1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI really have no war to wage.
As I said it all depends on what you want. You apparently are not interested in knowledge or wisdom but simply in gathering a lot of ammo to wage your war against the religious right ...... have fun .....
I've read through a typical annotated Bible. For some strange reason, the notes omitted many things that the SAB did not. Likewise, the SAB appears to omit many things that standard annotations do not.
For example, the SAB doesn't appear to examine the Hebrew and Greek behind the English. I suspect that with such extra linguistic analysis, many of the SAB's annotations would be refuted. Similarly, I suspect that the skeptical viewpoint can refute many of the traditional annotations.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDr S's question raises a phenomenal concept in Ivanhoe's position:
In case of understanding the Scriptures I would like to advise you to take a guide you can trust, a guide who will communicate the genuine and true understanding of the Scriptures, an orthodox Roman Catholic priest who is willing to teach you the interpretations of the Scriptures according to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
In order to have a fully balanced perspective on the Bible's teachings, one must take (as one's
guide) the teachings of an Orthodox Roman Catholic priest, an Eastern Catholic one, an Episcopal
one, a Presbyterian minister, a Methodist one, a Lutheran one, a Baptist one, a Pentecostal
Charismatic fundamentalist one, an Evangelical Holy-Roller one, a skeptical point of view (like
the Jesus Seminar), a Mormon teacher, and a Unitarian/Universalist one.
Oh yeah, and Kirk.
You are a laugh-riot, Ivanhoe. Really.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nyxie
Are you or have you ever been a member of the religious right Ivanhoe?
I've never actually met someone before who claimed this. Ussually just terms I hear on tv to explain why they're arguing with another person, whom of course is a member of the liberal left.
I always was a progressive in the social-economic field. I am a leftie who advocates a Culture of Life.
Originally posted by NemesioWhy not just read the Bible? I'm thinking that might help some.
Dr S's question raises a phenomenal concept in Ivanhoe's position:
In order to have a fully balanced perspective on the Bible's teachings, one must take (as one's
guide) the teachings of an Orthodox Roman Catholic priest, an Eastern Catholic one, an Episcopal
one, a Presbyterian minister, a Methodist one, a Lutheran one, a Baptist one, a Pentecostal ...[text shortened]... an/Universalist one.
Oh yeah, and Kirk.
You are a laugh-riot, Ivanhoe. Really.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Dr S's question raises a phenomenal concept in Ivanhoe's position:
In order to have a fully balanced perspective on the Bible's teachings, one must take (as one's
guide) the teachings of an Orthodox Roman Catholic priest, an Eastern Catholic one, an Episcopal
one, a Presbyterian minister, a Methodist one, a Lutheran one, a Baptist one, a Pentecostal ...[text shortened]... an/Universalist one.
Oh yeah, and Kirk.
You are a laugh-riot, Ivanhoe. Really.
Nemesio
The usual Strawmanreasoning.
Originally posted by ivanhoeOk so you're against the death penalty I guess? That seems to be in accordance with Jesus' teachings. And being on the left I can guess that you allow for different interpretations of the Bible other then your own.
I always was a progressive in the social-economic field. I am a leftie who advocates a Culture of Life.
Have I simplified it enough, is that correct?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour use of this word demonstrates that you have no clue what it means.
The usual Strawmanreasoning.
You asserted (without any proof) that, in order to have a 'genuine and true understanding of
the Scriptures,' one must turn to 'an orthodox Roman Catholic Priest.'
Similarly, I extrapolated that a member of the Anglican Communion would assert the same
thing, but with with an Epsicopal Priest. I did so with every denomination even loosely
connected with Christianity that I could think of (I forgot Mennonite!).
Thus, having a truly balanced perspective would require learning from each and every
denomination.
I was just extrapolating from the single tenet your 'argument' (i.e., unsupported
assertion). Where was the flaw in my reasoning? <------ PLEASE NOTE A QUESTION
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nyxie
Ok so you're against the death penalty I guess? That seems to be in accordance with Jesus' teachings. And being on the left I can guess that you allow for different interpretations of the Bible other then your own.
Have I simplified it enough, is that correct?
I'm against the death penalty, but who cares ?
Do you have to be on the left to "allow" different interpretations of Bible texts ?
Originally posted by Nemesio
Your use of this word demonstrates that you have no clue what it means.
You asserted (without any proof) that, in order to have a 'genuine and true understanding of
the Scriptures,' one must turn to 'an orthodox Roman Catholic Priest.'
Similarly, I extrapolated that a member of the Anglican Communion would assert the same
thing, but with with an ...[text shortened]... ted
assertion). Where was the flaw in my reasoning? <------ PLEASE NOTE A QUESTION
Nemesio
no. 6 !! ...... 😛
