to by any of the more modern Christian sects.  The idea that only a particular group of persons has any ability to make a sole claim to an area of intellectual pursuit is extraordinary, and it is the person who is making extraordinary claims who must have an extraordinarily convincing argument for those claims.

Nor have you argued any counter point to Clergy being closer to god, than a layman.

All humans have sinned, and all sins are equally detestable to god.  God has elevated all believers to priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), and any attempt for one group to arrogate themselves a higher place is sinful pride.

Only I am perfect and without sin.  Only I can judge who is evil and who is righteous.

[Neil]

Of course, it is entirely possible that they do not want to.

Of course, it is also entirely possible that they do not want any priests or popes to claim the right to interpret their words as well.

Indeed.  Who do you believe is greater:  Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?

[vinraith]

Everyone in the room is already a devout believer and the point of the class is neither to convince or cast doubt in anyone's mind about the validity of what's written in the Bible.

A surprising number of free-thinkers are born of intelligent, often innocent, questions raised in Bible study. At the end of the day the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out, you just have to realize that you're not the only one in the room who doesn't understand how a given passage can possibly mesh with common sense morality and ask about it. Stumping Bible study teachers is like shooting fish in a barrel, most of them have never given these passages a moment's real thought.

[garbon]

Indeed.  Who do you believe is greater:  Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?

The former seems like it would lead you quickly to heresy.

[Neil]

Indeed.  Who do you believe is greater:  Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?

The former seems like it would lead you quickly to heresy.

Indeed.  And that's the idea that Protestantism is based on.

[grumbler]

Indeed.  Who do you believe is greater:  Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?

Given that i don't believe in the latter, not a contest.  If I was religious, though, I would have to say that charting my own course towards salvation was a better bet than following the course of people from a different time and culture, whose answers to "as you would wish others to do unto you" would be so very different.  Especially since I wouldn't be all that sure that they had, indeed, obtained "salvation."

[Valmy]

At the end of the day the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes a great deal of sense.  A bunch of people put their thoughts down on their religion through the centuries.  What in there does not make sense?  Naturally not all of them thought the same thing about every single issue.  I mean the latter people were writing at the close of the Hellenistic age and the earlier ones were writing way back in the Iron Age.  Naturally they are going to see things differently.

And if you are Jewish and have access to the Talmud, it just keeps going reinterpreting everything from the next generations perspectives and experiences.

[vinraith]

At the end of the day the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes a great deal of sense.  A bunch of people put their thoughts down on their religion through the centuries.  What in there does not make sense?  Naturally not all of them thought the same thing about every single issue.  I mean the latter people were writing at the close of the Hellenistic age and the earlier ones were writing way back in the Iron Age.  Naturally they are going to see things differently.

And if you are Jewish and have access to the Talmud, it just keeps going reinterpreting everything from the next generations perspectives and experiences.

Yes, if you look at it in the context in which it is written it makes perfect sense (and is immensely valuable, both as a quasi-historical document and as a work of literature), but that's not what they're doing. If you take it as the literal dictation of God it's the ravings of a sociopathic madman (maddeity?).

[Tamas]

This is like the Battlestar Galactica thread.