|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2005 : 12:10:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
The simple fact is that not all of the Bible is meant to be interpreted absolutely literal. Some of it is, but not all of it. ....
Or, another way to look at this is people can interpret the Bible any way that suits their beliefs. If you like it, it's literal. If there's evidence it is mythical, call it a metaphor. If you'd rather make gays a focus for your group manipulation, conveniently don't mention there is no mention of homosexuality in the Ten Commandments. You want to claim USA law is based on 'Christian Law', don't mention the first several 'Commandments' are purely religious laws and in no way something the constitution authors had in mind.
Don't like new revelations that yet another 'story' in the Bible is a myth, make that science blasphemous. This year it's evolution, in the past it was astronomy. This year only God can start or end life from no birth control to mandatory tube feeding a body with a dissolved and reabsorbed cerebral cortex. In the past, medical science that cured an infection was 'the work of the devil', because God made that person sick so who were we to intervene.
Sorry, h4c. Your religion is nothing but one contradiction after another. Why, for example is the Church correct today, yet it was not correct when it jailed Galileo and had Bruno burned at the stake? Why is the persecution of gays OK today yet the persecution of witches in the past just a mistake? What is so special about you that makes your interpretation of the Bible right? Didn't those folks from the past have the same relation with God as you do? |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 12:44:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You want to claim USA law is based on 'Christian Law', don't mention the first several 'Commandments' are purely religious laws and in no way something the constitution authors had in mind.
Well, technically, none of the Ten Commandments are embodied within the Constitution, and the specifically religious Commandments are explicitly prohibited from becoming law by the First Amendment.
While we do have laws against murder, theft and lying (under oath), none of them are found within the Constitution, and those that exist vary widely (stealing a roll of Lifesavers is treated by our justice system in a far different manner than Mediacare fraud).
And those three are the only Commandments embodied within our laws, anyway. There is no legislation which outlaws coveting anything, or disrespecting one's parents. So, all in all...- The first four Commandments are prohibited by at least one clause in the First Amendment (a couple by two),
- The 5th appears nowhere in U.S. law (except, at a stretch, through the Congressional recognition of "Mother's Day" and "Father's Day"),
- The 7th appears nowhere in U.S. law, and
- neither does the 10th.
Only the 6th (murder), 8th (theft) and 9th (perjury) Commandments exist in all U.S. jurisdictions (so far as I know), and none within the foundation of U.S. law, the Constitution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 12:46:02 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that 'omnipotence' should be defined as "capable of performing any event which our minds can possibly conceive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How else would you define "all powerful?"
When the Bible says 'omnipotent' or 'all things are possible' the Greek word for 'all' is 'pas' and it is also vague, and can also be translated 'any or every kind' as can be seen in the Thayer's reference here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116525069-562.html
So the Lord has "any or every kind" of power.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Judges case, it was the tribe of Judah which could not drive out the inhabitants, probably because they didn't have the faith that the Lord would be with them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Bible clearly says that God was with them, and the He failed.
No, the 'he' in that passage refers to the tribe of Judah. Even after the death of the patriarchs, their tribes are often written of as individuals. For example:
Jdg 6:35 And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh; who also was gathered after him: and he sent messengers unto Asher, and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus could not do mighty works in his home town because of the people's lack of faith. I think he imposes that rule upon himself that he'll do something for someone if they have the faith. I think He also imposes the rule upon himself that he won't lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offering these extra-Biblical apologies does not save the Bible from it's own contradictions. If Jesus is imposing rules on Himself which are found nowhere in the NT, that's obviously within His power (being omnipotent and all), but guessing about such unstated rules doesn't "fix" the problems in the Bible.
The Bible says He couldn't heal them because of their unbelief; here is the passage the SAB quotes:
Mark 6:5-6 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
Here is a parallel passage:
Mat 13:57-58 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
As for the 'chief of captains' question. It looks to me that the 2 Samuel list is updated from the 1 Chronicles list. At the time of the 1 Chronicles list such-and-such people were noteworthy; at the time of the 2 Samuel list some people became less important and were replaced on the list. The events written after the naming of certain people are things that they've done, they're not neccessarily in chronilogical order.
quote:
And if you don't take an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible, then any contradictions, real or mistaken, simply shouldn't matter.
My current position is that some of the Bible is literal and some of it isn't. Some contradictions I accept, namely, the one I spoke of in my OP. My goal in this thread is to approximate how much of the Bible I can rationally take literally, how much I can rationally take figuratively, and how much I cannot accept at all.
quote:
(h4c)Why do they need it? Should the Bible be required to say "by the way, this is the Abiathar whose dad was killed by Doeg, and he named his son Ahimilech"?
(Dave)What H. said. If it's supposed to be literally true, then yes, the Bible should explain every single apparent inconsistency. If not, all of these posts of yours which "resolve" the contradictions shouldn't matter one little bit to you.
Okay, working from a different angle: there's no proof that the Bible states that the Ahimelech, son of Abiathar from 2 Samuel 8:17 is the dad of the Abiathar who was killed by Doeg.
Cuneiformist: One of the things literally taught in the Bible is that Jesus rose from the dead and has the power to manifest himself to people visually, auditorally, or any other way he chooses.
beskeptigal:
quote:
Certainly not a miraculous account if that's what you had in mind.
Thank you, that's what I wanted to know.
Dude:
His pupils were dilated much more than anyone else's in the room, and they were more dilated than I've ever seen in my life. And, he had no drugs or anything other than aspirin. We didn't take him to the hospital.
As for the creation account: the "first creation account" gives an overview of the creation. The "second creation account" goes back to the day of man's creation and gives further details. This verse: Gen 2:4 "These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," refer to the first account, not the second. The first account describes animals being created worldwide. The second account describes a second creation of a few animals of each species which were brought to Adam to be named and to see if they were help meet.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 14:21:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist: One of the things literally taught in the Bible is that Jesus rose from the dead and has the power to manifest himself to people visually, auditorally, or any other way he chooses.
Sure. But people can also hallucinate. Are you sure your teaching isn't simple encouraging that?
quote:
Then my teacher told me that his faith was based on meeting Jesus face to face and speaking with him since then. So I've decided that, in a while, I'm going to take a walkabout to see if I can get some experiences.
Without knowing what you meant by a "walkabout" I don't want to be quick to pass judgement, but I hope you aren't planning any treks into the wilderness. Often people will purposely cloister themselves in remote locations in order to "force" a religious experience. They end up suffering from dehydration and high body temperatures, sometimes leading to fever dreams. If one were religiously inclined, it would be easy to mistake such hallucinations for an actually religious experience, especially as it is usually accompanied by feelings of euphoria. However, it is a purely physiological, not spiritual, experience and actually quite dangerous.
Having a conversation with a dead guy, even one you believe has magical powers, screams of hallucination. I would advise you not to let your religious convictions overrule common sense in this matter.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/19/2005 14:23:52 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 14:53:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
...We didn't take him to the hospital...
Hippy
Well, I'm really waiting for you to address my other post but in the meantime let me recommend you take the next person to the hospital should similar circumstances occur. People with head injuries can die after looking OK. Brain swelling is not always predictable nor is intracranial bleeding. Any person who loses consciousness from a head injury should at least be examined and even if sent home is usually recommended to be watched closely for 24 hours. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/19/2005 14:54:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 17:18:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
When the Bible says 'omnipotent' or 'all things are possible' the Greek word for 'all' is 'pas' and it is also vague, and can also be translated 'any or every kind' as can be seen in the Thayer's reference here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116525069-562.html
So the Lord has "any or every kind" of power.
And how is this not the same as "all powerful?" Really, is semantic nit-picking the act of a holy man, or did Jesus chastise such reliance on details at expense of His message?quote:
No, the 'he' in that passage refers to the tribe of Judah. Even after the death of the patriarchs, their tribes are often written of as individuals. For example:
Jdg 6:35 And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh; who also was gathered after him: and he sent messengers unto Asher, and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.
You'll have to come up with a better example than that, since the 'he' in Judges 6:35 obviously refers to Gideon (Judges 6:34), who does quite a bit of stuff in that chapter.quote:
My current position is that some of the Bible is literal and some of it isn't. Some contradictions I accept, namely, the one I spoke of in my OP. My goal in this thread is to approximate how much of the Bible I can rationally take literally, how much I can rationally take figuratively, and how much I cannot accept at all.
My guess is that you'd be able to take a lot more of it rationally and/or figuratively if you accept that there exist translation and other errors within the text which might create apparent contradictions, without having an iota of an effect upon your faith.quote:
Okay, working from a different angle: there's no proof that the Bible states that the Ahimelech, son of Abiathar from 2 Samuel 8:17 is the dad of the Abiathar who was killed by Doeg.
Fine. There also doesn't seem to be evidence that 1 Chronicles 11 predates 2 Samuel 23 by any amount, given they're written in the same style, describing the same things (except for the first few verses).
More to the point: what does it matter? Are these ancient Jewish histories important to your faith in Jesus as your personal Saviour?quote:
One of the things literally taught in the Bible is that Jesus rose from the dead and has the power to manifest himself to people visually, auditorally, or any other way he chooses.
Really? I was under the impression that the Bible teaches that Jesus rose from the dead and manifested Himself to a few select people before going off with Dad until the Second Coming. Is there a verse which states that He will manifest Himself to people at random throughout the intervening ages?quote:
As for the creation account: the "first creation account" gives an overview of the creation. The "second creation account" goes back to the day of man's creation and gives further details. This verse: Gen 2:4 "These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," refer to the first account, not the second. The first account describes animals being created worldwide. The second account describes a second creation of a few animals of each species which were brought to Adam to be named and to see if they were help meet.
Standard Biblical apology, and clearly wrong. Genesis 1:11-12 has God making all the plants, Genesis 1:20-25 has Him making all the animals and birds, and finally Genesis 1:26-27 has Him creating men and women.
Genesis 2:7 has God creating one man, Genesis 2:8-9 has Him creating plants, and Genesis 2:19 has Him creating animals and birds. But this would make the word "all" in the Genesis 1 verses wrong, at the very least. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 08:05:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist: One of the things literally taught in the Bible is that Jesus rose from the dead and has the power to manifest himself to people visually, auditorally, or any other way he chooses.
Does he have the power still, or did he do it for a short time and the fly off to heaven, only to return at the End? Can you cite Bible verses?
In any case, it's not particularly convincing. Most of the time, when people say that they know and love Jesus, they haven't actually met him and had conversations. At least, none of them say it-- perhaps that's Christianity's big secret. All the good Christians have actually been visited and had tea/coffee/a beer with JC. Hmmmmm. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2005 : 00:46:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
The simple fact is that not all of the Bible is meant to be interpreted absolutely literal. Some of it is, but not all of it. ....
Or, another way to look at this is people can interpret the Bible any way that suits their beliefs. If you like it, it's literal. If there's evidence it is mythical, call it a metaphor. If you'd rather make gays a focus for your group manipulation, conveniently don't mention there is no mention of homosexuality in the Ten Commandments. You want to claim USA law is based on 'Christian Law', don't mention the first several 'Commandments' are purely religious laws and in no way something the constitution authors had in mind.
Don't like new revelations that yet another 'story' in the Bible is a myth, make that science blasphemous. This year it's evolution, in the past it was astronomy. This year only God can start or end life from no birth control to mandatory tube feeding a body with a dissolved and reabsorbed cerebral cortex. In the past, medical science that cured an infection was 'the work of the devil', because God made that person sick so who were we to intervene.
Sorry, h4c. Your religion is nothing but one contradiction after another. Why, for example is the Church correct today, yet it was not correct when it jailed Galileo and had Bruno burned at the stake? Why is the persecution of gays OK today yet the persecution of witches in the past just a mistake? What is so special about you that makes your interpretation of the Bible right? Didn't those folks from the past have the same relation with God as you do?
I'm still waiting for your response h4c. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 17:18:30 [Permalink]
|
Beskeptigal:
The general rule that I take to interpreting Scripture is that I take it literally as much as I rationally can; I take something figurative if I have good contextual evidence to do so. If I can't rationally accept something literally, and I have no reason to take it figuratively, then it may be a contradiction. I interpret Scripture this way because I think that it's the most logical way to interpret any narrative. On top of this, there's Scriptural evidence for literalism. Jesus tells his disciples that he will be delivered up to the Gentiles, spit upon, mocked, crucified, and then he will raise up on the third day; and they don't know what that means. If someone thinks that the Bible should be taken mostly figuratively, I respectfully disagree. In my opinion it was meant to be taken literally.
For others who accept the same method of interpretation that I do, we have a common ground on which I can say "you are in error because you are not taking this passage literally". Hence, I can authoratatively say to anyone with the same method interpretation that Christians shouldn't persecute anyone because "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." James 1:20.
Dave:
The short answer to the question of who's saved is in Romans 9:18
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy". There are lots of things we're told to do in order to be saved. Repent, believe, be baptized, forsake our possessions, endure until the end, etc. And yet Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in paradise that day. In the end, he will judge the heart.
quote:
So the Lord has "any or every kind" of power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is this not the same as "all powerful?" Really, is semantic nit-picking the act of a holy man, or did Jesus chastise such reliance on details at expense of His message?
I could classify your definition of "all powerful" as "semantic nit-picking".
quote:
You'll have to come up with a better example than that, since the 'he' in Judges 6:35 obviously refers to Gideon (Judges 6:34), who does quite a bit of stuff in that chapter.
Judges 1:3 And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.
quote:
My guess is that you'd be able to take a lot more of it rationally and/or figuratively if you accept that there exist translation and other errors within the text which might create apparent contradictions, without having an iota of an effect upon your faith.
I do accept that there are translational and other errors. The reason why I'm going through all this is because finding a dozen minor/major errors in the Bible may be different than finding 300 minor/major errors in the Bible.
I'll get back to the rest the later.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 18:08:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For others who accept the same method of interpretation that I do, we have a common ground on which I can say "you are in error because you are not taking this passage literally". Hence, I can authoratatively say to anyone with the same method interpretation that Christians shouldn't persecute anyone because "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." James 1:20.
Oh, come on! Christians shouldn't persecute anyone because Jesus said that to love your neighbor as you love yourself was the #2 commandment. It covers a lot of ground (subsuming John 1:20 quite well), and isn't really open to interpretation, except that it's obvious that Jesus didn't mean physical love. And "neighbor" shouldn't be taken literally, either, as he meant everyone.quote:
Jesus tells his disciples that he will be delivered up to the Gentiles, spit upon, mocked, crucified, and then he will raise up on the third day; and they don't know what that means.
You do realize that none of it was written down until years after the events depicted, right?quote:
The short answer to the question of who's saved is in Romans 9:18
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy". There are lots of things we're told to do in order to be saved. Repent, believe, be baptized, forsake our possessions, endure until the end, etc. And yet Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in paradise that day. In the end, he will judge the heart.
So none of the Bible matters, since it's all up to Jesus' judgement. That takes a load off my mind. No, really. It terminates Pascal's Wager quite well. Thanks.quote:
I could classify your definition of "all powerful" as "semantic nit-picking".
Apparently, you miss my point. Jesus told people - somewhere in the NT - that its bad to pay too much attention to the details instead of His message. Your ideas about how powerful God is are exactly the same as my definition of "omnipotent," yet you're arguing (for what reason, I don't know anymore) that God is not omnipotent. Why is this so important?quote:
Judges 1:3 And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.
The NIV nicely says "the men of Judah" and uses the plural possessive all over the place in Judges 1. So very good, since had you just pointed us to the NIV version of Judges 1:19, it would have been clear that way, too. Judges 6:35 still refers to Gideon, the single man, however.quote:
I do accept that there are translational and other errors. The reason why I'm going through all this is because finding a dozen minor/major errors in the Bible may be different than finding 300 minor/major errors in the Bible.
How so? Are you worried that the second commandment might have been so badly translated that to get to Heaven, everyone should really be grand egotists, instead of loving their neighbors? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 09:10:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Beskeptigal:
The general rule that I take to interpreting Scripture is that I take it literally as much as I rationally can; I take something figurative if I have good contextual evidence to do so. If I can't rationally accept something literally, and I have no reason to take it figuratively, then it may be a contradiction. I interpret Scripture this way because I think that it's the most logical way to interpret any narrative. On top of this, there's Scriptural evidence for literalism. Jesus tells his disciples that he will be delivered up to the Gentiles, spit upon, mocked, crucified, and then he will raise up on the third day; and they don't know what that means. If someone thinks that the Bible should be taken mostly figuratively, I respectfully disagree. In my opinion it was meant to be taken literally.
For others who accept the same method of interpretation that I do, we have a common ground on which I can say "you are in error because you are not taking this passage literally". Hence, I can authoratatively say to anyone with the same method interpretation that Christians shouldn't persecute anyone because "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." James 1:20.
...
Hippy
My question wasn't how do you interpret the Bible, it was why is your interpretation any better than all the past interpretations that are now accepted as having been wrong? |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 10:19:22 [Permalink]
|
I got one, The Koran =/= The Bible =/= Bibles versions 2-? =/= The Torah =/= Whatever someone elses God(s) are claimed to have done... Then throw on top of that the multiple intrepretation issues^.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 13:54:02 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
I am certain that my teacher does not encourage devoting ones' life to a hallucination, and I have no intention of doing so. I've already determined not to believe any vision I have that occurs under questionable circumstances. By 'walkabout' I mean that I intend to travel around and preach to the small towns and villages, after the first manner that the apostles were told to preach.
Cuneiformist:
Specifically, there are these two verses:
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
The word for voice in the first verse is "phone" which signifies an actual voice or sound. The word for manifest in the second verse can mean to visually appear or it can mean to inform or show forth.
The Bible contains lots of references to the Lord talking to people, and it nowhere says that he's going to stop. Some of the people he talks to are barely mentioned in the Bible, e.g.:
Acts 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord. Acts 9:11 And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
Beskeptigal:
My interpretation is better than past interpretations because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline. Sometimes I've been in polite conversations with people and they've just walked away rather than deal with verses that I bring up.
Dave:
quote:
Oh, come on! Christians shouldn't persecute anyone because Jesus said that to love your neighbor as you love yourself was the #2 commandment.
I agree wholeheartedly.
quote:
So none of the Bible matters, since it's all up to Jesus' judgement.
Except that Jesus usually judges according to His Word.
I'll get back to you on the rest.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 14:28:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could classify your definition of "all powerful" as "semantic nit-picking".
Well, you can't discuss a topic unless you agree on definitions.
And if the definition of god isn't "omnipotent" in the sense of all powerfull, nothing that this being can't do atleast once... then this entity becomes nothing more than just another being with some level of power less than "all". The only thing seperating us mortals from such a being is the degree of power to effect our environment that we posess.
WIthout the "all" modifier on "powerfull", what would give your christain god the right to judge or condem anyone?
It isn't "semantic nit-picking" to insist on an agreed upon definition for words that are central to the topic being discussed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 17:47:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: [...]
The Bible contains lots of references to the Lord talking to people, and it nowhere says that he's going to stop.
I'm no biblical scholar, but there's no misinterpreting this one. Jesus wasn't talking to people here. He was talking to sheep.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
My question wasn't how do you interpret the Bible, it was why is your interpretation any better than all the past interpretations that are now accepted as having been wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My interpretation is better than past interpretations because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline.
Whew, finally after nearly 2000 years someone has properly interpreted the Bible.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
