Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When to be literal?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 1 of 66 (677571)
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


How do people who use the Bible as a bases for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
Some bits are specifically stated as parables but others (Leviticus, I'm looking at you!) seem to be specific statutes that are either ignored or rebranded and not literal.
Is there a useful way to categorise literal verses from metaphorical?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-30-2012 10:19 AM Larni has replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 10-30-2012 4:21 PM Larni has replied
 Message 6 by GDR, posted 10-30-2012 5:08 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-30-2012 5:31 PM Larni has replied
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 10-30-2012 6:19 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2012 11:10 PM Larni has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 66 (677572)
10-30-2012 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


Word for word literal or thought for thought?
How do people who use the Bible as a basis for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
Faith & Belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 8:19 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 2:16 PM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 66 (677573)
10-30-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
10-30-2012 10:19 AM


Re: Word for word literal or thought for thought?
That would be great, thanks Phat.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-30-2012 10:19 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 66 (677575)
10-30-2012 4:11 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the When to be literal? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 66 (677581)
10-30-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


Linguistic Lollapalooza
Larni writes:
How do people who use the Bible as a basis for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
Its all about belief.
Some bits are specifically stated as parables but others (Leviticus, I'm looking at you!) seem to be specific statutes that are either ignored or rebranded and not literal.
I dont pay too much attention to laws, since I believe that I am under Grace. I DO respect laws, however. Dont lust after your neighbors ass. Dont jack his/her car. Honor your parents. Love God(daily and purposefully as you can and how you believe you should.
Is there a useful way to categorise literal verses from metaphorical?
Good question. I'll get back to you on this one when I have more time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 8:19 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 10:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 6 of 66 (677591)
10-30-2012 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


Larni writes:
How do people who use the Bible as a bases for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
Some bits are specifically stated as parables but others (Leviticus, I'm looking at you!) seem to be specific statutes that are either ignored or rebranded and not literal.
Is there a useful way to categorise literal verses from metaphorical?
Hi Larni
I think that to understand the difference between what is literal and what is metaphor we first have to come to an understanding of how we should understand the Bible.
When I read the Bible which I do every day I read it essentially as a story of God’s ongoing relationship with mankind. I read it as if it was written by men inspired by God to record their thoughts and experiences. I also accept that the entire Bible is both personally and culturally conditioned which of course means that it is subject to human fallibility.
Christianity like all other world religions providse guidelines as to how we should conduct ourselves in this life. The difference with Christianity IMHO is the resurrection of Jesus. I have read many arguments against and arguments for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and I find the historical argument far more compelling than the argument against. However, there is obviously an element of faith in my position.
On the assumption that God did resurrect Jesus then it would be a pretty strong vindication of the message of Jesus in the Gospel accounts. Once again the Gospel accounts are not going to be 100% accurate but I believe that there are good grounds to believe that they are very close.
In terms of Jesus’ self understanding I think that it is clear that He believed that he was the Jewish Messiah. However there is more to it than that. In ways that even He may not have understood, He saw Himself embodying the return of Yahweh to the Jewish people. (He talks about being the Temple and He forgives sins etc.) That is essentially my understanding of the basis of the Christian faith. With this belief I then see God the Father as speaking clearly through the life, imagination, heart and words of Jesus. Once again, I see this as being confirmed by the resurrection.
With this understanding, I then view all of the scriptures through the lens of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies which would indicate that the early Jews were not meant to go out and slaughter their enemies. Jesus said that we are to love and forgive which would mean that God did not say that prostitutes, difficult children etc should be stoned to death.
I do believe that The Bible is a tool used by God to reach out to us. As I said at the beginning it tells the ongoing story, or meta-narrative of God reaching out to His creation by working through the hearts minds and imaginations of humans.
There are two basic messages in the Bible. One is a message of guidance and one is news. The guidance can be seen in my signature line. God wants us to be kind, just humble. The news is that this life is not the final chapter. When time as we know it ends this creation as we know it will be renewed and made whole with perfect love, peace and justice.
With this in mind we can now look at what is literal and what is metaphor. Firstly it has to be read in the context of what the writer is telling us and then we can in most cases come to a literal conclusion. When one of the scribes tells us about a battle we can be pretty sure that the battle occurred but then we should also be aware that his account of the outcome and the involvement of God is most likely going to be influenced by his own biases and quite likely by the fear of whoever it was that had the power of life and death over him at the time.
I think the main point I’d like to make is that it is the message that is important and that the literal accuracy doesn’t really matter much. I forget who I’m quoting when they talked about Genesis, but they said that it doesn’t matter whether or not the snake was real, but what matters is what the snake said.
CS Lewis had this to say in his book Miracles
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.
I hope that addresses the question that you asked.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 8:19 AM Larni has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 66 (677594)
10-30-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


Nothing needs to be literal
When looking at the Bible (whichever Canon you choose) the first step is to remember that it is NOT one book or story but rather an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of a particular era.
There's no one theme, no one concept, no one universal rule or technique.
Each of the stories in the Bible needs to be seen as a separate story with separate purpose writing for an audience unique to the period, culture and society. They were never written to be incorporated into a single document.
That act, compiling them into one book, actually diminished the value and worth of the separate documents and has caused many people to totally lose sight of the content.
Your example of Leviticus is a great example.
Leviticus is a collection of folklore that covers in particular the societal rules governing the Levites (the priestly tribe) but also covers some of the rules for the laity, the worshipers in this case, Hebrews. It is a compilation of cultural mores of the period and society (likely during the Babylonian exile) and should be understood within that context.
During the later Babylonian exile the general Jewish population were becoming increasingly influenced and amalgamated into the wider society of Babylon, losing their Jewishness, their identification as a people apart.
The basic premise is that the world was created good and can be good with effort. Laws and ritual were seen as a way of encouraging what was seen as "right behavior" and godliness of what was "moral".
But losing that identification, that culture, meant becoming something other than a Hebrew in Exile.
Leviticus was a reaction to that influence both within the Priestly Class and the Hebrew society in general.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 8:19 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 10:45 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 8 of 66 (677599)
10-30-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


How do people who use the Bible as a bases for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
It is really a game of self-deception.
Is there a useful way to categorise literal verses from metaphorical?
They claim that the Bible is literal and inerrant. But "inerrant" is what they consider most important.
Where the Bible disagrees with what they want to believe is true, they will take that text as symbolic in some way, because that allows them the maintain their illusion of inerrancy.
Where the Bible agrees with what they want to believe is true (or disagrees with what they want to believe is false), they will take it as literal.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 8:19 AM Larni has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 66 (677613)
10-30-2012 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
10-30-2012 8:19 AM


How do people who use the Bible as a bases for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
On the basis of whether they think can get away with it. Earth rests on pillars? Not literal. Thunder is God shouting? Not literal. Geocentrism ... tricky one, could go either way, depending on how little science you know and how conceited you are. A six-day creation? Well, as this forum shows, they've got that one covered. Not well, but they think they've got it covered.
It's the same with the moral aspects, they go with what's socially acceptable in their neck of the woods. God says to stone homosexuals? OK, let's not actually stone homosexuals, but let's ban gay marriage as a sort of token gesture. God says to stone women who aren't virgins when they marry? Not even going to touch it. God permits slavery, but it's still wrong unless you're talking to white conservatives in the South. God does forbid lending money at interest, but as this is practically the foundation of capitalism, and capitalism is God's way, as we know from ... from ... from somewhere ... we'll just pretend that that never happened.
Basically, it's always going to be easier to impose your prejudices on the "Word of God" then to get your prejudices from the "Word of God", because if you did the latter, society might disapprove of you, whereas if you play it safe and go with the former ... well, what's God going to do? Send bears to eat you, like in the Bible? Send a plague of locusts, like in the Bible? Smite you with boils, like in the Bible? Make you eat grass like an ox, like in the Bible? Nuh-uh. He's not even going to argue. We all know he doesn't do stuff like that. So you really have nothing to lose.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 8:19 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 10 of 66 (677631)
10-31-2012 11:00 AM


What confuses me as an atheist is that the only knowledge about Yaweh; his character and his works we have is from the Bible.
So either the Bible is accurate about Yaweh or it is not. When he syas to keep his statutes in Leviticus 'or else' is that what he meant or not?
If it is just mythology then why believe it more than a Brothers Grimm story? If it is not myth then is it all not myth or just some of it?
Edited by Larni, : I turned a statement into a question: all on my own. I'm a big boy, now!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 11:26 AM Larni has replied
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 10-31-2012 2:28 PM Larni has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 66 (677637)
10-31-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Larni
10-31-2012 11:00 AM


it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
I need to ask you the same question I ask many Christians. Have you actually read the Bible?
The Bible tells us very little about Yahweh, rather it tells us about the people of a given era, about their cultures, their mythos, their folklore.
It tells us about how those people viewed Yahweh and how those views evolved over time, about themselves, their neighbors, their histories, their evolving morals.
Have you actually read Leviticus, not just skimmed and cherry picked quote mined verses?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 11:00 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 1:02 PM jar has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 12 of 66 (677660)
10-31-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
10-31-2012 11:26 AM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
I have read the Bible (well most of it, not the geneologies).
You say the Bible tells us very little about Yaweh: I disagree.
2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
So we see the Bible makes all of the above claims about itself and how it is not to be modified.
And it also says:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. - James 2:10
So by ignoring one thing in the Bible, the Bible tells us we have offended Yahweh.
So my original question remains and the Bible itself says that you are wrong about the Bible.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 11:26 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 2:56 PM Larni has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 3:06 PM Larni has replied
 Message 21 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2012 6:44 PM Larni has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 13 of 66 (677674)
10-31-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Larni
10-31-2012 11:00 AM


Larni writes:
What confuses me as an atheist is that the only knowledge about Yaweh; his character and his works we have is from the Bible.
So either the Bible is accurate about Yaweh or it is not. When he syas to keep his statutes in Leviticus 'or else' is that what he meant or not?
If it is just mythology then why believe it more than a Brothers Grimm story? If it is not myth then is it all not myth or just some of it?
Paul says this in Romans 2:
quote:
11 For God does not show favouritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Paul is saying that the Bible isn’t the only source of knowledge about Yahweh. Essentially we can look into our own hearts with or without the Bible to learn about Yahweh. Essentially the Christian desire and plan for the ultimate future is that all of mankind will have hearts that love unselfishly. Individuals over time may become so hardened, (ignoring mental illness), that their conscience becomes dead and no longer speaks to them but I believe that nobody is immune to feeling twinges of conscience at some point in their lives. Most of us do understand the difference between selfishness and unselfishness. When we know that we have acted selfishly we get that uncomfortable tug on our heart. It is my contention that is God revealing Himself to us.
On the other hand we have our human desires for power, wealth, fame etc that flow from our selfish nature. The Bible is the story of the evolution of God working His desire for us into our hearts. The Bible then is a collection of books that chronicle that narrative that details our selfish desires, but intermingled in with that is the story of God continuously and faithfully reaching out to us in love. Just because Yahweh didn’t actually tell a group of Israelites that they should stone to death someone picking up firewood on the Sabbath does not mean that He didn’t tell us that we are to love our neighbour.
I am of the belief that our knowledge is best based on the three legged stool of scripture, reason and tradition. (I look at tradition as being the accumulated wisdom over time.) The fundamentalist view of an inerrant Bible does paint a picture of a god that is inconsistent from one book of the Bible to the next so I understand your confusion as an atheist.
In the end as Paul points out here it isn’t about what we believe or even what we do that is important, it is all about the condition of our heart. What we believe about God and what we do in our lives is simply a product of where our heart is and no religion has a lock on that.
We can read in the Bible that we are commanded to love but how can anyone be commanded to love. Acting lovingly is not the same as actually loving. You can command someone to go down and feed the homeless but you can’t command someone to have a heart that finds true joy in feeding the homeless.
It is the fundamentalist view of the Bible that distorts the truth of it so that it becomes a series of laws such as those in Leviticus in an attempt to come up with black and white answers as to what we have to believe, do or not do to get on God’s good side. The actual message is far more subtle but far more wonderful than that.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 11:00 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 2:46 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 14 of 66 (677676)
10-31-2012 2:40 PM


Whenever I hear this sort of thing discussed, I'm forced to wheel this one out:
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
October 2002
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
Note to Stumblers:
Some comments criticizing this piece indicate that it was "hijacked" from a West Wing episode. This is a chicken and egg argument in my opinion. I don't really know which came first, and frankly don't care.
Page not found – Humanists of Utah

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 2:47 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 66 (677677)
10-31-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
10-31-2012 2:28 PM


Essentially we can look into our own hearts with or without the Bible to learn about Yahweh.
I disagree. Those verses say that if a non Jew's heart happens to coincide with the Law it's fine. Not that we find Yaweh in our hearts. So if you happen by purest chance to follow his Laws through natural inclination you won't go to Hell.
In the end as Paul points out here it isn’t about what we believe or even what we do that is important, it is all about the condition of our heart.
Not so. If we don't believe it does not matter. We go to Hell as abominations.
Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
But this is simply verse tennis.
How do we know that the resurrection is not a metaphor for the resurgence of the religion after it's originator dies?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 10-31-2012 2:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 10-31-2012 3:17 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024