ARC Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
ground_rules

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
ground_rules [2025/04/18 17:24] – appledogground_rules [2025/04/18 17:28] (current) – appledog
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 == The Belief in God == The Belief in God
-Core belief primo uno, the belief in God is central and core to the articles on this site. We hold as basic principles:+Of course, it goes without saying. Core belief primo uno, the belief in God is central and core to the articles on this site. We hold as basic principles:
  
 # That God is all-powerful (omnipotent) # That God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
Line 35: Line 35:
 Based on this surety of manuscript, and the principle that God is powerful enough to see through that his word should reach us in a usable form even Today, we only then arrive at the principle of Sola Scriptura. Based on this surety of manuscript, and the principle that God is powerful enough to see through that his word should reach us in a usable form even Today, we only then arrive at the principle of Sola Scriptura.
  
-=== Sola Scriptura +== Statements of Conclusion 
-We hold that the plain reading of a verse must always be true and accurate -- for if it is true that God is an omnipotent omniscient being who wishes to give us a message, it would be illogical to assume he has somehow failed to communicate to us in a way that we can be expected to understand. Therefore, the simple meaning of a verse must be //true.//+While not necessarily ground rules there are certain things that are going to be hot button topics, which we may or may not really want to discuss at length. Those can have their own area here: 
 +* There is no [[progressive revelation]]. See [[exegesis]] and [[exegesis_exhibit_a]] for examples.
  
-=== Ecumenical Authority +=== Debating the Existence of God 
-Finally we arrive at the principle of ecumenical authority. Via an exhaustive analytical approach of hermeneutical analysis, first taking the plain meaning, then looking for clear and intentional allusions, moralistic homilies, and consistent esoteric explanations, we try to build a complete and unified picture of the text. If such a picture is //self-consistant// and //understandable// then it meets the criteria of what an omnipotent omniscient God who wishes to have sent his message in the Bible, and then the receiving and understanding of that message. Therefore we possess ecumenical authority in the sense that we have the received message of God's word, and that we may now understand and act on God's wishes for the earth and human society.+We avoid debating the existence of God because as it turns out the people who most enjoy debating the existence of God are rarely interested in //debating// anything at all. Someone who is antagonistic towards religion often frames his debate in such a way as to sound like he is discussing a point of doctrine or belief; however the root of his argument will be that he does not **believe** in God. Thus it is impossible to bring proof from the Bible into such a debate because it is not honored. Any such debate will inevitably devolve into logically dishonest arguments and credibility attacks based on the fact that someone believes in God. This is a such a dishonest debate tactic! And so, we tend to brush aside such discussions.
  
-Sola Scriptura relies on the hermeneutical principle of Exegesis. By deferring to the word of God as stated in it’s plain and straightforward meaning, in it’s original context, we claim a logically honest approach to the word of God -- and thus, ultimately, lay claim to God's [[ecumenical authority]]. In doing so we look for the plain meaning of the text and do not insert ideas that come from elsewhere. This principle of Sola Scriptura and Exegesis are really the same thing (also see: [[ecumenical authority]], [[exegesis]]). 
  
-The contrasting approach, //eisegesis,// is when you take what you already believe and scour the text for something that seems to support your belief — however tenuous — while at the same time blatantly ignoring any passage which contradicts your belief. Also known as ‘cherrypicking’. The mark of the eisegesic approach is that verses are taken out of context and that there is frequently a rebuttal to the eisegesic idea nearby in the text.+== Statement on Exegesis and Hermeneutics 
 +* Please refer to https://images.shulcloud.com/1520/uploads/ThirteenPrinciplesofRabbiYishmael.pdf 
 +* These will be summarized at [[Thirteen Principles of Hermeneutics]]
  
-==== What about the Spirit of Truth? 
-The lines can sometimes become blurred when //true believers// claim that the verses //are// in context -- in context with some spiritual revelation or holy spirit of truth. However this is the very definition of Eisegesis, and a statement against God’s plan and his word in the Bible. For if we suppose that the truth is not revealed to us in God’s word, but instead via spiritual revelation alone, or worse that the Bible itself cannot lead to understanding, then the Bible itself has little to no value. In such a case there is no need to appeal to the authority of the Bible. In fact such people will often discount the Bible or claim that it is inaccurate or corrupted. This is always because what they want to convey is contradicted by the Bible and they do not wish to appeal to the Ecumenical Authority of the power of God revealed in His word. 
- 
-In this sense, exegesis is a statement against [[progressive revelation]]. 
- 
-==== Summary 
 One may ask, is there a formal outline or method of how we can approach the bible in a logical and straightforward way, one free of ulterior motive? In the spirit of logical honesty and in a manner which avoids common pitfalls, mistakes and misunderstandings? One may ask, is there a formal outline or method of how we can approach the bible in a logical and straightforward way, one free of ulterior motive? In the spirit of logical honesty and in a manner which avoids common pitfalls, mistakes and misunderstandings?
  
Line 61: Line 57:
 <blockquote>Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.<cite>Wikipedia:Eisegesis (2017)</cite></blockquote> <blockquote>Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.<cite>Wikipedia:Eisegesis (2017)</cite></blockquote>
  
-=== Debating the Existence of God +== Eisegesis
-We avoid debating the existence of God because as it turns out the people who most enjoy debating the existence of God are rarely interested in //debating// anything at all. Someone who is antagonistic towards religion often frames his debate in such a way as to sound like he is discussing a point of doctrine or belief; however the root of his argument will be that he does not **believe** in God. Thus it is impossible to bring proof from the Bible into such a debate because it is not honored. Any such debate will inevitably devolve into logically dishonest arguments and credibility attacks based on the fact that someone believes in God. This is a such a dishonest debate tactic! And so, we tend to brush aside such discussions. +
 === Personal Testimony === Personal Testimony
 Arguing out of personal testimony is like telling someone an Angel appeared to you and told you the truth. It's your word against the world, or worse, your word against the Bible. As such personal testimony is not valid in a discussion over the meaning of the bible, nor could it be used to prove something in a logical sense. Arguing out of personal testimony is like telling someone an Angel appeared to you and told you the truth. It's your word against the world, or worse, your word against the Bible. As such personal testimony is not valid in a discussion over the meaning of the bible, nor could it be used to prove something in a logical sense.
Line 88: Line 82:
 This will underline the crux of the issue; if an antagonist states no such evidence can exist, then this applies both to our statement that God exists and also to his statement that God does not exist. Thus 95% of the time the Athiest's position will be reduced to personal testimony and ruled inadmissible. Please also refer to [[Lack of Miracles Does Not Prove Atheism]]. This will underline the crux of the issue; if an antagonist states no such evidence can exist, then this applies both to our statement that God exists and also to his statement that God does not exist. Thus 95% of the time the Athiest's position will be reduced to personal testimony and ruled inadmissible. Please also refer to [[Lack of Miracles Does Not Prove Atheism]].
  
-=== Sola Scriptura Demands Exegesis+== Sola Scriptura Demands Exegesis
 (therefore) The text is always given an exegesic, vs. eisegesic reading. A short example is in order. Many Christians are taught that in Genesis 18, "And the Lord appeared to him ..." refers to Jesus. (therefore) The text is always given an exegesic, vs. eisegesic reading. A short example is in order. Many Christians are taught that in Genesis 18, "And the Lord appeared to him ..." refers to Jesus.
  
Line 106: Line 100:
 In summary then, Sola Scriptura is not an attack against Christianity. On the contrary it is Christianity's greatest strength. Acts 18:28 states, "For he (Paul) mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It is these simple and clear passages which one should focus on when espousing doctrine, not making an attempt to crowbar Jesus (or some other doctrine) into a passage where it does not belong. In summary then, Sola Scriptura is not an attack against Christianity. On the contrary it is Christianity's greatest strength. Acts 18:28 states, "For he (Paul) mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It is these simple and clear passages which one should focus on when espousing doctrine, not making an attempt to crowbar Jesus (or some other doctrine) into a passage where it does not belong.
  
-=== What's the point of being so picky? ===+=== What's the point of being so picky?
 We're not. Even 2 Timothy 2:15 commands all Christians to use exegesical methods: **“Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”** We're not. Even 2 Timothy 2:15 commands all Christians to use exegesical methods: **“Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”**
  
ground_rules.txt · Last modified: 2025/04/18 17:28 by appledog
Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki