Wow, Mike, it was bad enough when you posted it the first time that I decided to be gracious and simply ignore it. But to REPEAT this sophistry of yours--well, I hardly thought that would happen. Might as well go ahead and expose your errors, since you wish to persist in them.
I'll tell you what couldn't be "further from the truth": what you just spouted o.f.f.
Anybody can see the spin job you're doing, by reading the very first sentence of what you just quoted:
Heck, I even capitalized the operative word for you. But when you went into spin cycle, you STILL left it out. And the fact still remains, that is the key point in what I said that refutes what YOU just said. Acknowledging that a book contains SOME divine truth is NOT the equivalent of calling the book "divinely inspired." You can NOT try to address the whole and make that accusation in blanket fashion, because it's obvious to ANYONE by simply reading my post, that what you just criticized is NOT what I said.
Straw men are so much easier to knock over, eh, Michael?
In like manner, we ought to expect anyone capable of reading English to know that's NOT what I said. Give the straw man a rest already, he's GOTTA be tired by now.
Yet another spin, Michael? You know as well as I do, divine inspiration and divine truth are not synonymous. You consider the Bible to be both divine truth, and divinely inspired, correct? And when you quote the Bible, the passage you quote from it, despite its no longer being placed in the context of the entire Bible, remains a divine truth nevertheless, true? And even if it is worded differently, which is what we find with the many various translations available, it still remains divine truth, right? (Please tell me you aren't going o.f.f. the deep end so far you would deny even this simple fact.) In fact, you could go so far as to say, that your post to me just now, contains "some" divine truth. Why? Because you cited 1 Timothy 4:1. That verse is no less true for its appearing elsewhere, which I'm sure you recognized even as you cited it--in fact, your citing it SHOWS that you believe this to be so.
Well, in reality, this is no different than what I was stating. When I stated that other religions contain SOME "divine truth," it's pretty OBVIOUS I wasn't speaking of the WHOLE, by the very fact that I said "SOME." It's equally obvious that when I used the term "Divine truth," by very definition of the term I was speaking of SOME body of truths considered divine. So what body of truths, then, was I considering to be "DIVINE truth?" That should be obvious: the BIBLE! I consider the Bible to be given to us as the infallible truth of God for faith and practice. I also consider those truths, as do you, to remain true no matter in what form or in what place I find them--hence, when I quote them to you, or vice versa, we consider them to be no less true for having been stated separately from the body of truth (the Bible) as a whole.
So the fact still remains very evident, that not only does a truth of the Bible remain a divine truth when found in the sacred books of other religions, it remains a divine truth even when Michael C. Gentry quotes it in a forum post!
Wow, what a straw man! I think that's a major lapse of comprehension. The "Golden Rule" as found in other religions, and as presented in the instance to which I referred, is FAR BEYOND being merely "coincidental similarities." The essence of what is said in each, is no different: they ALL state the same truth, albeit with slight variations in wording. You can't get away with THAT semantic shuffling.
Another straw man? Don't the forum rules have any kind of limitation around here, like only one straw man per post? It seems unreasonable to entertain expectations that I should have to deal with so many of them at once.
So when all is said and done, you just wish to play semantics? Maybe you should try reading ALL of what I state, and quit slice-and-dicing your cannon fodder, long enough to see what's actually being said. You forget (or ignore) that I also stated "all truth is God's truth." And it truly is. So if something we consider to be true in our religious faith is also found in some other religious text, we can't dismiss it as "false." THAT, in essence, is what you are trying to do here, and in the same manner you ALWAYS attempt it, by dealing in lump-sum, blanket statements about systems as a whole, and not with all the individual components that make it up. In other words, you don't mind throwing out the baby with the bath water.
So read my lips: a truth of God as found in the Bible, is a truth of God when found anywhere else as well. If that truth is found in some other sacred book, then so be it, the fact remains that its appearance there makes it no less true. And if it appears there, and if it is a truth of God, and if it contains some form of instruction for humankind, then the fact also still remains, that it is STILL divine "instruction." Don't know why you have such trouble getting your head around that.
And the most obvious error you make is in trying to take my words and criticize them on the basis of some intrinsic quality which you wish to sumperimpose upon an expression of the matter which had absolutely no such intent. When I refer to such truths as the Golden Rule as found in other religions as "divine truth" or "divine instruction" or HOWEVER you may wish to put it, I have no such bizarre intent as you keep trying to interject into the discussion, of some ethereal quality contained in the words themselves; I am simply pointing out, that if a truth from the Bible is considered to be a truth of God THERE, then it is a truth of God EVERYWHERE. You can go to all the conniptions you wish in trying to create fodder for your cannon, and the fact will remain, that that's ALL I have been saying all along.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
· God's truth or not? That is, did this truth originate with God, or with man?
· And if you acknowledge it is God's truth, then HOW ON EARTH do you DENY it to be God's truth simply because you find it appearing in a source you wish to dismiss in toto??
· And if you do NOT acknowledge it to be God's truth, then how do you account for the fact that it was a teaching of Jesus? And not only that, how do you account for it being central in Jesus' thinking, if it is not a teaching of God? Was Jesus simply repeating the precepts of men?
· And if you acknowledge that it DOES originate with God, then in light of the fact that some other religions were teaching it BEFORE the Bible was written, then share with us, O wise one, exactly how do YOU account for them receiving what originates from God, "outside of the Bible," as you put it?
I simply accounted for it the only way I see possible: that despite it being a truth of God as found in our inspired Word of God, that its appearance in other sacred books that PREDATE our own, cannot possibly indicate anything else except, that truths of God are not limited to Christianity or to our Bible, and that SOME truths of God, however you explain their presence and appearance there, are found elsewhere, both apart from and antecedent to, their appearance in the body of truths of our own faith.
You, on the other hand, rather than try to come up with any reasonable explanation of your own to account for the presence of truths of God in other places and times as described, all I find you doing is trying to dismantle the facts that have been laid before you, and to do so in such a way as to maximize and use it in an attempt to discredit me.
I understand and appreciate your dilemma, and I even forgive the ad hominem vendetta, but can you for once deal with the facts as presented, in an intellectually honest manner, and try to come to grips with the facts with some coherent explanation for them?
