Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[jave36]

Also...



She's literally writing these things as the voice of God with generic words of what is about to be happening in the lives of whomever is reading them, and then backing it up with Bible verse quotes that are often out of context. I'm not sure how you can read "My people" and not think she's making "thus sayeth the Lord" proclamations.

I wouldn't make more of it than it is. Very popular to do "fortune cookie" type style in devotions these days. I don't think the author is trying to play God, just using the culturally popular voice in the writing. I personally don't like it, but I do like the daily reminder to hear God's word in the verse at the end, so I don't think it's worth making a big deal out of the author's choice of technique.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I wouldn't make more of it than it is. Very popular to do "fortune cookie" type style in devotions these days. I don't think the author is trying to play God, just using the culturally popular voice in the writing. I personally don't like it, but I do like the daily reminder to hear God's word in the verse at the end, so I don't think it's worth making a big deal out of the author's choice of technique.

I'm not sure that cultural popularity is enough excuse for using God's name/character/word like fortune cookies. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative for no reason, but that's kind of the heart of the debate here. Do we filter God's word through our wants/desires/cultural norms, or do we view our wants/desires/cultural norms through God's Word?

Personally, I'd be a little more concerned about the promised added judgment for how we use God's Word to teach others, before making "Thus sayeth, my people, these things are about to happen for you..." statements and promises.

 

[DD4ME]

My only caution to all of you trying to define what good faith looks like is to ask if your intent is to spread the word or be right. I often struggle with the later so I will stop there.

 

[volinexile17]

Unpopular opinion incoming - this Bible tangent should be mergedozed elsewhere.

 

[BigOrange15]

Let's test that.

If your kid was terribly thirsty and picked up a bottle of ant poison to drink, would you stop them and point them to water, or feel like you would be unkind to do so and instead just let them have the comfort of any old liquid to drink? Did you raise your kid to eat nothing but candy and sit around doing nothing but playing video games and sleeping? Or did you push them toward some vegetables and going to school?

Is it more kind to want people healthy, or comfortable?

Forgive me if Im misinterpreting what you are saying but this is a false equivalence because it is assuming that YOUR version of health (i.e. your exegetical reading of scripture) is the only acceptable "health" and the only thing you should be seeking. As a Christian, I understand completely why you would feel that way but many people do not subscribe to that. What specifically you find to be healthy for your daily life, many do not.

 

[DD4ME]

Unpopular opinion incoming - this Bible tangent should be mergedozed elsewhere.

I can respect that.

 

[LaagerVol]

My only caution to all of you trying to define what good faith looks like is to ask if your intent is to spread the word or be right. I often struggle with the later so I will stop there.

I can only speak for myself, however I feel pretty confident Orange_Crush feels the same.

It isn’t about ME being right or wrong, it’s out of concern.

I’m certain Crush will explain his stance more eloquently than i.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My only caution to all of you trying to define what good faith looks like is to ask if your intent is to spread the word or be right. I often struggle with the later so I will stop there.

I don't know that anyone is trying to define what good faith looks like, as much as using the Bible to define how the Bible should be viewed. The major folks who have been critical have made biblical cases for their views, and have either explicitly or implicitly invited debate, so that's fairly indicative that it's not a matter of ego as much as a desire for the truth in discussion.

If we were to describe what "good" faith looks like, my hope is that those quoting scripture would use the Bible as the authority, and not some postmodern "this is what it means to me, each of our truths are equally valid" in lieu of deciding that there are actual truths for us to discern, and we have the capability to discern it from the Bible if we are willing to put in the work.

Blessings, brother. I am thankful for your desire to share scripture.

 

[Glitch]

This is a big part of where the great disconnect is. Society wants to treat a relationship with God as a “what can he do for me” relationship, as if he were a spare tire to use when they get a flat. He is GOD.

Jesus never said “follow me and your life on earth will be grand and glorious and without trials”, he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”

He promised us everlasting life, not wonderful earthly lives.

Exactly... In fact, Jesus specifically told us the opposite, but he also gave us something to take comfort in as we process that fact.

John16:33
"I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world.”

 

[jave36]

I'm not sure that cultural popularity is enough excuse for using God's name/character/word like fortune cookies. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative for no reason, but that's kind of the heart of the debate here. Do we filter God's word through our wants/desires/cultural norms, or do we view our wants/desires/cultural norms through God's Word?

Personally, I'd be a little more concerned about the promised added judgment for how we use God's Word to teach others, before making "Thus sayeth, my people, these things are about to happen for you..." statements and promises.

Again, you're reading into it a depth that isn't there. It's just a shallow fortune cookie style of voice. I agree with you that I don't like it, and I don't like that a lot of devotions in our culture have adopted it; but it's not an insidious attempt to undermine the scripture. Our culture has demanded that authors write positive message like fortune cookies, so they do. I don't like it, and we can bemoan that our culture has gone that direction; but I wouldn't isolate this one example as a net negative. Get the good out of it (it encourages some people to get a daily dose of God's word that can overcome any deficit in the quality of the author's commentary) and acknowledge that the delivery mechanism may not be perfect. It's not an intentional attempt to do harm, and I like that DD4ME bring a daily reminder to listen to something God has to say in scripture. Even if I have to sometimes roll my eyes at the author's preamble. Whether in pretense or in truth, the gospel is preached.

 

[LaagerVol]

I don't know that anyone is trying to define what good faith looks like, as much as using the Bible to define how the Bible should be viewed. The major folks who have been critical have made biblical cases for their views, and have either explicitly or implicitly invited debate, so that's fairly indicative that it's not a matter of ego as much as a desire for the truth in discussion.

If we were to describe what "good" faith looks like, my hope is that those quoting scripture would use the Bible as the authority, and not some postmodern "this is what it means to me, each of our truths are equally valid" in lieu of deciding that there are actual truths for us to discern, and we have the capability to discern it from the Bible if we are willing to put in the work.

Blessings, brother. I am thankful for your desire to share scripture.

Told you he would say it better than me lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

Forgive me if Im misinterpreting what you are saying but this is a false equivalence because it is assuming that YOUR version of health (i.e. your exegetical reading of scripture) is the only acceptable "health" and the only thing you should be seeking. As a Christian, I understand completely why you would feel that way but many people do not subscribe to that. What specifically you find to be healthy for your daily life, many do not.

This is a postmodern sidestep when it comes to Christians describing what the Bible says. It's one thing to say, "The Bible is all fairytales" and another to say "The Bible is the Word of God, but it's all relative."

I am not assuming that MY version of health is the only true one. In a conversation with other Christians who are quoting scripture, I'm trying to discuss what SCRIPTURE says is healthy and unhealthy.

But at the end of the day, the blanket statement, "We all find comfort in what we can, and that's good" can be disproven with a couple of examples, and then we can discuss how that applies to the claims of the Bible. You seem to be assuming that the Bible is only as true as each person's interpretation (i.e. only as true as it is true for any specific person", or else you're assuming that it may ultimately be true but that none of us can ascertain the underlying truth of the claims. I am assuming that Christians can discuss the Bible as an authoritative source, and for anyone who can't/won't believe that, it would be a completely different conversation.

 

[SSVol]

A horoscope gilded in Christian terminology is still a horoscope and has just about the same amount of authority.

Scripture is clear that He speaks and we hear...but be very cautious throwing around the phrase "thus sayeth the Lord", either explicitly or implicitly.

Just sayin.

 

[BigOrange15]

This is a postmodern sidestep when it comes to Christians describing what the Bible says. It's one thing to say, "The Bible is all fairytales" and another to say "The Bible is the Word of God, but it's all relative."

I am not assuming that MY version of health is the only true one. In a conversation with other Christians who are quoting scripture, I'm trying to discuss what SCRIPTURE says is healthy and unhealthy.

But at the end of the day, the blanket statement, "We all find comfort in what we can, and that's good" can be disproven with a couple of examples, and then we can discuss how that applies to the claims of the Bible. You seem to be assuming that the Bible is only as true as each person's interpretation (i.e. only as true as it is true for any specific person", or else you're assuming that it may ultimately be true but that none of us can ascertain the underlying truth of the claims. I am assuming that Christians can discuss the Bible as an authoritative source, and for anyone who can't/won't believe that, it would be a completely different conversation.

You are ascribing a lot of meaning far beyond what I've said or spoken about on here. Again, maybe Ive misinterpreted you but it seems like you are stating that what is true about scripture and any exegetical gleanings is ehat YOU are saying and that is the TRUE version what we should be trying to attain with discussing faith and with DDs daily posts. I am simply rejecting the premise that what DD was trying to do or has been trying to say is less valid than what you are trying to do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Forgive me if Im misinterpreting what you are saying but this is a false equivalence because it is assuming that YOUR version of health (i.e. your exegetical reading of scripture) is the only acceptable "health" and the only thing you should be seeking. As a Christian, I understand completely why you would feel that way but many people do not subscribe to that. What specifically you find to be healthy for your daily life, many do not.

I'll also add that this in no way disproves the example. Your kid may believe that ant poison is good. Or that it's water. The question is whether it's kind to know (or even just believe) otherwise and sit quietly while they drink it? Further, the question is whether 'comfort' is the sole definition of healthy.

From there the discussion could continue.

 

[BigOrange15]

I'll also add that this in no way disproves the example. Your kid may believe that ant poison is good. Or that it's water. The question is whether it's kind to know (or even just believe) otherwise and sit quietly while they drink it? Further, the question is whether 'comfort' is the sole definition of healthy.

From there the discussion could continue.

Your example is a false equivalance. Of course you shouldn't let your kid drink rat poison (or ehat you suspect is ant poison) because he wants to lol. We are saying two different things and having two different arguments in this case.

I can leave it there, it's hard to have a legitimate discussion in this format and this is the wrong forum. I'll defer because most of the people speaking on this are Christians and I am not and so this topic is really more for them than it is for me.

 

[Govolsman98]

I wonder if Willie Martinez makes our DBs study devotionals instead of plays and gives them ant poison to drink instead of water

 

[BigOrange15]

I really miss the DM feature on this site lmao. Whichever poster screwed that up for the rest of us, thanks you jerk lol

 

[DD4ME]

Inky might have summed up my feelings best on this discussion.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You are ascribing a lot of meaning far beyond what I've said or spoken about on here. Again, maybe Ive misinterpreted you but it seems like you are stating that what is true about scripture and any exegetical gleanings is ehat YOU are saying and that is the TRUE version what we should be trying to attain with discussing faith and with DDs daily posts. I am simply rejecting the premise that what DD was trying to do or has been trying to say is less valid than what you are trying to do.

I responded to a response that indicated that the devotionals are good merely because they bring comfort to people. I gave examples to question that logic. It wasn't even from DD, so I'm not sure how you think I'm attacking DD. I've said more than once that I appreciate his desire to spread the Word.

Anyone who wants to claim the Bible as the authority for truth, I am willing to discuss. I think we can go to scripture, take what it says, and know what it means.

The fact that I keep referring back to the Bible is a good indication that I am not setting MYSELF up as the authority. And I believe we can discuss and debate what it says to arrive at truths. If you disagree, then that's OK. I'm cool with that.

And, with all due respect, I will keep going back to scripture as opposed to your acceptance or rejection. Or not. We don't even have to discuss it. That's completely up to you.

 

[BigOrange15]

I responded to a response that indicated that the devotionals are good merely because they bring comfort to people. I gave examples to question that logic. It wasn't even from DD, so I'm not sure how you think I'm attacking DD. I've said more than once that I appreciate his desire to spread the Word.

Anyone who wants to claim the Bible as the authority for truth, I am willing to discuss. I think we can go to scripture, take what it says, and know what it means.

The fact that I keep referring back to the Bible is a good indication that I am not setting MYSELF up as the authority. And I believe we can discuss and debate what it says to arrive at truths. If you disagree, then that's OK. I'm cool with that.

And, with all due respect, I will keep going back to scripture as opposed to your acceptance or rejection. Or not. We don't even have to discuss it. That's completely up to you.

Like I said, Ill bow out because this is not the place really for the type of discussion I am trying to have and I may have inadvertently changed our lane a little bit anyway.

I respect your opinion and knowledge on this subject, this discussion was not meant to be accusatory to you or Laager.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Like I said, Ill bow out because this is not the place really for the type of discussion I am trying to have and I may have inadvertently changed our lane a little bit anyway.

I respect your opinion and knowledge on this subject, this discussion was not meant to be accusatory to you or Laager.

Likewise, thanks.

And for the record, imho this was a polemic discussion internal to our faith, as opposed to a ramrod to force non-Christians to respect the Bible like I do.

Cheers, mate.

 

[Ace]

An old saying, “Wonderful things in the Bible I see, most of them put there by you and by me.”

The Bible can never mean today, what it did not mean to the original audience. The Scripture was written for us, but not to us. The big question we must ask is not what does a passage or verse mean to me, but what did it mean to the original reader. Once we know the original meaning then we can apply it to our own lives.

 

[LaagerVol]

Like I said, Ill bow out because this is not the place really for the type of discussion I am trying to have and I may have inadvertently changed our lane a little bit anyway.

I respect your opinion and knowledge on this subject, this discussion was not meant to be accusatory to you or Laager.

No offense taken by me.

 

[Chaplain_Vol]

Hi there, why we are on the topic of bible discussion:

Proverbs 24:17-18
17Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles,
18lest the Lord see it and be displeased,

This may be a good verse for many of those who are Christians that go onto other team's message boards and relish over the sorrow and bitterness that they spew when losing a recruit instead of simply enjoying the accomplishments of our program. (I am looking at the heart of this verse, I am not trying to say God considers our enemies to be an opposing football team)