Particular
Well-Known Member
What persuaded me to leave my position was the absence of Scripture to support it. That is what persuaded me it was wrong (it was such an important doctrine I expected it to be in the Bible).
For example: I could say that Jesus had a pet. In fact Jesus had a pet dog named Spot. Jesus loved Spot and this is the reason Jesus turned the water into wine. Spot kept barking and brought Mary's attention to the situation. Jesus' love for Spot demonstrates why mankind was originally intended not to eat meat. Provide a passage stating otherwise.
We all have presuppositions. This is necessary. It is one thing to believe Jesus had a pet. It is another to build on that extra-biblical belief. It is one thing to believe that 15th century judicial philosophy embodies the Hebrew notion of justice. It is another to build on the belief.
The problem is not the belief but constructing fundamental doctrines on the belief. The presuppositions must be addressed and defended, especially on fundamental doctrines. But what is done is people offer verses that do not support their presuppositions, read into those verses their presuppositions, and do so in groups so that can pat themselves on the back and feel that they have supported their position.
Jon, you are being vague. Is this intentional? If so, why?
What presupposition do you now ascribe to? Jesus had a pet turtle?