Jump to content
IGNORED

Comments on soap box debate with Butero and Shiloh


enoob57

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,790
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

We are now moved into a lesson in contextual hermeneutics an effort to help those of you
who do not understand the science of interpretation of written material... I also am given to
the process as it forms an objective base for all generations to discern truth from written
Scripture all else is subjective approach and cannot be correct due to seemingly infinite amount
error that is occurring to that particular method by the subjective I feel therefore it is...
God calls us to reason together with Him: Isa 1:18
come let us reason together.jpg
I guarantee you the place you are giving to sin and evil here and are told not to! Will not be in the eternal state... so why continue?
Love, Steven

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,790
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

As Butero is countered by his 'God is the Father/Creator of sin' and it is in direct opposition
to that of Scripture 
John 8:44
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

KJV
also Butero's hermeneutics are shown weak in his ability to discern God working within a
fallen world and causation of .... until this division that exists in Scripture is rightly divided
Butero will not see the error he has placed within the Scriptures themselves and truth will
remain hidden from him... The hermeneutic upon which we know the total and complete
separation that God 'IS' from sin is exhausted within Scripture in many many places:
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-sin.html
 

1 John 1:5-7

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
KJV


Satan wants to be god but there 'IS' only One God and He is totally separate from sin....
it is clear that satan would want God to be seen as Butero is presenting but then the god
is satan for sin is of god! "That is anathema."
Love, Steven

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thallasa
On ‎17‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 7:45 AM, The_Patriot2016 said:

I think he brought forth some really good points, he called out shilohs accusations of poor hermanuetics, that while even if true, stating it serves no real purpose. It was a poor debate tactic on shilohs part, as is buteros alluding to Shilohs response, both are guilty of poor debate tactics there.

 

and while I dont agree with Buteros stance doctrinally, he did in his last point bring out some good points, and flaws in the logic used against him. First, his counter argument against our justice system-he has a point, our justice system, is inheritently different then Gods, in that that Gods is perfect, ours is not, and that sometimes our legal system does indeed use evil for good.

His other point which I would like to point out is his argument on Job. Shilohs question "how can anyone trust God if they believed God created people to do evil" and Buteros counter question "how could anyone trust God after reading Job" both valid questions. The problem with buteros, is the assumption that the only alternative theory to his is based on prosperity doctrine. The issue with Shilohs, is that it is indeed clear throughout the Bible that there were instances that God either created people to be evil-or used evil-to fulfill His plan.

now, Shiloh makes a point, that nowhere in the Bible does God use evil to fulfill his plan. Butero, is right, thats a false argument, though Buteros examples, are incorrect. Butero brings up Israel being ordered by God to destroy the canaanites, and the philistines, and the flood. None of these things are evil brought upon by God. If God is a holy, and just God, and perfect, then anything that He expressely orders-or causes, therefore cannot be evil. God ordered the destruction of the canaanites, He ordered it, it wasnt evil. same with the philistines, and same with the flood. If God had the right to create the world and every living thing in it-He also has the right to destroy anything in it, at will, and not be evil. Its like me going out and buying a car. That car is mine to do with as I please. I can treat it nice, and keep it in tip top shape, or I can lace it with C4 and blow it up. its my car, I can do with it as I please. Same with God and His creation. If God ordered it, its not evil.

The examples that He should have used, and has in the past, is, like in the case of the Pharoah in egypt, God intentionally hardened Pharoahs heart, in order to fulfill His bigger plan. God also allowed other countries such as babylon and persia, to take over Israel, as punishment for the Israelites disobediance. Then theres the case of Judas, whom Jesus himself said was "doomed to destruction so that scripture might be fulfilled" in John 17:12, which if there was a black and white case of God predestined anyone, its Judas himself. Evil is used, frequently, to further Gods cause. I would say, that God himself does not create evil people to fulfill His cause-that would go against His nature-but to say that evil, in and of itself, isnt used, and God.

now, I dont believe God sits there and predestines us all-as in none of us have any choice-some of us evil, some elect, etc. Were not robots, we have free choice. But on the same note, there are specific cases, like pharoah, where God did harden pharoahs heart-the Bible does specifically state that. And Job, God allowed all that to happen, Judas, etc.  And now matter how you look at it, the question "How can I believe in a God that creates evil" is in reaity, not entirely different then "how can I believe in a God that allows bad things to happen to good people" And while there is a definite difference, explaining it to someone who is going through a situation, is difficult, because all they see is the end result-which in their shoes, is the same thing.

Its kind of a touchy subject if you look on it, its a hard concept to grasp-there is definite cases in the Bible, that evil was indeed needed to bring forth Gods plan, and the Bible even says that all things-good or bad-work together for good or for bad for those who love God and stay true to His name. But where is the law drawn, between God pre-ordaining everything, and free choice? Like with Judas. Did Judas have a choice? well, if Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus, then who else would betray Jesus? Jesus would either have to pre-ordain one of them to betray Him to fulfill prophecy-or pre-ordain someone who would betray Him, to be one of His disciples. You could argue "he allowed" someone who would betray Him to follow Him, but its pretty much the same thing, if you look at it. So we pretty much have one person, who pretty much was sent just to betray Jesus, but on the other hand, you have "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that WHOMSOEVER, believeth on Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life" which pretty much destroys the argument of predestination.

I bring forth these arguments, not because I agree with Butero doctrinally, but because I recognize that these concepts can be difficult for people to grasp, especially if they are struggling. Both Butero and Shiloh are well versed in the Bible and their respective doctrines, which is why I wanted this soap box debate in the first place, to bring both sides to the table, so that people can see what scripture says, and learn from it. My prayers is both of them stray away from the bad debate tactics, and just rely on debating the scripture, and not whos using bad hermaneutics, or putting words in the others mouths.

Impressive ,very,  and thankyou .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thallasa
On ‎17‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 3:41 PM, Yowm said:

Yes, the concepts are difficult that is why I align closest with compatibilism. (I learned the name after I became convinced of the concept from Scripture). God fully works out all things in a way that our free agency is kept intact.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,676
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

Seems like the discussion is  getting bogged down on the distinction of "God creating people/angels TO DO evil"(Butero) and God creating people THAT DO evil (Shiloh) the difference is in the intent of God in creating certain ones. Perhaps the discussion has ran it's course.

I'm thinking most likely the case, myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  92
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2,156
  • Content Per Day:  0.67
  • Reputation:   1,716
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/19/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/10/1961

On 8/15/2016 at 7:02 AM, LadyKay said:

Is this a sporting event? Should I buy the large bowl of pop corn?

While it might not be a sporting event, I'm thinking some pop corn (with real butter), a comfy chair, and a Bible would be handy for following the festivities. :whistling:  :laugh:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,790
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

The challenge in the debate was responsibility for the existence of evil... Butero said it was God Who has created evil which negated God's testimony that satan was the father of it.... Shiloh continues to debunk Butero's views on hermeneutics and bring the discussion back to debate subject -yet- yet - yet...  as the running of it's course it had done that before it had begun - for any student of Biblical Theology in the area Harmartiology knows The Bible clearly dictates God has no part with sin other than that of The Christ Who bore it upon Himself to provide a doorway through Himself to be born once again of The Holy Spirit of God and become eternal children of God... The fact that no verse in God's Word supports Butero's claims shows through by his attempt to exit the point of the debate and confuse the issue with other undisputed points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,460
  • Topics Per Day:  1.26
  • Content Count:  27,739
  • Content Per Day:  3.34
  • Reputation:   15,386
  • Days Won:  126
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

As I told some others,  "Can you imagine teaching a position -- and being soo totally wrong ... and God judging you based on it?   Just the FEAR factor should make people really sit back and even promote a questionable doctrine without Scriptural basis.  By the way, you judge -- you, yourself are judged ... and judging God's intentions ... Wow!  I can't even begin to fathom it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,790
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

1 hour ago, George said:

As I told some others,  "Can you imagine teaching a position -- and being soo totally wrong ... and God judging you based on it?   Just the FEAR factor should make people really sit back and even promote a questionable doctrine without Scriptural basis.  By the way, you judge -- you, yourself are judged ... and judging God's intentions ... Wow!  I can't even begin to fathom it!"

Knowing the great unfathomable love God holds for all of Adams children imagine the sorrow He holds for those who 'will not' using all they have been given by God as 'being' yet to do so even in that debt! Said sorrow will one day be sealed up in endless wrath and nothing else... I agree unfathomable even to imagination the horrors that await the devil and his followers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
39 minutes ago, Yowm said:

 

On Shiloh's latest post...

I am scratching my head a bit over the notion that hermeneutics 'are an objective set of rules'.

A quick search will reveal at least 4 schools of thought concerning biblical hermeneutics.

 

Another troubling comment was, "  Tov Meod is essentially like saying that this is good as it can get.  God doesn’t design or create imperfection.   Adam and Eve were perfect.  All that God made originally was perfect and there was not blemish or spot of sin on or in anything.  There was no sin, no disease or sickness, no decay, nothing broken down, no heartache or pain.   To get a glimpse of what the earth was like before sin crept in, take a look at what the world will be like when sin is eradicated.   From Genesis 3 to the end of the book of Revelation, we have been on a march back to Eden, if you will, back to the way it was (and even better than it was) before Adam brought sin into the world by rebelling against God. "

 

In red above there appears to be a bit of head scratching also. If Tov Meod is speaking of 'as good as it gets' why is there a Paradise to come that is even 'better'? Perhaps it is speaking in relation to 'under the present circumstances, this is as good as it gets'.

 

...all minor points, but oh well.

I am going to answer this post on this thread to clarify my points.  I am NOT debating the soapbox here and I will not refute any of Butero's points in this thread.  One debate is enough.   But I think these comments need clarification.

First of all. There are four different interpretive methods that are placed under the umbrella of biblical hermeneutics.   I am a biblical literalist.  The purpose of interpretation is to get to the literal meaning of the text supplied by the author.  When  I say that hermeneutics are objective, I mean that the only proper method of hermeneutics, (literalism) is objective.   

Another way people, mostly liberal theologians approach the Bible is by interpreting it allegorically.   Problem is, allegory is not an interpretive device.  Allegory is a teaching device.   Allegory attempt to teach a moral lesson.  It is NOT hermeneutics, despite the misguided efforts of some to list it.    Moral and allegorical approach are used by liberals  to argue that you don't have to believe that anything in biblical history actually happened in order to derive a good moral lesson from it.  That's what allegory does and it is linked to moral/ethical approach to the Bible.  It's completely subjective.

Those who reject a literal creation, who reject a literal Noah's ark, or a literal Exodus use the moral/allegorical approach because they refuse to believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.  

But the Bible recalls the works of the Lord for Israel in the past to inspire faith for Israel in the present.   Psalms recalls in multiple places how God cared for Israel during the wilderness journey and was faithful.   The problem is that if there was Israel in slavery, if there was no Exodus, if there was no parting of the Red Sea, if there was no manna from Heaven, if there was no Water from the rock, if there was no defeat of Jericho, if there was no crossing of the river Jordan and no passage into the Promised Land, then God was never faithful.   And that means there is no real basis for trusting Him, because all of the claims of His faithfulness would be nothing but a fictitious fable.  So, you can see why the allegorical/moral approach doesn't work.

The analogy approach is meaningless and based on mysticism.   The Jews use a mysticism and they pretend that interpretation of Scripture is like the endless peeling back of the layers of an onion. 

The only reason to interpret Scripture is to get to the literal meaning and the only true biblical hermeneutics that qualifies for that is the literal approach to the text of Scripture.  It's the only approach that objectively preserves the integrity and purity of the Word of God, the Bible.

Now to clarify Tov Meod.  It appears as first blush that I contradicted myself by saying that Tov Meod means perfection or "as good as it gets,"   but then I suggested that in the book  of Revelation that the earth will be even better than it was after God finished creation and called it "Tov Meod."    You cannot improve on perfection.   It's not the case that conditions in Revelation will be more perfect, as God has no sliding scale with regard to perfection. But rather, our experience of a sinless earth will be better than Adam's because the New Jerusalem will have come down out of Heaven and is joined to earth and God will literally and eternally dwell with man.

If there is anyone who needs clarification on something I have said in that debate, please feel free to PM me and I will respond to your questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...