Originally posted by Metamorphosis
[b]Those 5 examples ,I believe, are all literal....that is what I meant...because you don't believe in a God who has real power, you can only accept these truths as metaphors.

I don't believe in a God who has the kind of power that you believe in. Big difference. That does not mean I do not "believe" in a divine Source of all life, and nor t ...[text shortened]... luencing someone. I simply express what I see and understand and believe and suspect to be true.[/b]

you mention that there are many excellent texts that challenge the integrity of the bible. however, there are many excellent texts that uphold the biblical creation in it's literal form. found this rather nice essay on the subject. i'm not sure about all the points and i didn't write it so lets not all go scrutinising every word and challenging me with them. It is also quite bias, but then again so are all pro-evolution sites.

Originally posted by genius
you mention that there are many excellent texts that challenge the integrity of the bible.

He said deconstruct, which is not the same thing as challenging its integrity. It's impossible to read the Bible without some degree of interpretation. Don't make me bring up the story of Elisha and the bears!

Language is fundamentally metaphorical--bridging the gap between sender & receiver. Christ said he was the Way--what is a way? A path. A means to get from one place to another--from ignorance to enlightenment, if you will. Or, in your terms, from sin to salvation. A bridge. In linguistic terms, a metaphor.

Don't despise metaphors--use them.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He said deconstruct, which is not the same thing as challenging its integrity. It's impossible to read the Bible without some degree of interpretation. Don't make me bring up the story of Elisha and the bears!

Language is fundamentally metaphorical--bridging the gap between sender & receiver. Christ said he was the Way--what is a way? A p ...[text shortened]... to salvation. A bridge. In linguistic terms, a metaphor.

Don't despise metaphors--use them.

look, what you have done to the bible is think "ooh, this isn't possible therefore it didn't happen. what other explanation can there be? metaphors?" However, this defies the whole point of the bible! yes, there are metaphors, but how can you believe some of what is written without believeing the rest? the bible must be taken as a whole if you want to understand it fully, you cannot pick and choose. tell me about Elisha. tell me about the metaphor.

the bible must be taken as a whole if you want to understand it fully, you cannot pick and choose.

I disagree. I think the different parts have different values. (For example, Kings is considered more historically reliable history than Chronicles, which covers the same events but was written much later and is, for some reason, "more flattering to the Levites". )

Why your faith should repose on a book I cannot imagine. You've accepted Christ; why not seek guidance from that quarter? I doubt that Christ discriminates against the illiterate.

As for Elisha & the bears...w

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them” (2 Kgs. 2:23-24).

I am deeply suspicious of that 42.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wasn't it you who said, "[b]There is no hell. It something the christians made up to keep you in line

Now your saying, "Because like many other things the christians stole it.

Seems to me you just want to bash Christians, you have them
making things up, when you discover that hell was around before
there were Christians, then we stole it according to you.
Kelly[/b]

No no no...

I don't believe in hell.

I believe that christians believe in hell.

If the idea of hell was around before chrisianity existed then the idea was stolen.

I have no interest in bashing christians or any other religion for that matter (unlike many religious types here).

Originally posted by dags
If the idea of hell was around before chrisianity existed then the idea was stolen.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Is it not possible that two cultures could have developed the concept of hell independently (much like Newton and Leibniz discovering calculus independently)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Is it not possible that two cultures could have developed the concept of hell independently (much like Newton and Leibniz discovering calculus independently)?

Let's take a look from the ergo propter copter...how old exactly is the Christian hell? Are all hells the same? What is the history of Hell?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I disagree. I think the different parts have different values. (For example, Kings is considered more historically reliable history than Chronicles, which covers the same events but was written much later and is, for some reason, "more flattering to the Levites". )

Why your faith should repose on a book I cannot imagine. You've accepted Christ; ...[text shortened]... forty and two children of them” (2 Kgs. 2:23-24).

I am deeply suspicious of that 42.

Thats a recurring number in the OT. vistesd has a decent theory on it.

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
You hope!Maybe youve been too bad and youl end up in... HELL!
Where the worms and demons live and youl be tortured FOREVER!
Ive always thought the concept of hell to be harsh. No matter what someones done, being tormented forever seems a bit over the top.

LOL....No, It has nothing to do with being bad...salvation means Christ paid the price for your sins....and I agree, forever in hell is way over the top.

Originally posted by dags
There is no hell. It something the christians made up to keep you in line 🙂

Hell was talked about in the O.T. to the Jews, my lost borther.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He said deconstruct, which is not the same thing as challenging its integrity. It's impossible to read the Bible without some degree of interpretation. Don't make me bring up the story of Elisha and the bears!

Language is fundamentally metaphorical--bridging the gap between sender & receiver. Christ said he was the Way--what is a way? A p ...[text shortened]... to salvation. A bridge. In linguistic terms, a metaphor.

Don't despise metaphors--use them.

I agree, there are metaphors and figures of speech in the bible, but we should take it literal as much as possible.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Thats a recurring number in the OT. vistesd has a decent theory on it.

Pssst, vistesd--I know your monkey mind is active at the moment--remind of number 42, with special reference to Elisha & his bears?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I disagree. I think the different parts have different values. (For example, Kings is considered more historically reliable history than Chronicles, which covers the same events but was written much later and is, for some reason, "more flattering to the Levites". )

Why your faith should repose on a book I cannot imagine. You've accepted Christ; ...[text shortened]... forty and two children of them” (2 Kgs. 2:23-24).

I am deeply suspicious of that 42.

yes different parts have different values, but that does not mean you can just ignore them. the new testament is full of old testament philosophy! (and vice versa 😉)

if you think any Christain's faith is purely based upon a book then you are very much mistaken. we learn stories from the book. we learn faith from God. i amn't even going to try and explain that, purely because i can't. and i've just read the next couple of senteces in that paragraphy, and you seem to imply that, well, that i never pray? that i never "seek guidance from that quater (Christ)". where did you get that from? 😛

and what is your point with the 42? why does it make you suspicious?

Originally posted by genius
yes different parts have different values, but that does not mean you can just ignore them. the new testament is full of old testament philosophy! (and vice versa 😉)

if you think any Christain's faith is purely based upon a book then you are very much mistaken. we learn stories from the book. we learn faith from God. i amn't even going to try and explai ...[text shortened]... id you get that from? 😛

and what is your point with the 42? why does it make you suspicious?

I'm sure you do pray. You come across as a sincere Christian.

The number 42 is a loaded number. I'm waiting for visestd to explain it (he has a good theory) but it basically has to do with numerology. One of the reasons why so much of the OT is bunk if taken literally.