Do u beleave in God

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You gotta love those who are clueless to biblical interpretation and quote out of context a passage that actually says almost the exact opposite of their viewpoint.

So now you start talking about biblical interpretations.
And here's the catch: there is a lot of bible interpretations available. Every religion has at least one, and some religions have several. Obviously everybody thinks their interpretation is the only correct, but obviously two contradicting interpretation (like Catholic and Jehova Witnesses) cannot be both correct.

This means that it is impossible to choose the correct interpretation. More, it is still possible that there are no correct interpretation available yet. Therefore if you are talking about any biblical interpretation, do not expect anybody to agree with it - because the Bible was (according to Christians) inspired by God, but those interpretation were written by far-from-perfect humans.

Quote

JC was speaking against those who quote Moses about honoring their parents, but actually dishonor their parents by holding back support because that so called support was “promised to God”. Read the WHOLE passage not just a snippet you copied from an atheist website.

Your interpretation is completely out of context - which is the case most of the time when the opponent replies by "read the whole ", instead of just providing a quote from the Bible to support their conclusion. Here is the whole passage:


7:9 And he (JC) said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:


The conclusion - what I said is written directly in the Bible, and what you said is actually a ungrounded conclusion.

Quote

I know you fundies love the KJV, but that text has added the S&G insight in later documents. The older transcripts don’t have that, but rather they end with “a testimony against them.”

You are now making a serious statement that the Bible was "enchanced" comparing to the old version. Do you have any proof of this?

Quote

But even so, all he is saying is spread the word, if they don’t accept the good news, leave. Their judgment will be greater than S&G. That judgment is one they bring upon themselves for rejecting the good news of God.

C'mon, you are going too far in your interpretations. There is nothing about "spiritual death" in my quote, and obviously the Sodom and Gomorrha were physically destroyed, not spiritually.

Quote

Spiritual death is far greater than physical death

Only for those who believe in it; and the quote talks about the people who do not believe. You cannot scare me with the Hell, I do not believe in Hell. It is the same that you do not believe in Mamabu you'll be sent to after death unless you send a check to a Bill Gates.

Quote

He is simply telling it like it is. His word divides people. Try living as JC actually taught … not your church or your denomination, or that TV evangelist that promises you God will give you a Mercedes if you buy his book, but actually live the way JC taught, and people will separate from you. It is a life of sacrifice and servanthood. Not many people waiting to do that.

By "living as JC actually taught" you obviously mean your own interpretation (or compatible) of the Bible, right? Obviously it is the only correct interpretation, and therefore everything which contradicts with it is wrong. It is understandable that not many people wanting to live your interpretation of the way JC taught though.

Quote

On the contrary, JC taught the EXACT opposite. John 9:1-3 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

Note that disciples assume (by default) that either him or his parents were sinners. And JC didn't contradict their definition, just said that this man is blind not because he was sinner, but for purpose for JC to demonstrate his power.

Quote

It is a shame the only Bible you seem to know are the ridiculous, out of context, passages that frequent the atheist websites. It really places your argument on very shakey ground.

Well, if you talk about _interpretations_, I'd say my arguments are no different than yours. Obviously you cannot say that your interpretation of the Bible is better than others unless JC came in person and approved your interpretation directly. So this argument is useless.

Quote

I know very little about science and evolution theory. I can go to creationist websites and copy texts about genomes, yada, yada, yada, but I still know very little about the subject. When a guy like the Prof (Kallend)comes around, he'd rip me a new one and expose my ignorance. Therefore I typically stay away from such debates.

Because there is a single THEORY, with all the knowledge, and science.
With the Bible there is NO singel theory. People have been studying the Bible for the last 2000 years, and still cannot create a single interpretation everyone would agree on.

Quote

I'd suggest most of you fundy atheist either take a freshman level Bib Interp class

No, thanks. I am not interested to learn YOUR interpretation of the Bible. There is more than hundred of them already exist.

Quote

or at least quit copying hobby horse straw man scriptures from atheist websites.

I copy my quotes directly from the Bible. What ateist sites are you talking about?

Quote

Okay, you got me on that one. I would never call Lot righteous based on his dealings with his Uncle Abraham. Maybe he looked righteous compared to the citizens of S&G.

Maybe. Or to this pervert Catholic priest from the news last year. If you work on your interpretation long enough, you'll convince yourself in anything.

Quote

Here is a Harvard theologian's insight. I'm not sure I agree, but if you google "was Lot righteous?", you do see some efforts to explain.

I'm not interested in theologia. It is just another interpretation made by far-from-perfect people, who can make mistakes.

Quote

There isn't one pluck it and quote it text about it. JC taught about compassion and loving the unlovely throughout the gospel. You would do well to read it.

So again - no quote, just your interpretation?
Could you then please mark parts in your posts which are based on your interpretation of the Bible, not on the Bible itself. It would help me to skip them next time, as I have no wish to argue your interpretation.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

So are you pro or against gay marriage?

I'm an amatuer

In gay marriage?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,991]

>yet somehow you still want me to believe that non-overlapping magisteria is correct?

Do you believe that the premise that religion and government should be separate in the US is correct?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So are you pro or against gay marriage?

I'm an amatuer

In gay marriage?

Yep, but I hear you are a pro.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Ther are many ways to look at a text, and yes, they leads to many interpretations. However, I was addressing the atheist websites that continually only interpret texts as literal. It works to create a straw man.

No, as to the honor parent thing, I believe almost 100% agree he was addressing not neglecting your parents for "corban". It was something people did (declare their money dedicated for God) so they would not have to support their parents. Yes, Moses had a death curse on those who dishonored their parents, but JC changed the common interpretations of Moses many times. When he did that he usually began his sentence, You have heard it said, but I say ...

Did any records of the time indicate that God consumed the villages that rejected their good news? No. JC said, simply, "Give them the good news and if they accept they will be saved. If they reject the good news, leave. Their rejection will equate to spiritual death which is far greater than the physical death S&G endured. Pretty simple text, unless you are a fundy that must interpret all scripture as literal.


I'm the last guy to try and scare you into heaven and out of of hell. Mainly because I don't think that tactic works. It is simply not my style. I wish you peace, not hell.


My interpretation is not the only way and honestly, it is not 100% correct. I'm completely fallable. But I'm doing the best I can with the knowledge I have.



You're right, the common belief at that time was the blind/lame are that way because of sin. The disciples thought that as did most every Jew. JC gave them a new way to look at pain and sorrow.


You're right, people don't agree, because it is not a science. But even scientist disagree at times.


May you find peace in whatever path you take.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

>yet somehow you still want me to believe that non-overlapping magisteria is correct?

Do you believe that the premise that religion and government should be separate in the US is correct?

Well I don't much care about the US government because I'm British and it's none of my beeswax.

I think the two should be as separate as you can make them but it's damn near impossible to do. In the UK most people don't give a toss about religion and most politicians don't either. It does piss me off that the Church of England still have their grubby little fingers in the House fo Lords though. Normally they politely keep their nose out of government but still, that position should be ended.

In the US, it seems the only electable religious demographic is christian so the US government is necessarily christian. I don't see an alternative to that given the present climate.

The fact is that you can't separate them completely. Anyone with an agenda can lobby government and religious people very definately have an agenda.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So are you pro or against gay marriage?

I'm an amatuer

In gay marriage?

Okay, I'll quit yanking your chain. I have never had a gay couple come and ask to be married. In every state I lived in, TX, NC, AK, CA, WA & OK, it would be a moot point as they don't recognize gay marriages.

If it were legal in my state would I perform the ceremony? I think they'd prefer a pastor that thought two men or two women was a marriage to perform. I don't think that way any more than I think two men and five women would be a marriage. To use my counseling venacular, "I'd refer out."

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yep, but I hear you are a pro.

Don't worry, I can give you free lessons :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Yep, but I hear you are a pro.

Don't worry, I can give you free lessons :)

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yep, but I hear you are a pro.

Don't worry, I can give you free lessons :)

Thomas Jefferson-"The Christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man"


www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU5X-mYio2
if the link isn't right search for Chrishna=Buddha=Christ



www.truthbeknown.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[miked10270 0]

Just thought I'd chime in with the definitive position of Jesus & Mo on this very subject.

Surely that's sufficient to end this discussion on very high authority?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[philh 0]

"There are many ways to look at a text, and yes, they leads to many interpretations. However, I was addressing the atheist websites that continually only interpret texts as literal. It works to create a straw man. "
It is you that are creating a straw man. i dont know which athiest web site you are reffering to although nice of you to lump all atheist into one basket, should we do the same with Christians? But Im not aware of any that say the bible must be taken literally. What they do is to point out the absurdity of taking the bible literally.That is not the same at all. If no religious people took the bible literally then yes such an excerice would be a straw man. But of ocurse it is not because so many people DO take it literally.
Once we agree the bible cant be taken literally though we have to agree that the bible cant give any objective morality because so much is open to interpretation.
here are key issues which Christians have taken both sides of the fence on:
slavery
abortion
gay marriage
anti semitsm
death sentence for heretics

Whast interesting about this list is that both sides of the argument had Chrsitians motivated by their Christian beliefs. This is not just a disagreement as to who is the best rock band in the world.

Now if Chrsitians cant agree on this its clear Jesus at least didnt make his messgae very clear, the bible is no reall guide for life.

As an atheist my self (I cant speak for others) I point out the absurdity of a literal interpretation and my purpose is two fold 1) to show the absurdity of the literalist position and 2) to imply that if the bible is not to be taken literally then it cant be any sort of authorative guide to real life. Consequently we should not live our lives based upon some ancient book which no one can agree upon who wrote it, what it says and what it means.

[xHAVOCx 0]

I have never been one to follow a faith although I study buddhism; it is the only thing close to a religion that for myself has ever made any sense.

I will put this out there for thought-

Roughly 500 years ago it was common knowledge that the earth was flat, that was proved to be far from the truth. Now consider that people whole heartedly believe that stories in a book written roughly 2000 years ago are true.

I am not saying that some of the events in that book did not take place, for it can be used for some historical reference, or that all the people were made up, but look at it from an objective point of view where time and evidence can bring proof or discredit rather that being told what to think for an entire lifetime other than expanding a horizon and looking for what else might be out there.

"Don't believe a teaching just because you've heard it from a man who's supposed to be holy, or because it's contained in a book supposed to be holy, or because all you friends and neighbors believe it. But whatever you've observed and analyzed for youself and found to be reasonable and good, then accept that and put it into practice."

~Z

Main Entry: 1hav•oc
Pronunciation: 'ha-v&k, -vik
Function: noun
1 : wide and general destruction; DEVASTATION; great confusion and disorder

[JackC 0]

Quote

This is not just a disagreement as to who is the best rock band in the world.

AC/DC. Duh!

Quote

Consequently we should not live our lives based upon some ancient book which no one can agree upon who wrote it, what it says and what it means.

Biblical literalists are at least easy to understand. Non-literalists however are a different matter. Once you scratch the surface, just to pin down what a non-literalist actually believes is pretty difficult job in itself. No two believe the same thing, yet paradoxically they all believe the bible to be authoritative. How does that work?

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

No two believe the same thing, yet paradoxically they all believe the bible to be authoritative. How does that work?

Probably the same way that no two fun jumpers jump the same, but they all think skydiving is fun.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[philh 0]

radiohead, floyd and chilis could eat them for breakfast

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Biblical literalists are at least easy to understand. Non-literalists however are a different matter. Once you scratch the surface, just to pin down what a non-literalist actually believes is pretty difficult job in itself. No two believe the same thing, yet paradoxically they all believe the bible to be authoritative. How does that work?

I believe the Bible to be "authoritative" in the manner that it shows how to be made whole (mentally, physically & spiritually) It does that by pointing to JC. I do not believe the bible to be a history or science book. However, it does have good literature.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

So its basically a very long self help book?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So its basically a very long self help book?

If I could have done it myself I would have. I'm pretty self-sufficient guy. I made it through Special Forces Q course, put myself through college and two Masters programs while working and raising a family, taught myself how to cartoon and illustrate on a national level, taught myself web designing, yada, yada, yada ...

steveOrino

[philh 0]

very impressive, whats your point again?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

very impressive, whats your point again?

If I could have done it myself I would have.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Sounds like you did. Are saying that all your achievements would have been impossible without the bible?

[steveorino 7]

I apologize if it sounded as bragging. That was not my intent. I was trying to show I'm a self-sufficient guy who doesn't need a "self help" book as you described the Bible. I think it is impossible to be spiritually whole without JC

You hear Christians talk of being "saved" Many equate that to being saved from Hell. The actual Greek word (soza) means "made whole" I think being a follower of Christ completes me.

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

"The Thread" was a lot more fun.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[philh 0]

Im no t saying the bible is a self help book Im merely saying that your quote:
"I believe the Bible to be "authoritative" in the manner that it shows how to be made whole (mentally, physically & spiritually)"

implies that.
What do you mean by spiritually whole?
What evidence do you have that a spirit exists?
What evidence do you have that even if a spirit exists you need JC to have a whole one?

"You hear Christians talk of being "saved" Many equate that to being saved from Hell. The actual Greek word (sousa) means "made whole" I think being a follower of Christ completes me. "

True or false those that deny JC are going to hell?