Yes, and

As a matter of fact I am glad I asked. I find it helps to know a person's background like what you shared to better understand what the person says in forums like this. I also noted the time of day you posted this! Do I understand right from this you are saying you're older than 90? ~~~~ As I said to @Sower sometimes it takes me awhile to write new stuff and responses, so that's (almost) all I have for right now, but I'll be back.

Now I understand, and now I'm laughing. Thanks for that! Americans don't typically put a 't' at the end. It's usu. just Shh. Or add another 'h' or two or three for a very long, drawn out version. The 't' is what threw me.

@Neighbor: let me ask you a bit more personal question or two. Are you of Scots-Irish descent and if American, what would you consider your "home place" geographically speaking? Whether Scots-Irish or not, what are your family ethinc roots and where do your parents and grandparents hail from? I've gathered you are on the north side of 60 (I'm 61). Correct? Who would you call your best friend? And puh-lease, don't say "Jesus"! Or Fred Rogers. ;-) Tell me about that friendship.

Hi, @Renskedejonge! Would you be willing to edit your last paragraph a tad for a little more clarity? Was "ssssht ssshtsssht" meant to be a polite way to say the s-word or did it mean something else? Whose house is big and fatzo? Who moved? Who sang? And did you post the video on YT or elsewhere such that we could see it (even if it's in Dutch—which I assume given your screen name and location. FWIW I lived in Belgium for 5 months in '93-'94). I think next time I post I will respond to your post more with the topic at hand in mind, because it raises a major aspect of my inquiry which @jeremiah1five's posts in this thread (unwittingly?) raise. It's just that his (her?) posts, being immediately dismissive and preachy, failed to further the topic appropriately.

Second anecdote: earlier this year I became "friends" with a faithful brother in the Lord through this same mens group. I put "friends" in quotes to emphasize where the point or points of this anecdote. I do so not because he and I weren't friendly to each other. We were. It's not because he wasn't a solid man of faith. He was. And it's not because we didn't get along. We did. No, rather it is because of the effects of time and space on a very real and practical level, along with the forces of our culture we are discussing, which create this tremendous roadblock to anything approaching a true friendship. @Neighbor points to these forces in saying: I would respond by saying that disembodiment and lack of physical presence is anything but a neighborhood. These forums exist in large part as a paltry replacement to true community (true communion.) Of course there's no doubt that a utilitarian value can be found in forums (and the "University of YouTube"). But I think we lie to ourselves—in part to ameliorate the pain of the loss of the neighborhood—in turning to these as substitutes for the blessings of physical presence. Now did you see I wrote in past tense about my "friend"? For all I know this morning of Christmas Eve, he may have fallen asleep in Jesus sometime over the last 3 weeks. In the spring of this year, a few months after our friendship began, he was diagnosed with lymphoma, and over the summer and into the fall he went through various treatments, seemingly unsuccessful on the whole. Before he knew it was lymphoma, but feeling very ill, I and some folks from the mens group helped him and his family move from one place to another in our town. I also connected with him and his wife on occasion, but owing to his illness, time, and space, and the demands of our present life/culture, real connection was difficult to realize. For one, we weren't true physical neighbors. His home is about a 17-minute drive from ours. And much of the time he was getting treated and in-patient at a hospital about three hours away. I drove there at one point in November to visit him, shortly after he had gone through a particularly nasty stretch. He cried when I entered his room, for no other reason than another human came to visit him in person. In September, after a series of treatments at that distant hospital he was back home and was able to join the mens group one evening. Most of the discussion was his providing encouraging testimonies of the Lord's work in his life. At one point, however—and knowing of his involvement for more than a year with what is considered a great church in our town (large attendance, lots of small groups, supposedly good preaching, etc.)—I asked him whether he had made any actual friends there, or found any real community. He replied with a definite no, while also saying that yes, people in the church would bring meals to him and his family. He, too, has been painfully aware of the lack of real neighbors and neighborhood. Now, mind you, he has lived for the most of his life in other countries. One of the places he found real community was in a small village in Albania, in part, he said, because all of life happened within walking distance. That move we helped him with was into a townhouse neighborhood. There, he told us, he would sit outside his front door and try to engage his neighbors, to no effect. He is (or was) a friendly guy, make no mistake, and it grieved him as much as it does me this inability to connect even when one tries. The last series of contacts I had were text messages in which I was expecting the next message to be him telling me when he would be released from that distant hospital after another round of treatments to a local rehab facility. Then, radio silence. (My wife, incidentally, attempted to contact his wife in late November. No response.) So, hearing nothing, I stopped by their townhome about a week ago. No one was home (they still have two teen sons living at home). Outside the townhome was a group of three people stringing up Christmas lights. They said they knew him, lived a couple doors down, but they clearly didn't know anything about him.

Too true, it took me a while to get back to this, so in that respect it's totally understandable to see this go down a different path. I wasn't perturbed or upset when I asked you to "get a room," and like I said, "Please, though, stick around on this thread if you'd like to continue with the thrust of my initial post and questions! :-)" I suppose it was my hope that my initial response to @jeremiah1five (in which I was perturbed, hence the "Grrr" at the end!) would have been interpreted as it was intended: "Completely missing the point. Go start a new thread if you want to." And FWIW, I don't have lots of time on any given day to participate here, and add to that the fact that I both ponder what I want to say sometimes over the course of days at a time and then take a long time to write things out coherently (with lots of editing before I ever hit the "Submit Reply" button), it can very much look like I disappeared.

OK, time to begin to respond, as likely this will take a few installments. But before that, I have to say I think I better understand what it means to "hijack a thread." I very much appreciate your contributions, @Sower, but could you and @jeremiah1five please get a room somewhere else? Please, though, stick around on this thread if you'd like to continue with the thrust of my initial post and questions! :-) Sure, I think that is an accurate label for this essay, and yes, I too believe what Esolen describes is accurate in general, and I lament it. Sure, I recognize like others here that there are always hidden pockets of genuine neighborliness, true community, and yes, even kids playing outside, but these are in our day exceptions. My outside-playing childhood was during the late 60s until the end of the 70s, just before that "transitional" decade in which @AnOrangeCat was born. I have felt the loss of this way of life keenly, but perhaps from two internal motivators, I have never been able to resign myself to this loss. The first motivator, whether from nature or training (my day job is architectural design), is having a critical eye or mind. I don't at all mean by this what most folks would take that to mean, being harshly critical and curmudgeonly, with no intention of going beyond the critique (my two sons would dispute the curmudgeon part). Rather, I mean by this seeing the problems and articulating what they are for the purpose of correction to something better. Problem-solving resides in the heart of architectural design. The second motivator, I believe, is the Holy Spirit. If he shows me something is amiss, then he also asks me, "What are you going to do about it?," just as I believe He does with all of the Father's children. The question is always, do we have the ears to hear? To resign oneself to "the way things are" reflects an unwillingness to change, to turn, to rethink. I honestly can not say that I am willing. This is not the same thing as saying I am not willing. It is simply saying that when it comes down to it, when I hear what God is telling me to do beyond a shadow of a doubt, I wonder whether I will do that thing. Perhaps this is because I simply do not know what to do differently, or God has not yet said anything. Or, it may be that my initiating this dialogue is the thing I'm supposed to do on the way to whatever change may be in front of me (really us, to include my wife, at the very least). ~~~ Continuing on, I will give a few anecdotes of my own to paint a further picture of the problem(s) Esolen writes about. I'll start with just one in this post. I meet with a group of men which was formed (not by me) as an attempt to bring guys together to be "real" with each other in our walks with God. The organizers take great pains to say, "This isn't a Bible study" (though the Word is often discussed) and "This isn't church" (though I believe it is just as much an "assembly" of believers gathering in Jesus' name as anything else one might want to label church (please, no rabbit trail on this point!)) The guys who meet come from varied backgrounds and churches. One particular regular attender is the head pastor of a church. He's a fourth-generation pastor, and I think second-generation pastor of his particular church. The reason he started meeting with us was because his wife strongly encouraged him to do so. Why? Because, as he said, he found no true community of friendship within his own church, and his wife knew he needed this! Now I have no doubt he and others there help one another out in crises (the basis of which you, @Neighbor, seem to define your neighborhood). This is all well and good (and it clearly occurs in across cultures and countries when disasters strike), but what about actual friendship? I have a book on my shelf written in 1983: The Friendless American Male by David W. Smith. This problem is of course nothing new, as others here have rightly pointed out. There are countless articles and essays and books about alienation and atomization; the lack of friendship and true community extant in our culture. I know this. You know this. But how do we respond to this as those who desire to hear what the Spirit says to the churches?

Totally agree, though I admit I'm having some wry fun here when I say: Would you avoid analogies when you use "the language of the culture"? Using the word "pioneer" describes a concept via analogy. ;-)

Thank you for the responses so far. I'm appreciating the thoughtfulness and looking to engaging more fully when I next have a good amount of time. I esp. appreciate yours OrangeCat because you fully and completely responded to each and every question (A+—but still like some of the others because there's some good food for thought there). Anyone else want to tackle this?

@Neighbor Since you responded to the actual inquiry, I will be responding to your post in due time, but would like to see if others respond to my inquiry. @luigiYou engaged with my inquiry, but just barely, so no response. @jeremiah1fiveYou utterly dismiss the inquiry and turn it into an opportunity to preach at me, rather than to engage. Whether you are right or wrong in your points is completely irrelevant, but one thing is for sure: by not reading the article, you completely miss what the author is saying, you completely misinterpreted the first 3 paragraphs, and you prove to not be a neighbor to me (a brother in the Lord) in your dismissive approach. So, like you not wanting to waste your time actually listening to what another brother says, I'm not going to waste my time listening to or responding what you had to say. Seems only fair. Grrr.

What @Your closest friendnt just said. I'll say it this way: No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times No! Why would I "oppose you to your face"? Simply because, as said before, you preach "another gospel," which is not good news, and even further, in its essence says that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross was pointless. We have no need of it if all we must do is obey all the commandments, or at least show God that we're trying. Again, it's one thing to say you believe celebrating Christmas is an error and you have not the freedom to do so yourself. That would be all well and good. I have some very dear friends and siblings in the Lord who recently came to the conclusion that they would no longer celebrate Christmas. They are following their own consciences, but neither would the judge me for doing so. But, when you go WAY beyond and accuse anyone who does celebrate as being in essence a Godless pagan, that's another thing entirely. And here again, you completely misread and misunderstand Paul's teaching in Ro 14. PS to Moderators: I do not believe I am exhibiting "righteous indignation" in this thread, nor am I attacking the person. This is too important a matter to leave as just a topical discussion about the origins of Christmas traditions, and @Bro.Tan has gone well beyond that scope. And yes, this belief should be opposed in no less strident terms as Paul and others in the NT did.

I would like to start a dialogue by first referring you to an article written by Anthony Esolen and published in the May 2005 edition of Touchstone (“A Journal of Mere Christianity”). The article is titled “Where Went the Neighborhood?” Even if you don't participate in this thread I would still suggest it worth the read. If you do desire to enter into a discussion then after thoughtfully reading it please start by responding to these questions: Do you think Esolen accurately depicts the reality of life in most of the US and Canada? (Since he doesn't go beyond these two countries, neither will I. But, if you happen to live in another country and want to participate, by all means...!) Do you think that since 2005 the conditions he describes perhaps have gotten more extreme? If you do not believe Esolen's depiction is accurate, please tell us why, and where you find this real neighborliness, this community which he suggests is gone from our way of life. Describe in detail your situation and why you think it exists where you live. If you believe his depiction is accurate, how does it make you feel? Then, think through ways in which you could act to change things in your own sphere. What would you do? What could you do? Or…Do you believe there's no real point in doing anything about it?

This comment alone shows how completely opposite an understanding of the Word and the good news you have, @Bro.Tan. But in perplexity I am confident you have some way of reconciling the complete contradiction to the Word seen between your statement and Mk 7:19b; Acts 10:9-16; Acts 11:4-10. Peter, the Jew among Jews, was told not only by Jesus in person but by the voice of God from heaven: Get over it! Something new has come! It is one thing to have different degrees of understanding of the freedom God has bestowed on His children (hence the need for a teaching along the lines of Romans 14, for example), but it is another thing to take the stance you have, hence my perplexity. I can only take from your position one of three possibilities: 1) You are completely deceived and unable to see and hear the Truth, or 2) You are deliberately attempting to lead people astray, preying upon their fears by using the Word incorrectly, or (and I will allow for this) 3) We who disagree with you are deceived. On this last, I can only refer to Ro 8:16-17 and all of 1 John as response. The true test of deception is found there, and again, that test is completely opposite of what you write. The way I express this test is quite simple: what is your focus? Is it Jesus and his finished work on our behalf (which by so believing leads one into perfect obedience), or is it something else? Focusing on the other things (Christmas practices and traditions in this thread's case, or the Law) can never (EVER!) lead one into obedience. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (as already pointed out by a previous poster). Your words are death. Since you for whatever reason refused to answer the thrice-asked question about how you follow the Law as regards the Sabbath, let me try one last tack, with two requests: 1) Would you please provide your own testimony about how you came to know the savior (or better, how you came to hear him calling you, and how you responded)? 2) Would you please tell us how you arrived at the place you are at such that you say the things you say? I think your answers would provide valuable insight into your position and help us to better understand why you say what you say.

@ Bro.Tan: having followed along and read through your comments, I feel very much like Paul must have felt when he confronted Cephas, as Paul describes in Gal 2:11 and following. Indeed, were you to come to my own town I feel I would have to "oppose you to your face." Your words, I fear, do nothing but draw attention away from the finished work of our Lord. The net result seems strikingly similar to what Paul describes a few verses earlier (Gal 2:4): it comes off as an attempt to bring the faithful into bondage. But I, like Paul, and many here who have patiently tried to respond to you, "will not yield in subjection to you for even an hour" (v. 5 paraphrased). Paul goes to great length in almost the entire letter to the Galatians to refute the Judaizers, "so that the truth of the gospel might remain with [the Galatians.]" I have no doubt whatsoever that you read that epistle and likely the entirety of the NT in a completely different way (as evidenced by your take on Hebrews—a complete misunderstanding of the thrust of that letter), such that my words will have no effect. Still, I felt compelled to try. Take just Hebrews 3:18-19, for example. You argue that not following all the commandments (now giving an exception to the sacrificial laws!) is the basis for eternal damnation, but here the writer makes a direct connection between unbelief and disobedience. That is, those who fell, and those who fall, are those who simply will not believe in God, in the work that He accomplishes, and the work that he has fully and completely accomplished in his son. No, instead your words serve only to draw the focus off of Jesus and his sacrifice on our behalf, back into the Law—and you can not see this! You tell us we face mortal danger because we put a tree in our homes (that tree is meaningless and those who put their faith in Christ's finished work know this). Rather, I tell you that you are in mortal peril because your word is ultimately not the good news about Jesus. Instead it is everything but, potentially leading one away from the Lord and resting in His work. So here's an interesting off-topic question which I have thought about recently, and thought about as the basis for a new thread: do "wolves in sheep's clothing" know they are wolves? I mean by this: if a wolf is wearing sheep's clothing and he looks in a mirror, what does he see? Does he see a wolf or does he see a sheep? Because this wolf lives by deception does that deception extend to himself? What does he ultimately believe about himself?

I don't usually find myself asking a question like this, and when I do I have to make sure I am not asking this by way of judging others (which is easy to do!) Rather, I believe the real question we should ALWAYS be asking of ourselves (not others!) is: do I find myself honoring (loving) Jesus in whatever activity or relationship He has placed before me or that He has given me freedom in which to participate? Do I actively love my brother, my neighbor, the widow, the orphan? Does Jesus want you to remember or celebrate His birth? If so, fine. If not, leave it at that.

I'm still eagerly anticipating an answer, though I would go farther with the question, and ask him to list for us every single law he believes we are supposed to follow, which ones perhaps we no longer have to follow, how he might make that distinction, and which ones he personally follows. I would also like to know how he obeys the various sacrificial and dietary laws.

It seems the more we grow in and experience His love, joy, peace, and FREEDOM (I'm still capitalizing this) the less these arguments really matter. I suggest that the arguments about Christmas (and LOTS of other things)—whether for or against—distract us more from keeping our eyes on the Lord than the topics we argue about. I think that's sort of what Paul is getting at with, "Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one." (1 Co 8:4) I believe you could substitute "celebrating Christmas" for "food" in that passage and still have the same basic understanding (and I won't allow for the "professional weaker brother" to twist the intent of that passage and try to take away my freedom!) @Starise: Ditto, if I were on my own, but lucky me, all I have to do is go find a tree and get it set up! My wife does most of the decorating, with some tree help from our adult sons.

Not quite as traumatic or dysfunctional an upbringing, but for me it is a similar reason for not much caring for the holiday. And similarly, it's taken years to come to terms with it. But no judgment from me on those who do enjoy it (like, my wife, for instance, and I have a pretty good idea about where her heart is with regard to our Lord!) As to that joke, about 40 years ago I saw a one-panel comic (i.e., a JOKE) which laid out 4 reasons that Santa and Satan were the same: 1) the anagram; 2) both have red suits; 3) distinctive laughs ("Ho Ho Ho" and "Hee Hee Hee"); 4) both are associated with extreme climates. I thought it was funny then, and I still think it funny now. (Our Lord has the last laugh! Ps 2:4) Of course, given my own dysfunctional upbringing and negative associations with Christmas, that joke has been a way for me to project my negative attitudes, and I have even added a fifth reason: both distract from the real reason we even have a Christmas. But note this attitude springs from wounded flesh, not love, joy, peace, and FREEDOM (which my wife has in spades.)

I have to say this is such a limiting perspective, limiting to how God may chose to speak through any person, thing, or event. And why do you only take issue with analogies? If they come from base instincts and desires ("an ego trip by the speaker/ writer") what about anything else spoken by a mere mortal? What about anything anyone here—including yourself(!)—has written which is not just quotation of the Word? By your standard it seems we should only be doing just that, quoting the Word, because even the things you seem to allow for ("even extra Biblical writing of history that also examines the word, and archaeological reveal") can be just as much in error or full of folly. This perspective brings to mind the analogy of that person standing on the rooftop in the midst of a flood ("I sent you a guy in a rowboat and then a helicopter to save you..."), only he's not just praying, "God, please save me," but also putting his hands over his ears and shutting his eyes, because he refuses to accept that God can say and do whatever He likes, whenever He likes, however He likes, through whomever He likes.

Ah, my mistake. I clicked the "Terms and Conditions" link, not the "Terms of Service" one (which is harder to find).

Hey, there! I became a lurker, but definitely felt the need to jump in on this one and ask: 1) Are you being serious?; 2) Where in the Terms is this specific issue of plagiarism mentioned? I just closely read through them and can't find anything; 3) If you are being serious, is it then correct to infer that anytime someone writes something well on this forum, that person should—in addition to crediting himself by default of being the poster or Original Poster—say something along the lines of "I wrote that all by myself! I did not plagiarize anyone else's work!"?

Yes, @garee. Exactly! And this (really, Him!) is what (Whom!) we should be celebrating, not getting into countless arguments based on so-called knowledge which do nothing but divide us, turning our eyes away from Him. The sad but true reality though, is I could see someone picking a fight over even your straightforward words.

Exactly! It depends what we mean. What do you mean by saying you have knowledge that Jesus lived, was crucified, etc? Did you directly witness these things? While you could tell me that you happen to have a time machine, went back 2000 years, witnessed this, and then came back, I would be inclined to ask for some kind of evidence. Playing the role of Thomas here, I'd have to either believe your report or have my own direct encounter with Jesus. While I only saw the movie version of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, I am fairly certain (certainty and certitude have different meanings!) he would say that the preponderance of the evidence should lead one to believe the accuracy of the witness statements. Even then, the transition to true saving faith can not be based on the evidence alone. And evidence is not the same as fact! You can call things historical facts but this does not make them so. I believe John included the scene with Thomas (Jn 20:24-29) to impress upon those who hear his gospel what he concludes that scene with in vv. 30-31: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." He is moving the listener/reader toward faith, based on his testimony of the signs performed. Paul does the same thing in Ro 10 (and there he quotes Isaiah, who also does the same thing, suggesting what the writer to the Hebrews says in chapter 11, also doing the same thing). While I do not know you, I might possibly expect you to read the above and think I am saying something scandalous, or that at the least I am disagreeing with you. I'm not, because at heart you and I seem to be saying the same thing, but you couch your belief (or faith) in what you call "facts." I would rather say my belief arises from calling and encounter (as I suggest above). God reveals himself to us through his Word, through the evidences presented by the disciples and apostles, through mysterious happenstances, through audible voices, through nature—in short through whatever means he determines. Facts, and especially historical ones, can be extremely tenuous. We walk by faith, not by sight. This is where we need to dwell, and not get caught up in argumentative positions and postures. The Word speaks to this over and over again. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Look at 2 Pe 1 to see the difference in "knowledge." In vv. 2 and 3 the word is epignosis. In vv. 5 and 6 it is gnosis. In v. 8 it's back to epignosis. Epignosis is translated in my old NASB as "true knowledge" in vv. 3 and 8 indicating this is a knowledge which goes beyond the basic knowledge of facts. The gnosis of vv. 5 and 6 refers to a learning of the teachings which help one to greater moral excellence, but which also needs to be supported by self-control. And Paul says the same in his prayer in Ep 3, longing for us to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge (v. 19). This knowledge only comes through Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith (Ep 3:17), it does not at all come from facts, or one's own interpretation ("knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.") What I have written is meant to move a believer closer to Jesus through simple faith, to move away from "wrangling about words." I readily admit it could seem like I am doing this exact thing! It certainly is not my intention! I will repeat what I said in that now-closed thread: "I'm still waiting for anyone (anyone?) who has not contributed to [that] thread to tell us they have been edified and encouraged by it." Truly, if that's not happening, then it's just a bunch of hot air (or worse), and I will include my posts in that category. And, just like Job, I will place my hands over my mouth.

From the now-closed thread, “Eternal Salvation – From the Perspective of Life” I’m going to resume a topic I started to which @FreeGrace responded with a question or two. I said I would respond and also suggested starting a new thread because it was a theme unto itself, dealing with the concepts of knowledge and faith. So here it is. I started by saying to @NConly: “the reason I like your response is because of your first three words, ‘I do believe.’ “Look, I'm certain what I believe is not absolutely correct even as I can at the same time live in strong conviction about some things, but knowledge and faith are of two different orders (or so I believe—and even here, when discussing ‘knowledge’ I have found it helpful to understand (at least on a very elementary level) the limits of knowledge, the philosophers' approaches to knowledge, and the scriptural takes on it. There are different words and definitions for ‘knowledge,’ like there are different words and meanings for ‘love.’) And yet, it seems some here want to fight on the basis of what they consider unquestionable knowledge, and the desire to fight betrays an orientation which does not at the end of the day bear witness to the love of our Lord. They think they are doing the Lord's will (and maybe in some way they are), but so were the Ephesians at the time John wrote the Revelation. And look at what Jesus had to say about them. Yoiks! (Speaking of needing to repent!)” @FreeGrace responded with: “I am certain that you say you ‘believe the Bible’, as all Christians should say. But, does your statement above apply to ‘believing the Bible'? iow, are you just not real certain what what[sic] you believe the Bible to say is correct?? “Just trying to understand your views. “People generally believe what they think is true, or right, or correct. If someone is not sure about what the Bible says, then they can't ‘believe the Bible’. “I think everyone WANTS to be right, correct. I sure do. So when someone posts something that I haven't found in the Bible, and ask them where that is taught/said in the Bible, I am asking for correction. However, most times, I get ignored, or told (judged) that I really don't want the truth or am able to grasp the truth. I find it odd when people insult someone who is asking for evidence with which to believe something. Maybe that's just a clue that they really don't have the truth, and they really do know that, but just won't admit it. They are too tied up in their ‘own truth’. So I gladly point out that the truth ALWAYS has an answer.” ~~~~~~~~~~ To begin, I mentioned it being “helpful to understand (at least on a very elementary level) the limits of knowledge, the philosophers' approaches to knowledge, and the scriptural takes on it.” Emphasize “elementary,” because that is as far as I got in my philosophical education, a graduate level introductory course on epistemology. Nevertheless I think that education was sufficient to help me begin to understand some basic approaches to the Word which are rooted in essentially classical Greek (or worldly) philosophical mindsets and which run contrary to the way God calls us to respond to him. Two of the most prevalent approaches to the Word find us treating the Bible from a “Positivist” or “Logical Positivist’s” approach (these are related but also have their differences) or from what has been called a “Christian Stoic” approach. The former is ”characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.” This may seem ironic in that we are dealing with the God whom we cannot see, and yet we treat his Word as a series of “positive” statements each with a specific value as fact. Because of this orientation we “wrangle about words, which lead to the destruction of the hearers.” On this score I wouldn’t say what I “believe the Bible to say is correct,” not because what the Bible reveals to us about God isn’t true, but because it is given to us to lead us to God through the revelation of his Son, who is by his very nature the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. We are not called to bring forth logical arguments out of the scriptures; rather, we are called to respond to the Holy Spirit speaking to us through the Word. The other approach of “Christian Stoicism” in a nutshell has us treating the Bible as an owner’s manual, wherein we are looking for fixes to what is broken. If we can just work out all the Do’s and Don’ts, and follow them faithfully, then we will be in concert with the seminal logos (from Wikipedia): "Stoic philosophy began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, in which the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. It was conceived as material and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos ("logos spermatikos"), or the law of generation in the Universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos.[28] The Stoics took all activity to imply a logos or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, the logos was anima mundi to them, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.[29] In his Introduction to the 1964 edition of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote that "Logos ... had long been one of the leading terms of Stoicism, chosen originally for the purpose of explaining how deity came into relation with the universe".[30] I see both of these approaches often intertwined when someone is making a biblical case for this or that position, and neither of these are ultimately centered on Faith, which as I said, and I believe the Word over and over calls us to, is of a completely different order. I believe Paul clearly speaks to this in writing to the Corinthians: "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preachb to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,c not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29so that no human beingd might boast in the presence of God. 30And because of hime you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” This is why you will most often find me “going meta” on this forum, because the arguments here so often are rooted in a positivist and/or stoic mindset, and often lead one’s eyes away from our Lord. It is only by virtue of the fact that the Word is quoted here (no matter the motivation or misuse) that some readers may in fact be drawn to Jesus, because, as He tells us, his word does not return to him void.

I'll respond when I have more time, but would suggest maybe make this a new thread, because it's a theme unto itself(?), and because: (Amen, @Vine Abider to your whole post.)