As a Pentecostal Christian all of the Bible "resonated" with me. Since before I knew how to think for myself others had molded my worldview such that it would.

This is what I believe is the primary reason that religion will never become extinct. So far as I can tell, a small to moderate percentage of persons fall into two extremes in interpreting the Bible (or other scriptures, so defined by their adherents). One extreme is "If any of it is false it is all unreliable". The other extreme is "If any of it is true or says it is true, it is all true".

Particular care and attention goes into the compilation of scripture, so I believe most scripture is valuable and may have a higher content of quality text than most human works. I therefore choose to give it benefit of doubt (and also because it deals with subject matter that may be untestable by design).

I'm OK with the acceptance of scripture for the most part and not knowing for sure that it is reliable. I use the middle path, adhering to those things that resonate and leaving the dissonances for research or on the back burner. Often, what causes the dissonance is what I believe I know about science and history.

I believe that there is tremendous value and beauty in just those parts of the scriptures that resonate and for me this is 90% or more of the scriptures, including some that are non-christian, controversial or not yet declared to be scripture(like the Course in Miracles). The parts that produce dissonance I regard for what I believe they are, which is a human story about events with outcomes that were attributed to divinity or the relationship between man and divinity, written by human authors with perceptual filters. These attributions and inferences were possibly and in some cases probably erroneous. However, even if the story was erroneously attributed to divinity, there may still be valuable archetypal principles that can be extracted for use in the modern world.

I believe the majority of persons fall into similar places along the continuum between the two extremes. I (and probably they) do not accept the notion that we need to fall into either of the extremes.

Regards,

Wayne

What does "all scripture" mean as used in 2 Timothy 3:16?

In immediate context, it means the Old Testament. The preceding verse indicates the OT without much wiggle room: "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus". The word scripture (graphe) refers to the OT in every one of its 51 appearances in the NT.

Nevertheless, Chet is correct. 2 Tim 3:16 applies to the whole canon of scripture. His arguments are sufficient, but let me add a very brief technicality, knowing full well that many here may deny Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles.

In 2 Pet 3:16, Peter elevates Paul's epistles to the level of the other scritpures. If Paul's letters are considered equal in authority with the OT, and they are considering 2 Pet 3:16, then Paul's statement in 2 Tim 3:16 holds as Chet argues. Moreover, in 1 Tim 5:18, Paul does the same thing for the Gospel of Luke.

It follows, then, that any book that is elevated to this category of scripture must fall under the 2 Tim 3:16. My two cents.

That's an absurd argument and you know it, cl.

Well sure, but then again, I'm not taking a position on 2 Timothy 3:16, but merely positing questions to better understand Chet's POV.

"Scripture" consists of the biblical books that are believed to be canonical by Christians. That's what it has always meant.

Well sure, but didn't the NT get approved over 300 years after Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy? Do you posit that 2 Timothy 3:16 is prophecy then?

"Thou shalt not skateboard in traffic." I say this is a scripture. Per 2 Timothy 3:16, is my scripture God-breathed IYO? Why or why not?

That's an absurd argument and you know it, cl. "Scripture" consists of the biblical books that are believed to be canonical by Christians. That's what it has always meant.

"All" means all, Leum. I don't see the absurdity.

"Thou shalt not skateboard in traffic." I say this is a scripture. Per 2 Timothy 3:16, is my scripture God-breathed IYO? Why or why not?

Fundamentalism and atheism are the only two responses to the Bible.

Are things really that black-and-white in your outlook? Honestly, I can't think of a clearer example of the false dichotomy than this.

Why don't you think history counts at this point?

"The soil, to mix metaphors here, would grow its own nervous and immune systems."

Sure the soil would. The question, though, is who would control those nervous and immune systems? Religion is just as capable of developing them as reason is. One of religion's greatest tricks is to become the master of reason. Reason becomes the gift of God, and thus also becomes subordinate to him.

Finally, I don't think all religions can be classified as bubble phenomena. A number of faiths, such as Catholicism and Hinduism, have been adept at absorbing conflicting voices in the past. I see no reason why they couldn't learn to do so again.

Well, I wouldn't expect there to be. But that's the logical response to the Bible - either you have to accept it as completely reliable about divinity, or else no more reliable than any other human source, and therefore completely unreliable about divinity.

Fundamentalism and atheism are the only two responses to the Bible. Half-measures - half-acceptance - is an untenable, incoherent response.

Regarding the comment earlier as to whether or not I compared the communion wafer incident with killing by terrorists. Of course not.

That's not what I asked. You seemed to compare the actions of PZ to the actions of his detractors as simply tit for tat, yet this seems grossly inaccurate.

One side in this thing argued for the suppression of free speech. One side issued death threats and physically accosted someone. One side tried to get someone fired from their job. One side tried to claim a hate crime was going on. Etc. etc. etc.

The other side? The other side simply desecrated a cracker. That's it. Oh, and he pointed out how unreasonable the Catholics were being.

You call that tit for tat? Do you really wish to put the two sides on equal moral footing? I sure as heck don't.