Originally posted by RJHindsThe sub text of what you appear to be saying - and then suddenly claiming that you're not saying - is that you personally get to choose which bits you take literally and the bits you do not take literally. Unless, as you seemed to claim earlier, the bible itself tells you which bits are which. What specific claim are you making then?
You don't deserve an answer. Reread the Holy Bible, if you really ever read it,
and figure out the answer for yourself, Spanky.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaybe, he should ask jaywill he has a more milder style. It is not my
Southern Baptists are capable of practically anything, best treated like a skillet full of
rattlers! But no, in fact, its anti biblical,
(2 Timothy 2:24-25) . . .But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be
gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, instructing
with mildness those not favorably disposed; . . .
nature to be a pussy cat. 😏
Originally posted by FMFPay attention. Any book must be read in context to determine what is
The sub text of what you appear to be saying - and then suddenly claiming that you're not saying - is that you personally get to choose which bits you take literally and the bits you do not take literally. Unless, as you seemed to claim earlier, the bible itself tells you which bits are which. What specific claim are you making then?
meant to be taken literally and what is not. One has to use their brain
to figure it out after reading the full text. That is all I am going to say
about the matter. If you need more, ask jaywill when he returns. He
doesn't get as irritated as I do with stupid questions.
33 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you are saying that you personally get to choose which bits you take literally and which bits you do not take literally. I see. And do all Christians have this individual prerogative?
Any book must be read in context to determine what is
meant to be taken literally and what is not. One has to use their brain
to figure it out after reading the full text.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat is a hard one for me to determine because some parts are obviously
Genesis is an example that is not to be taken literary. It's a part of the mythology presnt at those days.
Right?
meant to be take literally; but the part about Satan speaking through the
serpent has indications of possible mythology along with the exact meaning
of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is possible
these are not meant to be interpreted as actual trees containing a special
fruit that we don't have today.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo, some is mythology, like talking snakes and creation of universe and stuff, some is to be taken literary, like brothers killing eachother and circumcision and stuff.
That is a hard one for me to determine because some parts are obviously
meant to be take literally; but the part about Satan speaking through the
serpent has indications of possible mythology along with the exact meaning
of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is possible
these are not meant to be interpreted as actual trees containing a special
fruit that we don't have today.
Do I understand it correctly?
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is only "obvious" that some parts are meant to be taken literally and others are by "Satan" because laws and society have told you so. Thousands of years ago, it wasn't so obvious, and a lot more of the bible was taken literally (including atrocities like slavery and unjust violence).
That is a hard one for me to determine because some parts are obviously
meant to be take literally; but the part about Satan speaking through the
serpent has indications of possible mythology along with the exact meaning
of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is possible
these are not meant to be interpreted as actual trees containing a special
fruit that we don't have today.
It is interesting how advances in science and human rights has caused some things (which were once thought to be literal) to become metaphorical.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyscience has dis-proven nothing! once you deny the divine element as you do, nothing
It is only "obvious" that some parts are meant to be taken literally and others are by "Satan" because laws and society have told you so. Thousands of years ago, it wasn't so obvious, and a lot more of the bible was taken literally (including atrocities like slavery and unjust violence).
It is interesting how advances in science and human rights has caused some things (which were once thought to be literal) to become metaphorical.
makes sense, once you make room for it, all things are possible, all that science has
done is to attempt to explain supernatural events in rational or material terms, as if the
supernatural is subject to the same criteria. As for human rights, perhaps we
shall list those Christians who were instrumental in the civil rights movement in the
nineteen sixties, or the abolition of slavery, or the reforms of prisons, or of hospitals,
your post betrays the usual atheistic prejudices and barriers to progress as is the case
of all those who have limited their understanding to purely materialistic terms.
Originally posted by FabianFnasAll of it teaches truth. But I believe some is to be taken literally in the way it
So, some is mythology, like talking snakes and creation of universe and stuff, some is to be taken literary, like brothers killing eachother and circumcision and stuff.
Do I understand it correctly?
presents the truth, like God creating the earth, and others like the parables
of Jesus, which may also represent a literal situation but are not intended to
be taken completely literal in order to get the true message from it. I think
part of the Garden of Eden story may be in this category. Also the story of
Samson is most likely in this category of presenting truth in an entertaining
way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll that those Christians have done has decided that the parts of the bible which were against human rights has become "metaphors", and only then were able to help to progress the civil rights movement. Then they pick and choose which of the bible can be used for morality, and ignoring parts which justify stoning people to death. You do not have to be Christian to be humanitarian.
science has dis-proven nothing! once you deny the divine element as you do, nothing
makes sense, once you make room for it, all things are possible, all that science has
done is to attempt to explain supernatural events in rational or material terms, as if the
supernatural is subject to the same criteria. As for human rights, perhaps we
shal ...[text shortened]... s is the case
of all those who have limited their understanding to purely materialistic terms.
Originally posted by lauseywhy dont you give credit where credit is due instead of continuing the charade!
All that those Christians have done has decided that the parts of the bible which were against human rights has become "metaphors", and only then were able to help to progress the civil rights movement. Then they pick and choose which of the bible can be used for morality, and ignoring parts which justify stoning people to death. You do not [b]have to be Christian to be humanitarian.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAye Robbie. Like I said in the chess forum..... you defend your kids vehemently, almost over the limit. You projected onto me something which I hadn't even mentioned. Yet, you have spoken and agreed to some JW propositions as being wrong.... or did you not?
science has dis-proven nothing! once you deny the divine element as you do, nothing
makes sense, once you make room for it, all things are possible, all that science has
done is to attempt to explain supernatural events in rational or material terms, as if the
supernatural is subject to the same criteria. As for human rights, perhaps we
shal ...[text shortened]... s is the case
of all those who have limited their understanding to purely materialistic terms.
A JW child being raped can easily be covered up within the 'system' in which you 'choose' to live. Masturbation is prohibited because it leads to homosexuality et al..... It must be one cool life you live!
Do you think my wife has never been insulted on this website? I have been banned for defending her, and I was accused or racism by a bunch of idles when I defended her ethnicity. So, lo and behold, get a grip, grow up, and answer the fundamentals that are asked of you, instead of running around the mulberrybush, naked, chanting to Jehova!
Just get a normal life will you, you're a ruddy embarassment to scousers. You must have gone to Queen Mary's or Noughton Hall for girls, or something. Unless you lied to me!!!
-m.
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomlook, stay away from me, I have nothing to say to you, now stop stalking me and stay
Aye Robbie. Like I said in the chess forum..... you defend your kids vehemently, almost over the limit. You projected onto me something which I hadn't even mentioned. Yet, you have spoken and agreed to some JW propositions as being wrong.... or did you not?
A JW child being raped can easily be covered up within the 'system' in which you 'choose' to live. Ma to Queen Mary's or Noughton Hall for girls, or something. Unless you lied to me!!!
-m.
away from me! do you understand, I have nothing to say to you, i do not know you , i
dont want to know you, now stay away from me.