LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNow now, be fair to the fellow, it is indeed a good thread.Originally Posted by Stewart
Encore! I say. Also, Bravo!
Now now, be fair to the fellow, it is indeed a good thread.
Encore! I say. Also, Bravo!
Seems to be serving its purpose, and both Saracen and Zak have given it the thumbs up, so it really doesn't matter what people who do not want to discuss the points think.
What gets me is this quote - 'All this back and fo, believer or non believer is just pointless!!'
How is it pointless, when I started this thread for exactly the purpose of believers and non believers to do exactly that?The 'back and fo' is the whole point of this thread.
Without that its just someone saying:
Last edited by Stewart; 21-07-2008 at 09:14 PM.
Then why do you keep saying that Christians have all got it wrong all the time?
Littering it with 'this is a good thread'!! lol, what an overstatement. Try reading the posts first!!
You are as you keep trying to put christians down all the time. Again, please read what you have written. I thought that you wanted people to give thier views too, or is it just mine you don't want?
Everyone has an opinion and, like this thread, you don't like anyone who goes against what 'you believe!' You go out of your way to abuse anyones ideals if it does not meet your own. You just don't like anyone who has a different view to yours. If they do, then you accuse them of being 'incapable of adult discussion'
Look, not all the posts in this thread are directed at you. I have expressed my views with others. If i have duplicated some of my points then i will not apologise for them. Must be getting to you if you are getting this worked up about it. I am proud that i don't need any proof what-so-ever to believe in god and it looks like you don't like anyone who stands by his faith!
See, you just can't help causing peoples backs to get up with rubbish like "Something along the lines of the sort of nonsense you usually post" Seems to me the only effort you put in is to keep hurling abusive comments at any christian who stands by his beliefs. I am all for debate but you just seem hell bent causing waves all the time. I have no issue with you being a non believer. Just be more grown up about the fact that you cannot change my beliefs. Of all the posters on here you seem very aggressive towards anything Christian. You need to chill mate. Try and think about things before you write them.
See, you really don't like the fact that i believe in god do you. I have made it clear that believing in god is not just about the context of the bible etc but it is about my unwavering faith. For me, i have had to reiterate my faith a few times in some posts as that is how strong i feel about it. I have just tried to get across how believing in god is not just about what you read in the bible. Not for me anyway. It really annoys you by the look of it and that is sad. You really do need to relax a bit. If you read what you have written in this thread you have mentioned 'I believe in God' several times!!!
Why bring up a different thread? Seems like you have it in for me. I stand by my comments in the thread you mentioned. Humiliated? Me? Not from where i am sitting. I am not here to worry what others think. I don't hurl abuse at people for writing what they believe. I may disagree with them, yes, but i don't go posting childish comments etc. This thread is very interesting and fuddam is a really educated guy who talks a lot of sense. He has no need to throw insults about and i don't want to go down that road too as i don't think Hexus is the place for that.
I am sorry that you hate the way i feel about my faith. It looks like you really cannot understand my beliefs. You say you have put a lot of effort in your opening questions, so maybe you need to keep the same level of discussion going instead of personal attacks at me all the time.
Last edited by Koolpc; 21-07-2008 at 10:45 PM.
KoolPC, you seem to be unable to seperate discussion of the issues, with some sort of effort to change your mind.
Because (and I'm only going to say this once, so read it over and over again until you fully understand) this is a thread for the discussion of the issues I raised in my original post, and I am expressing my opinion on those issues. I have no interest in changing your own views on the subject.
Its really not hard to understand, noone else in the thread is having any problems with it.
I keep bringing up the other thread because, if you think back, you continued to call me a druggie, despite me and half of the forums pointing out to you that your understanding of the topic of discussion was ignorant, infantile, and completely wrong. This is valid in this thread because it shows you have a compete inability to 'join in' on these threads without getting everything arse about face.
If you have now grasped the idea that noone is interested in changing your mind on the issue of religion (which given that you were unable to grasp I am not a druggie because I smoke a joint every now and again in the other thread would be progress at least) I have no problems wth you posting as much as you want.
I'll just quickly say it again to make completely sure - discussing back and forth the different aspects of religion, Christianity and Atheism, is completely seperate from me or anyone else trying to change your mind.
All clear?
You are making a fool of yourself again, now. Noone is trying to change your mind. This thread is not about that. Why are you having trouble with this?
I don't care one way or the other. Listen to what I am saying, you utter fool. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT TRYING TO CHANGE THE MIND OF ANYONE. IT IS A THREAD FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE POINTS I DIRECTED AT FUDDAM IN MY OPENING POST.
Now please, read that and understand. You made a fool of yourself in the drugs thread, don't do it again here.
Last edited by Stewart; 21-07-2008 at 11:04 PM.
No one else is having problems with it but you keep having a go at me all the time. You are the one who keeps saying saying this is wrong that is wrong etc etc.
You are allowed to express your opinion but i can't express mine, or anyone else who disagrees with your views? I have said you can't change my view so i am not interested if you wanted to or not!!
Please try to keep focused on your original points from now on and stop having a verbal go at me all of the time. Thanks
You keep bringing up the other thread? Once you have mentioned it in this thread! Once i called you a druggie. I did not 'Keep' calling you one. That was said in error, i agree. I know when i am wrong. You are the one who gets everything mixed up. I am only reponding to points brought up.
I know nobody will change my mind. You don't have to keep reminding meI don't have a problem posting as much as i want in this thread either mate. If a mod thinks i have stepped out of line in anyway then i am willing to listen to thier argument for that. There is no need to bring up the drugs thread all the time Stewart. That is history. Try and keep this thread in context please.
There you go again, thinking you are trying to changing my mind. I am not interested in that. I know you are not going to change my mind. That is beyond you or anyone else and i know that nobody 'wants' to change my mind!
Gee, here you go again! Why do you keep mentioning the 'Changing the mind' thing all the time? I think it is you that have a problem with that not me. I know nobody is trying to change my mind!! Why do you keep repeating yourself over and over?
Again!!! You mention it again! I am not interested in anyone trying to change my mind! Why do you keep re-iterating it all the time, paragraph after paragraph!! You have mentioned it several times already in this one post alone!! Also, again you bring up the drugs thread! Why? This is a separate thread. I am not a fool either. Why hurl abuse at me?
Please stop having a go at me mate. Whats wrong with you?
Come on Stewart, stop having a go at me and lets get on with the thread please.
Last edited by Koolpc; 21-07-2008 at 11:09 PM.
You are now making no sense, and are either trolling or incapable of remembering what you posted a few seconds ago.
I'll ask a mod to clear some of your rantings from the thread.
I am not trolling. I like a good discussion. I do not go out of my way to upset anyone. I do not 'Rant'.
You don't seem to like any of my beliefs / views.
You just have it in for me mate. Can you stop sticking pins in me now please and lets get on with the real topic of the thread? Thanks
Last edited by Koolpc; 21-07-2008 at 11:23 PM.
Seems to me the reason Koolpc thinks your trying to change is mind is because when you make him think about the inconsistencies in what he believes then its going to shake his faith a bit if he takes everything to its logical conclusion. Instead he has to block it out and have faith, which I am sure is difficult but I would not say commendable.
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
I'll respond to that in another post.
the idea that all are equal before God, regardless of position in society. No person is worthier / better than another.And how is Gal 3:26, which states that the difference between slave and free is like man or woman, and Jew or Greek, not condoning slavery?
yes, indeed. We also have more:Luke 12:45-48 and Ephesians 6:5-9 should would be worth your reading.
Although the Old Testament provided for slavery for criminals and insolvent debtors, kidnapping and enslaving law-abiding people incurred the death penalty. "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." Exodus 21:16
The New Testament expressly forbids both the slave trade and slavery itself. "the Law is made not for the righteous but for Law breakers. for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers." 1 Timothy 1:9-10
at the same time, like anyone else, we can quote verses back and forth, but that is to miss the bigger picture. I'll quote someone for clarity here:
CONCLUSION
The fact is, certain types of “slavery” not only are permissible, but sometimes necessary to the well-being of a society at large. For the biblical stance on slavery to be condemned as unjust, it must be established that the specific regulations of slavery described in the text are immoral and unfair. However, when closely scrutinized, the biblical stance on slavery aligns itself with true justice. All regulations found therein were established for the just treatment of all parties involved. Many times, slavery as regulated in the Old Testament was a mutually beneficial relationship between servant and master, similar to an employee/employer relationship. Furthermore, slavery often was a substitute for the death penalty—which certain nations deserved. Debt accumulation caused many free persons to sell their labor and become slaves.
The skeptic’s criticism that the New Testament does not speak against the abolition of slavery is misguided for any number of reasons. First, an attempt to generalize and condemn all types of slavery fails to take into account prison, personal debt, indentured servanthood, and a host of other morally permissible situations. Bankruptcy laws, prison terms, community service hours, and garnished wages are morally acceptable modern equivalents to certain types of slavery that were prevalent during the time of the biblical writers. Second, Jesus and the New Testament writers always condemned the mistreatment of any human being, instructing their followers to be kind, loving, and compassionate, whether they were slaves or masters of slaves.
In The Social Record of Christianity, atheist Joseph McCabe wrote: “Slavery is the last word that any Christian apologist ought to mention” (1935, p. 27). But he missed one of the main points in the Bible—that point being that everyone is a slave to something. As the apostle Paul wrote through inspiration:
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:16-18).
Some people are slaves to drug addiction, sexual promiscuity, attitudes of pessimism and complaint, or any number of other vices. Others, however, are slaves to righteousness, teaching the Gospel, helping the sick, and taking care of the poor. We each must decide which master we will allow to control our lives. As the psalmist so beautifully stated it many years ago, “I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Psalm 84:10).
God’s injunctions and instructions pertaining to slavery have a clear ring of justice, compassion, mercy, and kindness to them. When analyzed fairly and fully, the idea of slavery gives the honest person one more piece of evidence that points to the perfection of the God of the Bible.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/slav...istianity.html
also
http://www.christianaction.org.za/ar...eofSlavery.htm
I emphasize that point: we are all slaves to something. You just have to decide who your 'master' is.
depends on context. Have you never heard or used the expression "I'll follow you to the ends of the earth"? You never had your beloved whisper it in your ear?
Well, am sure, if that happened, you didn't whip around and accuse him / her of being ridiculous for proposing the world has corners, that he/she was subscribing to an outmoded model of the earth's structure, that there was no danger of falling off the edge despite Johnny Depp's exploits, and from here on in, your beloved would only be allowed to use words supporting the true spherical nature of planetary existence.........?
conjecture. Show me. can, for my part, show the oppositeThe New Testament is a ragtag assorted and pre-selected set of books written as many as hundreds of years later than Jesus actually lived and chosen by the bunch of powerful men at the time to be their approved set because it said what they wanted.
Really? I don't. Neither do any of the Christians I know.....hmmmmm.As for including the old testament - christians love including it and studying it (much more blood violence and sex in it!) but will dismiss it in a second when anyone brings up a flaw in it.
well, it's not that simple. Unfortunately, the Church is not a single, homogenous entity, as we all know. Referring to the slavery topic from above, there have been Christians who have justified slavery through a reading of scripture, while simultanously we have people like William Wilberforce who was instrumental in abolishing slavery due his conviction that it was not Christian.
In the face of the differing views, I have to come back to Bible on all topics, since it is the foundation for church opinion / perceptions / understandings. And when one does, it does not show radical changes of explanation of the kind you suggest.
In ALL forms of communication, there is a continual struggle for meaning. Between ages, between cultures, between people, gender, race etc. Meaning is continually evolving. So, if science brings up dinosaurs, atoms, DNA, contraception, this does not imply the Bible is wrong, simply because people understood the world differently beforehand. New discoveries enable the Church to deepen its understanding of scripture, to see more shades of grey than before, but that does not entail a sudden rejection of scripture.
if otherwise, please show.
am pretty sure, in the last 30 years or so, we have heard astronauts describe the earth as hanging in space, or read on many occasions of it being 'suspended' in space. Did you criticise any such expressions as being unscientific? Just asking.
I have one response to this allegation: excellent work! Truly. You have me there, fair and square. It would appear I was the lazy one, since I had not gone back to read the Hebrew myself.Secondly I was anything but lazy. I searched and made sure I knew exactly what I knew you would quote in response to the flat earth/circle suggestion.
chuwg does indeed mean circle but it does not translate as sphere. That is your doing and again shows how you choose to interpret the passage. There is a perfectly good word to describe a sphere in Hebrew and that word Kaduwr which translates as ball.
That's something I love about this forum / these kinds of threads. They force me to confront what I believe, to reinvestigate what I claim to know, and in so doing, make me all the better for it.
So, I have a good look after reading the Hebrew. Came across some inspiring stuff, including
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PS...Schneider.html
He makes some beautiful points, including:
How should one read the Bible in light of modern scientific knowledge? This is an issue with many perspectives, and a comprehensive review belongs to another article. But I would like to share some thoughts that I offer to my students for their consideration. I agree with Nelson and Reynolds that one should not read meanings into biblical texts that are not there in order to make them conform to modern scientific knowledge. Regretfully, some of their colleagues in the young earth creationist movement are prone to do just that.
Their writings reveal a sincere devotion to the Bible and a desire to convince others that the Bible is "scientifically accurate," but I have to say, with respect, that I think such extreme readings into the texts really do a disservice to the Bible. In claiming that Holy Scripture contains accurate scientific knowledge that only our age has caught up with, they empty these passages of their historical, cultural, or cosmological meanings and impose upon them meanings which the texts themselves simply cannot bear. As Augustine put it, so well, they find not what is in Scripture but in themselves as interpreters. Consequently, what the biblical writers themselves sought to convey is lost, and the Christian who reads these and other texts through these creationist lenses is deprived of the pleasure of wrestling with their intended meanings
and
The biblical writers offer believers a valuable lesson for interpreting the doctrine of creation: one can take whatever is the current cosmological model and use it to understand
more deeply and clearly God's relationship to the creation.
He comes across like a combination of ye olde scholar and Obi Wan.
A good question, but I'll make it even more complicated: which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which metaphorically and when?Please can you point out which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which metaphorically. I'll leave the why for now.
Yep, a scripture can be read both ways. Simultaneously. And within the figurative, many, many variations. How so? Well, in reading something from a historical passage (this person said X and did Y), we can glean historical knowledge, but also find meaning in applying those situations to our own circumstances. A spiritual application, of infinite shades. Awesome. And 10 people reading the same passage can each find something that speaks to their context & situation. Awesome x 2.
Does that mean we can simply read whatever we want? no. I'll quote another text:
"Usually we discern the difference between literal and figurative speech automatically, without even thinking about it. Often this is because a literal interpretation doesn’t make sense, so we switch to a figurative interpretation. When your friend said he was "flying down the road" in his car, you were not tempted to take him literally, because 1) doing so didn’t really make sense (you know cars don’t fly), and 2) you have heard others use the same expression as a synonym for "fast."
Another way to avoid misunderstanding and ensure you correctly interpret someone’s statement is to ask for clarification. Of course, in the case of the Bible, the authors are all dead and cannot be questioned nor give clarifications, so we must use other methods to interpret what they meant.
What are those "other methods"? Are we free to pick whatever meaning we wish to believe, as the skeptic charges in regards to the Bible? Well, of course not.
Everyone knows that in such a case you must perform a careful inquiry and objective analysis to learn what the writer or speaker meant. What everyone does not seem to know, especially Bible skeptics, is that a method exists to try to ascertain the speakers/writer’s intended meaning— it is called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics can be defined as, "The theory and methodology of interpretation [of statements], especially of scriptural text" (American Heritage Dictionary). One essential tenet of hermeneutics is that figures of speech are not licenses to insert whatever meaning one wants. They are, instead, linguistic devices that are known and understood by linguists to convey truths in a certain way once one has learned about them.
Even with this explanation, we should not conclude that everyone will agree on the exact meaning of every single statement the Bible makes. But people don’t agree on the meaning of every single statement of Shakespeare, the President of the United States, or even the meaning of federal and state laws (and laws are virtually always made to be crystal clear and understood literally!). Nor will they ever all agree on the meaning of every single scripture. Furthermore, even if they did agree on the meaning of every scripture, they would not agree on every single doctrine, because scriptures must often be combined to understand a single doctrine.
But just because people will never agree unanimously on the correct interpretation of every single statement made by another, or every single biblical statement, does not mean we are free to throw up our hands and make up whatever meaning we want. Such a view is nonsense, and it is seen by everyone to be nonsense, even by Bible skeptics when they speak of the meaning of anything except Scripture (in which case they adopt the nonsensical view).
So, again, regarding non-biblical statements, ask yourself: "Do I take whatever anyone says or writes literally?" The correct answer is: "I take the literal statements literally, and the figurative statements figuratively. I use my common sense, my experience, and my knowledge of language and grammar to know the difference and to determine what the figures of speech mean."
And, likewise, what if someone asks you, "Do you take the Bible literally?" The correct answer is: "I take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and I use common sense, my experience, my knowledge of language and grammar, and the techniques of hermeneutics to know the difference and help me interpret the statements." <snip>…"just like you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything."
http://www.christianodyssey.com/bible/0706literally.htm
I have included the entire passage because it may well help those less familiar with hermeneutics etc.
Last edited by fuddam; 22-07-2008 at 11:06 AM.
I guess this highlights my, not problem exactly, but issue with the idea of a religion such as Christianity (it is not by any means on it's own here). This has come up again and again, so i don't really want to dwell on it for boredom's sake! It's why i can't really see how Religions can work if they all split off into different groups who all believe slightly different things. I guess my issue here is that this implies that each different sect prescribes to a slightly different God, one who accepts more or less amounts of deviation, interpretation (and indeed hesitation and repetition too
Primarily because it is a book on how to live your life rather than a guide to how the universe works? (to go back to Quakerism, that's partially why Advices and Queries works well to my mind) But again, this does also require you to have a more liberal view on the Bible. If you believe it word for word then there's a lot of stuff in there that doesn't correlate with current world knowledge - obvious examples would be the great flood, the people who live for 900+ years, etc.
However, just like laws are altered to compensate for new developments in culture - the DMCA for example - would the Bible ever be altered to fit in? Or is it simply a case of saying "ah well this is sort of like stealing, so i can't do it"? Which is, quite frankly, a rather dangerous way of doing things in my opinion - not to tar with the same brush, but it's partly how terrorists can claim that they're doing what they do for their God. That's an extreme example, but the minority are always the ones that leave an impression.
Now whilst i have no problem with you interpreting the Bible as you will (hey, it's your religion, do what you want mmkay), the question was really more aimed at Christianity in general - no matter how many sects and little back alleys of interpretaion there are, all Christians in theory should do pretty much the same thing, otherwise it wouldn't be a religion. Obviously there are some things which really touch a nerve with the church - gay bishops for one - and the only reason that they touch nerves is because they lift them from the Bible. It could be argued, i think, that if the Bible had said "if a man chooses to lie with another man then he may" then they wouldn't have a problem with it. If a bill is passed, or the ecumenical equivalent, to say that it's ok for gays to be in the clergy, surely this is a rejection of scripture?
Another guy who reads things wrong! I am not thinking that Stewart or anyone else is trying to change my mind 'personally'. I have stated that numerous times. No inconsistencies in what i believe. Nothing can shake my faith matey. I am not saying anyone is trying to change my mind.
Just get back on topic now for goodness sake!! Gee.
Last edited by Koolpc; 22-07-2008 at 05:53 PM.
Re: Fuddam, A Few Moments Of Your Time Please.
not a different God, but a different understanding of certain details concerning His word.I guess this highlights my, not problem exactly, but issue with the idea of a religion such as Christianity (it is not by any means on it's own here). This has come up again and again, so i don't really want to dwell on it for boredom's sake! It's why i can't really see how Religions can work if they all split off into different groups who all believe slightly different things. I guess my issue here is that this implies that each different sect prescribes to a slightly different God, one who accepts more or less amounts of deviation, interpretation (and indeed hesitation and repetition too
eg, if you walk into any Christian church in the world, you should get the following acknowledged and accepted: God is the Creator, who is a trinity in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, who sent His son to die for our sins, who died sinless so that we might have salvation, that we will see Him again when He returns etc etc. (which would not be accepted by the JW's, the Mormons etc. )
You might get different understandings on the role of Mary, contraception, communion amongst others, but could still worship alongside each other.
To accept the Bible, one has to accept the existence of the supernatural. Otherwise you're just looking at it as a few good ideas, coupled to loads of myth (eg the very existence of God). So, occurences like the flood, the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection, miracles etc all fall into that realm. One could not be a Christian and deny all those scriptures as fantasy (although some try to do so) since Christ himself is negated, His promise of salvation is negated, the defeat of sin does not happen. One would have to deny that Christ was sinless - not compatible with the Bible.Primarily because it is a book on how to live your life rather than a guide to how the universe works? (to go back to Quakerism, that's partially why Advices and Queries works well to my mind) But again, this does also require you to have a more liberal view on the Bible. If you believe it word for word then there's a lot of stuff in there that doesn't correlate with current world knowledge - obvious examples would be the great flood, the people who live for 900+ years, etc.
as to whether there's any proof any of the Bible's supernatural accounts happened, well, more and more material is coming to light all the time, and it doesn't conflict with scripture.........
The Bible claims to be the Truth, about all things. It is not primarily intended as a self-help book.
sorry, am ignorant about who or what the DMCA is, and too rushed to google it. I await your explanation.However, just like laws are altered to compensate for new developments in culture - the DMCA for example - would the Bible ever be altered to fit in? Or is it simply a case of saying "ah well this is sort of like stealing, so i can't do it"? Which is, quite frankly, a rather dangerous way of doing things in my opinion - not to tar with the same brush, but it's partly how terrorists can claim that they're doing what they do for their God. That's an extreme example, but the minority are always the ones that leave an impression.
agreedno matter how many sects and little back alleys of interpretaion there are, all Christians in theory should do pretty much the same thing, otherwise it wouldn't be a religion.
it's not that simple, unfortunately. eg Contraception. People have argued both for and against using it. They have obviously used scripture to back their case. Who is right?Obviously there are some things which really touch a nerve with the church - gay bishops for one - and the only reason that they touch nerves is because they lift them from the Bible. It could be argued, i think, that if the Bible had said "if a man chooses to lie with another man then he may" then they wouldn't have a problem with it. If a bill is passed, or the ecumenical equivalent, to say that it's ok for gays to be in the clergy, surely this is a rejection of scripture?
Well, on that specific matter (in case you're curious), the Bible is both for and against contraception, because it depends on what TYPE one uses. It's not as simple as a blanket ban or acceptance of the issue.
Ultimately, one has to follow one's conscience. On that the Bible is quite clear, but at the same time, cultures can effect one's conscience, so it has to be followed hand in hand with a healthy study /reading of scripture, of debate, of eldership, of fellowship. Bible plus conscience = the best path for the individual.
Gay clergy? Gay people are people. People can be clergy.
note: that is a different matter from a gay clergyman *advocating* homosexuality from the pulpit.
So just to clarify, all Christians should subscribe to a series of "base" beliefs, but you're free to interpret the rest - provided your goal in life is basically the same thing?
Well, again, it's all perspective ain't itTo accept the Bible, one has to accept the existence of the supernatural. Otherwise you're just looking at it as a few good ideas, coupled to loads of myth (eg the very existence of God). So, occurences like the flood, the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection, miracles etc all fall into that realm. One could not be a Christian and deny all those scriptures as fantasy (although some try to do so) since Christ himself is negated, His promise of salvation is negated, the defeat of sin does not happen. One would have to deny that Christ was sinless - not compatible with the Bible.
as to whether there's any proof any of the Bible's supernatural accounts happened, well, more and more material is coming to light all the time, and it doesn't conflict with scripture.........
Certainly there are many good theories for the various "miracles" in the Bible, most of which would have seemed like miracles to the people witnessing them - i believe the flood is suspected to be a valley flooding in the Mediterranean or something along those lines? It's like folk thinking a dragon was swallowing the sun when in fact it was a simple (haha) eclipse. Doesn't conflict maybe, but some makes it a bit more mundane
Primarily no, but would you disagree that many Christians use it as one? Certainly i know people who own Bible companions which has an index of "things that might be problems" and a correseponding Bible verse to show an analogy. They do not see the Bible as the entire Truth, but as a useful
The DMCA was the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, legislation brought into power in the US a few years back to try and cope with the effects that the internet and computing had had on piracy. A more native example would be Data Protection, a law brought in to cope with new technological developments. I gave it as an example as how scripture changes to reflect the times.
But by that, then surely you are using it as a philosophical "self help" (obviously it's deeper and more complicated than that) book? I don't want to brandish the "What would JC do?" wristbands, but it sounds a little like what you're describing - not that it's necessarily a bad thing!
But all this hoo-hah in the news at the moment about bishops actually refusing to go to a meeting because of disagreement clearly shows that this isn't the case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7474525.stm
I guess my point is.. it may all be down to interpretation, but is it possible to have a coherent, stable religion if even some of the highest members of the religion disagree with each other in such a way?
Indeed how can you have a coherent religion if the entire flock interprets the Bible differently?
(apologies for my ignorance on this one, i'm not sure if the argument is specifically bishops rather than "lower" level positions in the church)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
