Originally posted by Eladar
Only one question. I am not Fetch.

Your recourse to playing the "Satan" card is nothing new - it's certainly commonplace on this forum - but you may wish to clarify (and if that means you need to wait till you sober up, I can wait, no problem). Would you characterize every Christian who interprets the Bible differently from you as children of "Satan"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No. While his views seem to be built much more upon reason than dogma, he still seems to have some dogma in his core beliefs.

Of course he does. He's a Wesleyan.

It isn't Calvinist dogma, that's for sure. That seems to be what has these people tripped up.

Originally posted by Eladar
One of those areas is sexual immorality.

To which suzi and her ilk see as either not being sinful at all or acceptable behavior.

And all you care about is scoring points against those that disagree with you.

You just don't mind bearing false witness when it seems to benefit you.

How is that not sinful?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would not want to define liberalism as supporting over 50 million abortions.

And if you would read what I wrote without inherent bias, I don't define liberalism that way.

Originally posted by josephw
Apparently Suzianne's church teaches that you can interpret the scriptures any which way you want as long as it doesn't interfere with your lifestyle.

The Jews had their Sadducees and Pharisees because they had thousands of years to produce them.

Well, Christianity has been around almost 2000 years now, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see the Sadducee and Pharisee equivalents (Republicans and Calvinists) among the Christian faith as well.

Sad, but not surprising.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And if you would read what I wrote without inherent bias, I don't define liberalism that way.

We all have bias, it is unavoidable for each of us which is why conversation is so important.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We all have bias, it is unavoidable for each of us which is why conversation is so important.

If you actually believe what the Bible says you ate definitely biased. There is no arguing that Suzi is biased by what the Bible says.

Originally posted by Eladar
That you reject the truth of the Bible and are a child of Satan

The fact is the Bible is widely open to interpretation because it is a metaphorical and esoteric work that contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. It is what it is. As such, people end up choosing verses and passages that support their beliefs and end up dismissing those that don't.

What's even more disturbing is that those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their "literal" interpretation, etc.

Furthermore, they somehow delude themselves to believe that because they take it "literally", they KNOW the word of God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The fact is the Bible is widely open to interpretation because it is a metaphorical and esoteric work that contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. It is what it is. As such, people end up choosing verses and passages that support their beliefs and end up dismissing those that don't.

What's even more disturbing is that thos ...[text shortened]... w delude themselves to believe that because they take it "literally", they KNOW the word of God.

Are you not choosing to believe that the Bible got it right with the words of Jesus?

Your post along with your "reasonable" thread claims that all of the Bible is subject to scrutiny, except for the words of Jesus. Only in Jesus' case did the words of Jesus get written down correctly, with exact translations, and is void of everything you say is wrong with the rest of the Bible?

Why?

Originally posted by chaney3
Are you not choosing to believe that the Bible got it right with the words of Jesus?

Your post along with your "reasonable" thread claims that all of the Bible is subject to scrutiny, except for the words of Jesus. Only in Jesus' case did the words of Jesus get written down correctly, with exact translations, and is void of everything you say is wrong with the rest of the Bible?

Why?

Your post along with your "reasonable" thread claims that all of the Bible is subject to scrutiny, except for the words of Jesus.

Actually it doesn't claim that. It's all subject to scrutiny. That said, by and large, the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth hold up to scrutiny reasonably well. I don't know why you seem to struggle with this idea so much.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Your post along with your "reasonable" thread claims that all of the Bible is subject to scrutiny, except for the words of Jesus.

Actually it doesn't claim that. It's all subject to scrutiny. That said, by and large, the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth hold up to scrutiny reasonably well. I don't know why you seem to struggle with this idea so much.[/b]

I am not struggling with it.

I am asking why you believe the words of Jesus so firmly, but don't give the same to Moses, Noah, or Job, etc.?

What makes you believe that. Your words please, not the sentence that begins "By and large".

Originally posted by chaney3
I am not struggling with it.

I am asking why you believe the words of Jesus so firmly, but don't give the same to Moses, Noah, or Job, etc.?

What makes you believe that. Your words please, not the sentence that begins "By and large".

Your words please, not the sentence that begins "By and large".

Those ARE my words.

I am asking why you believe the words of Jesus so firmly, but don't give the same to Moses, Noah, or Job, etc.?

What makes you believe that.

Because they hold up to scrutiny reasonably well. If you don't think they do, then cite examples of where you think they don't.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The fact is the Bible is widely open to interpretation because it is a metaphorical and esoteric work that contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. It is what it is. As such, people end up choosing verses and passages that support their beliefs and end up dismissing those that don't.

What's even more disturbing is that thos ...[text shortened]... w delude themselves to believe that because they take it "literally", they KNOW the word of God.

Tell me, what book or what story isn't open to interpretation based on how a person wishes to look at it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Your words please, not the sentence that begins "By and large".

Those ARE my words.

I am asking why you believe the words of Jesus so firmly, but don't give the same to Moses, Noah, or Job, etc.?

What makes you believe that.

Because they hold up to scrutiny reasonably well. If you don't think they do, then cite examples of where you think they don't.[/b]

It just seems that your above words, along with your "reasonable" article suggest that the Bible is littered with flaws and contradictions, but are somehow excluding the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from criticism.

I was just curious why, nothing more.

Originally posted by chaney3
It just seems that your above words, along with your "reasonable" article suggest that the Bible is littered with flaws and contradictions, but are somehow excluding the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from criticism.

I was just curious why, nothing more.

It just seems that your above words, along with your "reasonable" article suggest that the Bible is littered with flaws and contradictions, but are somehow excluding the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from criticism.

You are mistaken. No idea how you read that into what was said in the article or especially anything that I've said.