About "GOT QUESTIONS?"

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, OneLight said:

I wold say that my concerns derives from scripture where we are told to always be ready to give a reason for our faith/beliefs.  If we do not do our own studies, how can He bring scripture back to our memory?  If someone who just pulled pages off this site to answer questions were asked in person the very same question, without a computer, would they be able to give an answer?  This is my concern.

As everyone here has stated, I use them from time to time, if what they state agrees with my stance on the subject, but I so not hold what they post the same as scripture.  In other words, I don't agree with everything they have to say.

Exactly right.   Got Questions should not be used as a crutch to replace thoughtful, prayerful study.  But in a pinch, they are a good source, when you need to respond but have to go to work and don't have time to to research and compose an answer.

[The_Patriot21]

I like it as a resource, but I find it incredibly annoying when in a discussion on the forums people just post an article from got questions. First, it doesn't add to the discussion in any, way shape or form. If I wanted to read a article on the subject id go to got questions.

Second, it shows laziness and lack of critical thinking. All your doing is posting someone else's thoughts on the matter, if you can't even be bothered to post your own thoughts on the matter, then why even post?

Quite frankly if I see a post that is entirely an article from got questions I don't even bother to read it, I just ignore it and move on.

[Neighbor]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

If I were writing a paper for a Bible study, that would be one thing and I would not use got questions for that purpose.  But to simply cite a source on a message board, that's different.   Most people don't have the time to sit down and spend an hour or two composing something for this board, and then spend additional time editing and proof reading it.

Citing Got Questions isn't done to replace thoughtful study, but to simply provide a source that articulates your position in  a way that either you can't or simply don't have the time to compose.  

As long as it is given proper attribution, I don't see the problem.

Edited to add:  It is also worth pointing out that Got Questions does support their views with Scripture.  They offer several links to Scripture in their responses.   I have found them to be a sensible, conservative source.

Hi shiloh357,

 Hey I agree to an extent. Yet I  do place much higher value on posts where the thoughts of the poster are their thoughts given with  reasoning and references. I do hope you are at least somewhat in error in your thinking it is too much effort for most that post here to have original capacity for  thinking and take time to  type it, think about it, and pray over it, before hitting Submit Reply. For if it isn't the case than it seems  to me there need only be one post a common reply to every subject- SEE GOT QUESTIONS.

Besides, I question every answer from Got Questions. I do want to know who wrote what, what their background is, what their agenda might be. So I do not especially care  for their inability to give out the source of their answers, but instead only catalog them. In fact, I don't buy that answer! It is wrong headed to answer as an editorial board rather than  as individuals by some entity name.

Billy Graham doesn't hide his name, nor does John Piper, John MacArthur, nor does any  theologian worth their "salt" regardless of their  personal slant on what they  may be presenting. 

So I suppose we  have disagreement on this one. I can live with it and suspect that  so can you.

We will have to find agreement in our studies elsewhere,  agreeing to disagree on this one overall, with  both giving praise to God for the challenge.

[Guest BacKaran]

Have grace on me for I'm using a phone. It's hard to type let alone try to type up a big reply.

Be like the Bereans and always compare everything to Scriptures. ?

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

Hi shiloh357,

 Hey I agree to an extent. Yet I  do place much higher value on posts where the thoughts of the poster are their thoughts given with  reasoning and references. I do hope you are at least somewhat in error in your thinking it is too much effort for most that post here to have original capacity for  thinking and take time to  type it, think about it, and pray over it, before hitting Submit Reply. For if it isn't the case than it seems  to me there need only be one post a common reply to every subject- SEE GOT QUESTIONS.

Again, I think you are missing my point.   I am simply pointing out that many people on the board have jobs and families and don't have time to sit here for hours on end composing theological arguments, a lot of the time.   They have to go to work or they have other things that demand their time so while they have the capacity to do so, they simply lack the available time.

Furthermore, there are many times when I will quote a source simply because the one quoting the source says everything that needs to be said.  Unless otherwise noted, quoting the source implies agreement with that source.   I am not going to compose a long post if what needs to be said has been said, and has been said better than I could have said it.

Quote

 

Besides, I question every answer from Got Questions. I do want to know who wrote what, what their background is, what their agenda might be. So I do not especially care  for their inability to give out the source of their answers, but instead only catalog them. In fact, I don't buy that answer! It is wrong headed to answer as an editorial board rather than  as individuals by some entity name.

Billy Graham doesn't hide his name, nor does John Piper, John MacArthur, nor does any  theologian worth their "salt" regardless of their  personal slant on what they  may be presenting. 

 

I think the logic of Got Questions is solid.  Too many people will write off an answer and ignore it if it the author is a woman, or of a different denomination than the reader or if the author is a famous Bible teacher they don't like.   Conversely, they may be too quick to just "ditto"  something because they assume the author is infallible or is part of their denomination.   They want to you to look at the substance of the information, not the author, and not pre-judge the answer.

I have seen a few things from them that I quibble with, but not much.  They have proven to be a solid, biblical ministry and is faithful the Word of God.

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I have seen a few things from them that I quibble with, but not much.  They have proven to be a solid, biblical ministry and is faithful the Word of God.

That is my opinion as well...

[warrior12]

2 hours ago, The_Patriot2017 said:

I like it as a resource, but I find it incredibly annoying when in a discussion on the forums people just post an article from got questions. First, it doesn't add to the discussion in any, way shape or form. If I wanted to read a article on the subject id go to got questions.

Second, it shows laziness and lack of critical thinking. All your doing is posting someone else's thoughts on the matter, if you can't even be bothered to post your own thoughts on the matter, then why even post?

Quite frankly if I see a post that is entirely an article from got questions I don't even bother to read it, I just ignore it and move on.

+2

There should be some effort to qualify the Got statement quote in their own words, even if they are just a few.

[Danger Noodle]

6 hours ago, Neighbor said:

 The got Questions ministry- What is it about, why would one quote them as a stand alone authority for a position on Bible, on theology in general?

The ministry itself states the 4300 articles come from multiple sources, and are anonymous for reason.

Basically they are all opinion, opinions of men, and perhaps women too. The ministry states one should use it as an aid  then search the Bible. From this "resource" comes this guidance:

...(5) We would rather our answers not be accepted or rejected based on who wrote them. We want people to compare our answers with Scripture and accept or reject what we publish based on that comparison.

(6) An author’s byline is unnecessary. The reference information given on our citation page is sufficient without the author’s name in virtually every setting, academia included.

Ultimately, as the president and CEO of the ministry, S. Michael Houdmann is accountable for the content of our website.

What issues did you have with a Got Questions resource that made you assume this undertaking? 

[MorningGlory]

I think that GotQuestions is pretty much on point but, and it's important, one should always weigh the answers from that site with Scripture.  As someone so aptly noted, that site contains the writings of man and should not be accepted without verifying.  If it's only used to answer simple questions about what the Bible says, it's probably a pretty good source.

[Kindle]

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

I think that GotQuestions is pretty much on point but, and it's important, one should always weigh the answers from that site with Scripture.  As someone so aptly noted, that site contains the writings of man and should not be accepted without verifying.  If it's only used to answer simple questions about what the Bible says, it's probably a pretty good source.

I agree!