I always laugh when Christians try to defend the brutal OT laws

excellent! so a 2000 year old compendium of goat herder fairytales is as reliable a source of practical information as a textbook based on proven science printed last week?

 

What we're talking about is systematic theology. Systematic theology helps to systematize the Bible, of which, if you're studying systematic theology you already believe. Now if you want to "test" scripture, you "hold it up to the light". Systematic theology is not to PROVE the Bible its to help in its explanation. Apologetics, PROVES the Bible.

 

I think I just posted to you about people having agendas, right?

 

Apologetics justifies belief. It proves nothing.
A repair manual is provable and reproducible.
Did you forget what we were comparing?

 

yeah, we were comparing systematic theology with apologetics, I think. I could be wrong, because I've actually lost interest in this conversation.

 

Why don't you just go back a page and see you were comparing systematic theology to a repair manual. I was responding to your analogy.
Ring a bell?
It was such a ludicrous comparison I would try to forget it, too.

 

no I was comparing the work of systematic theology, to a repair manual. Systematic theology, assumes you believe the bible. The repair manual, assumes you actually have the sbc.

 

But one can be verified through reproducible experimentation.
Can you guess which?

 

What can a repair manual verify?

 

You honestly can't answer that question all by yourself?
Really Elijah?
I think you are just desperate not to admit you made a very silly comparison.
If it doesn't accurately verify how to repair that small block engine it is worthless. Its accuracy can be verified through repeated consistent application.
Systematic theology can't be, as you can't even get theologians to consistently agree and it can't be independently verified.
Did you seriously need this spoon fed to you?

 

God has made himself known through the Bible, his holy word. People need to decide on Jesus, one way or the other. People know that God is. He breathed his essence into us at creation so we each have that internal knowledge that he is. The decision then becomes, as it was for Eve and then Adam, do we believe God or do we believe the spirit of dception that questions whether or not God means what he says. I am sure that God is serious and has not lied to us. Like Joshua, I chose to serve the Lord.

 

But the manual assumes you have an sbc, right? Systematic theology assumes you have a belief in scripture.

They both proceed from a presupposition that you have, what the subject describes.

 

I agree.

 

Not everyone shares your alleged "internal knowledge", but let's assume that is true for the sake of discussion. The decision isn't to believe God or not, but to discern how he has authentically revealed Himself. It isn't as simple as choosing to embrace your understanding of God or not. That's simply your pride talking.

 

And we are back to my original response to this terrible analogy, a response you continuously avoid.

 

Thats OK, it still is. You have asked the same question. He has authentically revealed himself, so the decision to believe him or not. It is that simple. God made it simple. The decision is yes I believe, or no I do not believe. That is as simple as it gets. If there was no God at all, we would not be having this conversation. If there was no God the idea about God would not even occur to us, but since he is, this conversation has been going on since creation. When Cain murdered Able, the crime was committed not over whether God was, but whether God was to be believed on his instructions for sacrifice, in short, his word. Just as it was for Adam and Eve. Now, the choice is whether or not you accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, his blood as the perfect lamb of God, to cover the sin the besets us all.

 

Or Islam, or Buddhism, or Taoism or Judaism or any other number of the many descriptions man has developed to embrace the unknown and reduce it to something he can conceive.
Again, simple pride. Your position reduces to "I have it right", which is simply not compelling to billions of people.

 

No. Just Judaism and Christianity. The rest is not revealed religion but the extant imagination of false prophets for the benefit of false Gods. God has it right, I simply and rightly agree. If I have pride it is that God has called me and I have listened and accepted his cracous invitation.

 

Totally arbitrary.
But very "cracous"(sic).
Lol!

 

how can a manual test anything? it assumes you have the item, that you bought the book for.

 

There can only be one God and one truth. Not many truths. If different truths are contrary to other truths then (at the least) some of them are lies.

 

And it's recipes for repair can be tested on the engine. They can be proved, verified.
You aren't this dimwitted. Why not simply admit your analogy sucks?

 

I agree. Well, not lies exactly, but rather impassioned misunderstandings. "Lies" implies a devious intent, and i think you are well meaning.
That doesn't make choosing one a way to define truth.

 

yes, and systematic theology does the same. It assumes you have a Bible and believe it, and it proceeds to help you understand the theology behind it. Theology can be proven by reading scriptue, because it uses the scripture you're reading. Its not there to prove the Bible, it assumes, you already believe scripture. Really bruce? try to keep up.

Apologetics proves the Bible.

 

Why would there be differing theologies if they could be absolutely verified?
Because they can't be. They are extrapolations arrived at from the text, and they involve conjecture. And they differ.
Apologetics "prove" nothing or the debate would be over. They give a way to justify your belief if you do not parse their logic too carefully.