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

I knew we would end up on the same wave length. I love it when divergent thoughts merge, finally.

 

We agree you have an impassioned misunderstanding?
Awesome!

 

Oh, yes, there are different systematic theologies, but that doesn't negate scripture. Just as there are different methods for repairing sbc's, but that doesn't negate the sbc. But going back to your original thoughts, systematic theology assumes you believe scripture, and it helps you systematize it. It doesn't seek to "test" anything.

- - - Updated - - -

and you do too, correct?

 

It negates them as testable and provable, unlike the repair manual. As you said before, you aren't making a comparison with scripture, right?

As for me, I have an impassioned wonder. I never pretend to have the answer.

 

Really? Please start your own thread and enlighten us with these Bible-proving apologetics.

 

He gets a little overenthusiastic when his arguments get exposed.

 

It's not your decision either. Or some groups decision.
What makes your might more right?
When it is verifiably proven that your God is the correct God and not another God, then we may listen to what you want. Until it is proven, people can chose to believe what they want, and how to live their lives.

 

God revealed themselves to us via the Koran. By their holy word. I am sure God is serious so the Koran has to be the book for mankind.

 

you can test any systematic theology along with the text, to see if its wrong.

 

No, you really can't, because they make suppositions based on the text, and don't agree with each other. There is no independent way to find who's suppositions are correct.
Unlike a successful repair on an engine.
This is silly. I think you know it is, too.

 

It would be nice to have a one on one chat with someone, bt on here, threads degenerate so quickly, theres honestly not much point, but heres some apologetics websites that you could go to.

http://tektonics.org/
http://www.equip.org/
http://carm.org/

 

yes, you can. They may disagree with the interpretation of the text, but the text is there to be verified.

do I think its silly? yes, you've been beating this dead horse for I don't know how long.

 

This is where your thinking is lazy.
In the analogy, the text is the engine. We aren't trying to verify the engine, we are trying to verify whether the teaching is correct. We can do that with the engine, because if it is, the engine will be fixed. You can't do that with the theology.
Your logic is poor. Your application of your analogy is inaccurate. This isn't a critique of your logic. It is demonstrable.
That is what gets frustrating about this. I'm not arguing against a valid point. I'm arguing with poor thinking skills, and I have to overcome that before we can get to the point.
It's a terrible analogy, elijah.
That's not a crime, but trying to defend it is embarrassing.

 

You can defend your stance on scripture the same as you can with the engine. I can fix an engine with one repair manual, and you can fix the an engine with a different repair manual, and they'll still be fixed.

Your initial stance was the teaching couldn't be proven, and it can. The scripture is there to be proven.

 

God, elijah. THINK!
We aren't trying to prove the scripture. We are trying to prove the teaching is true, which would happen by applying the teaching (the systematic theology) and seeing if it worked. There is no way to do this with ST, as two that disagree could both be made to seem to apply, but they can't both be right. With the teaching of the manual, it either fixes the engine or it doesn't, verifying the truth of the manual.
IT'S A BAD ANALOGY!

 

A manual can give you 2 different ways to fix something. You might agree with one way, and not agree with the other, however both are testable, and verifiable. The same with scripture. ST seeks to answer, what does the Bible teach us about "X"?, One will supply the teaching. A different ST will do the same. Both have told you what the Bible says about "X".

 

And are mutually exclusive to each other. Only one can be right.
That doesn't happen with the manual, or it is discarded as unreliable. Two manuals may differ, but they may both work and are therefore not mutually exclusive. They can exist in harmony.
I don't think you are this thick.
It's just pride now.

 

Alot of ST can exist in harmony.

 

And much can't.
You seem to be acknowledging my point.

 

So why is it a crime to murder? Why do we go to jail for that? Who made that decision?

 

How do you know that was God - the Creator of all the heavens and the earth? How many are they?

Let me just throw your quote back at ya...

If you want to pursue this line about the Koran and your god, create a separate thread for it. We can discuss it there.

 

you should know by now, that you'll never get 100 percent agreement amongst anybody, verified or not.

 

uuhhh.....no you haven't seen overenthusiastic, sunshine....LOL!!!

 

This doesn't change what I said an iota. Not relevant to the point made. They would be mutually exclusive on some points, so one of them would have to be wrong, unlike the manual analogy.

 

Well, that's a nice copout. You're in this forum all the time arguing for your religion, but when you get put on the spot, suddenly, there's no point in apologetics?