Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interpreting the Bible...

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:39:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?

Some parts are said, in the book, that they are parables. To just claim certain parts are parables is flawed.

If A isn't supposed to be taken literally, why should B be? Or C? D? etc.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RulerOfNone
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:41:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A literal interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what with all the miracles, mysticism, and whatnot. And there are some parts that wouldn't even make sense metaphorically.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:00:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:41:46 AM, RulerOfNone wrote:
A literal interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what with all the miracles, mysticism, and whatnot. And there are some parts that wouldn't even make sense metaphorically.

I am simply questioning the authors' original intent, not whether the stories are believable or not.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:03:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.

I agree some books are obviously not meant to be taken literally. What do you think about taking Genesis literally?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:09:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:03:28 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.

I agree some books are obviously not meant to be taken literally. What do you think about taking Genesis literally?

It's bad hermeneutics and generally just makes Christians look foolish when people insist on placing the bedrock of their faith on a "literal" reading of Genesis. (They never do take Genesis TOO literally, though. If they did they'd believe that the sky is a solid firmament that the stars are set fixed into and the earth is flat, etc.)

As St. augustine said (over a 1000 years ago):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:30:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:09:57 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:03:28 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.

I agree some books are obviously not meant to be taken literally. What do you think about taking Genesis literally?

It's bad hermeneutics and generally just makes Christians look foolish when people insist on placing the bedrock of their faith on a "literal" reading of Genesis. (They never do take Genesis TOO literally, though. If they did they'd believe that the sky is a solid firmament that the stars are set fixed into and the earth is flat, etc.)

What was the original intent though? Even St. augustine believed the geneaologies in Genesis to be true, and man was created in an instant. Do you think St. Augustine was incorrect in his understanding? I don't believe you interpret Genesis figuratively because you are worried about looking foolish.

As St. augustine said (over a 1000 years ago):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]."
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RulerOfNone
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:34:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:00:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:41:46 AM, RulerOfNone wrote:
A literal interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what with all the miracles, mysticism, and whatnot. And there are some parts that wouldn't even make sense metaphorically.

I am simply questioning the authors' original intent, not whether the stories are believable or not.

I imagine the original intent would be similar to the intent behind most religions. Writing stories to explain what couldn't be explained at the time, codifying laws, providing order to the chaos of early civilization.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
Because some christians believe that A&E is literal and some believe it is mythological.
Ya see if A&E is myth then there is NO NEED for the Jesus character who appears later in the myth and that makes christianity a myth.
And if A&E are literal then there is absolutely zero evidence that supports.
Either way Christianity, Judaism and Islam are LIES.

Simple isn't it?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:45:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:34:55 AM, RulerOfNone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:00:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:41:46 AM, RulerOfNone wrote:
A literal interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what with all the miracles, mysticism, and whatnot. And there are some parts that wouldn't even make sense metaphorically.

I am simply questioning the authors' original intent, not whether the stories are believable or not.

I imagine the original intent would be similar to the intent behind most religions. Writing stories to explain what couldn't be explained at the time, codifying laws, providing order to the chaos of early civilization.

Ok, I agree with this, and a literal story is needed for there to be explanatory power. Otherwise, it is simply fiction. Wouldn't you agree?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:47:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?
That depends on what you mean by literal. If you mean literal without use of figure of speech, hyperbole, etc., then no.

If I tell you the Sun rose this morning around 6 AM, did it literally rise at 6 AM? In the sense that it made it's visual appearance at 6 AM, yes! In the sense that the earth stopped moving, and the Sun did the rotating, no!

I think what you're getting at is the message the authors gave was to be taken literally at face value without contextual, cultural, or generational implication. The intentions of the authors can be easily interpreted regardless of the age in which the reader exists in. And of course I would disagree. I think every man needs to dig deeper into scripture each passing day just like an archaeologist keeps digging, scientists keep exploring, etc.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:49:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:47:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
That depends on what you mean by literal.
That would be what it SAYS.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:51:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
Because some christians believe that A&E is literal and some believe it is mythological.
Ya see if A&E is myth then there is NO NEED for the Jesus character who appears later in the myth and that makes christianity a myth.

That doesn't follow. Jesus' redemption doesn't depend on the existence of a literal two person pair. the only way you could possibly think that is if you think christianity depends on the reading that a & e somehow made the rest of humanity "fall" due to their disobedience from a state of perfection (etc, etc.) The problem is that it doesn't.

And if A&E are literal then there is absolutely zero evidence that supports.
Either way Christianity, Judaism and Islam are LIES.

Simple isn't it?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
RulerOfNone
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:55:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:45:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:34:55 AM, RulerOfNone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:00:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:41:46 AM, RulerOfNone wrote:
A literal interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what with all the miracles, mysticism, and whatnot. And there are some parts that wouldn't even make sense metaphorically.

I am simply questioning the authors' original intent, not whether the stories are believable or not.

I imagine the original intent would be similar to the intent behind most religions. Writing stories to explain what couldn't be explained at the time, codifying laws, providing order to the chaos of early civilization.

Ok, I agree with this, and a literal story is needed for there to be explanatory power. Otherwise, it is simply fiction. Wouldn't you agree?

Right. So at the very least, the explanatory bits are probably meant to be literal.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:56:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:47:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?
That depends on what you mean by literal. If you mean literal without use of figure of speech, hyperbole, etc., then no.

If I tell you the Sun rose this morning around 6 AM, did it literally rise at 6 AM? In the sense that it made it's visual appearance at 6 AM, yes! In the sense that the earth stopped moving, and the Sun did the rotating, no!

I think what you're getting at is the message the authors gave was to be taken literally at face value without contextual, cultural, or generational implication. The intentions of the authors can be easily interpreted regardless of the age in which the reader exists in. And of course I would disagree. I think every man needs to dig deeper into scripture each passing day just like an archaeologist keeps digging, scientists keep exploring, etc.

No, that's not my point. Obviously, an unrealistic literal interpretation of everything is absurd, and I'm not petitioning for that at all. I was actually thinking of examples like Genesis and the creation story. The historical tradition of Christian creation has been a literal creation week, and this happened thousands of years ago (not billions). Shouldn't it be understood as it was originally meant?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:07:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:56:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:47:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?
That depends on what you mean by literal. If you mean literal without use of figure of speech, hyperbole, etc., then no.

If I tell you the Sun rose this morning around 6 AM, did it literally rise at 6 AM? In the sense that it made it's visual appearance at 6 AM, yes! In the sense that the earth stopped moving, and the Sun did the rotating, no!

I think what you're getting at is the message the authors gave was to be taken literally at face value without contextual, cultural, or generational implication. The intentions of the authors can be easily interpreted regardless of the age in which the reader exists in. And of course I would disagree. I think every man needs to dig deeper into scripture each passing day just like an archaeologist keeps digging, scientists keep exploring, etc.

No, that's not my point. Obviously, an unrealistic literal interpretation of everything is absurd, and I'm not petitioning for that at all. I was actually thinking of examples like Genesis and the creation story. The historical tradition of Christian creation has been a literal creation week, and this happened thousands of years ago (not billions). Shouldn't it be understood as it was originally meant?

Nah...YEC is a relatively recent phenomenom in Christanity...

http://www.amazon.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:13:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:56:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:47:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?
That depends on what you mean by literal. If you mean literal without use of figure of speech, hyperbole, etc., then no.

If I tell you the Sun rose this morning around 6 AM, did it literally rise at 6 AM? In the sense that it made it's visual appearance at 6 AM, yes! In the sense that the earth stopped moving, and the Sun did the rotating, no!

I think what you're getting at is the message the authors gave was to be taken literally at face value without contextual, cultural, or generational implication. The intentions of the authors can be easily interpreted regardless of the age in which the reader exists in. And of course I would disagree. I think every man needs to dig deeper into scripture each passing day just like an archaeologist keeps digging, scientists keep exploring, etc.

No, that's not my point. Obviously, an unrealistic literal interpretation of everything is absurd, and I'm not petitioning for that at all. I was actually thinking of examples like Genesis and the creation story. The historical tradition of Christian creation has been a literal creation week, and this happened thousands of years ago (not billions). Shouldn't it be understood as it was originally meant?
From what I can tell so far, the literal creation week seems the most accurate scripture wise. But I could be wrong. There are those who seem to emphasize the importance of taking creation as a literal 6 week time period. There are Christians who teach that the universe is a billion years old. But I'm not sure how many of them are just conforming scripture with modern science, and which one's believe that the Bible does not teach a literal creation week.

If the Bible teaches a literal creation week, then uniformitarianism would be a probable issue. And I don't see any reason to rule out a 6 day creation under that principle. Creating a universe is already an impossibility. So why should I dismiss the idea that the process of natural law operated the same during that time period?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:14:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:13:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:56:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:47:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?
That depends on what you mean by literal. If you mean literal without use of figure of speech, hyperbole, etc., then no.

If I tell you the Sun rose this morning around 6 AM, did it literally rise at 6 AM? In the sense that it made it's visual appearance at 6 AM, yes! In the sense that the earth stopped moving, and the Sun did the rotating, no!

I think what you're getting at is the message the authors gave was to be taken literally at face value without contextual, cultural, or generational implication. The intentions of the authors can be easily interpreted regardless of the age in which the reader exists in. And of course I would disagree. I think every man needs to dig deeper into scripture each passing day just like an archaeologist keeps digging, scientists keep exploring, etc.

No, that's not my point. Obviously, an unrealistic literal interpretation of everything is absurd, and I'm not petitioning for that at all. I was actually thinking of examples like Genesis and the creation story. The historical tradition of Christian creation has been a literal creation week, and this happened thousands of years ago (not billions). Shouldn't it be understood as it was originally meant?
From what I can tell so far, the literal creation week seems the most accurate scripture wise. But I could be wrong. There are those who seem to emphasize the importance of taking creation as a literal 6 week time period. There are Christians who teach that the universe is a billion years old. But I'm not sure how many of them are just conforming scripture with modern science, and which one's believe that the Bible does not teach a literal creation week.

If the Bible teaches a literal creation week, then uniformitarianism would be a probable issue. And I don't see any reason to rule out a 6 day creation under that principle. Creating a universe is already an impossibility. So why should I dismiss the idea that the process of natural law operated the same during that time period?

Did not operate the same during that time period?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:18:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:30:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:09:57 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:03:28 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.

I agree some books are obviously not meant to be taken literally. What do you think about taking Genesis literally?

It's bad hermeneutics and generally just makes Christians look foolish when people insist on placing the bedrock of their faith on a "literal" reading of Genesis. (They never do take Genesis TOO literally, though. If they did they'd believe that the sky is a solid firmament that the stars are set fixed into and the earth is flat, etc.)

What was the original intent though?

I think there is more than one and I don't have enough time to expound upon all fo the ones I know of. But a prominent one I think is important to highlight is that it functions as a polemic against other ANE (ancient near east) creation myths (and by myths, I do NOT mean in the colloquial sense, which is basically used as a subsitute for "fiction"). This is why Genesis has so many smiliarites to other ANE creation myths. The Jews basically reworked the stories to show the power and love of God. For example, in other stores creation is presented as coming through the slaying of gods and gods fighting each other (this is the chaos theme that is always present in thsoe stories). In Genesis we have God alone taming the chaos and creating and subjugating the lesser gods (moons and stars and the sun were looked at as gods). It shows his soveriegnty and him creating through soley his goodness and love.

Also, it is fairly well established that (most parts of) Genesis was written during the Israeli exodus when (contrary to popular belief it is NOT the oldest book in the bible, not by a long shot) Jews were looking for an identity. In a way Genesis is telling about their search for identity as well.

I typed that out really fast and as such I couldn't link to the biblical scholarship I am referring to but it's there. I may be able to come back and post the links.

Even St. augustine believed the geneaologies in Genesis to be true, and man was created in an instant. Do you think St. Augustine was incorrect in his understanding? I don't believe you interpret Genesis figuratively because you are worried about looking foolish.


Oh, yeah. I am definitely not worried about that. lol

As St. augustine said (over a 1000 years ago):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:19:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.

Because they don't want to. Remember, when asked if "raining cats and dogs" meant that dogs and cats were literally falling from the sky, bulproof declined to answer.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:19:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:51:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
Because some christians believe that A&E is literal and some believe it is mythological.
Ya see if A&E is myth then there is NO NEED for the Jesus character who appears later in the myth and that makes christianity a myth.


That doesn't follow. Jesus' redemption doesn't depend on the existence of a literal two person pair. the only way you could possibly think that is if you think christianity depends on the reading that a & e somehow made the rest of humanity "fall" due to their disobedience from a state of perfection (etc, etc.) The problem is that it doesn't.


And if A&E are literal then there is absolutely zero evidence that supports.
Either way Christianity, Judaism and Islam are LIES.

Simple isn't it?

Don't look now dude but that is what 95% of the 38K christian denominations TEACH.
Just because you disagree and yet still call yourself a christian is a problem to be sorted between you and them. 2.5billion verses YOU.

Not my problem.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:22:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
Because some christians believe that A&E is literal and some believe it is mythological.
Ya see if A&E is myth then there is NO NEED for the Jesus character who appears later in the myth and that makes christianity a myth.
And if A&E are literal then there is absolutely zero evidence that supports.
Either way Christianity, Judaism and Islam are LIES.

Simple isn't it?

Simple-minded, yes
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't.

Sometimes GOD is telling us the TRUTH and sometimes he's NOT.

Do you get it now atheists?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:30:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:19:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:51:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
Because some christians believe that A&E is literal and some believe it is mythological.
Ya see if A&E is myth then there is NO NEED for the Jesus character who appears later in the myth and that makes christianity a myth.


That doesn't follow. Jesus' redemption doesn't depend on the existence of a literal two person pair. the only way you could possibly think that is if you think christianity depends on the reading that a & e somehow made the rest of humanity "fall" due to their disobedience from a state of perfection (etc, etc.) The problem is that it doesn't.


And if A&E are literal then there is absolutely zero evidence that supports.
Either way Christianity, Judaism and Islam are LIES.

Simple isn't it?

Don't look now dude but that is what 95% of the 38K christian denominations TEACH.
Just because you disagree and yet still call yourself a christian is a problem to be sorted between you and them. 2.5billion verses YOU.

Not my problem.

You're full of it. You don't know what "95%" of the of the "38k" denominations teach.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:24:44 PM, bulproof wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't.

Sometimes GOD is telling us the TRUTH and sometimes he's NOT.

Do you get it now atheists?

Are you really this fundamentalist?

Say it's raining really hard. I say "it's raining cats and dogs out here!" Bulproof walks in and declares me a liar because it is not literally raining cats and dogs. Everybody looks at bulproof in shock and awe and bemusement because he clearly missed the point
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:59:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:33:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:24:44 PM, bulproof wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't.

Sometimes GOD is telling us the TRUTH and sometimes he's NOT.

Do you get it now atheists?

Are you really this fundamentalist?

Say it's raining really hard. I say "it's raining cats and dogs out here!" Bulproof walks in and declares me a liar because it is not literally raining cats and dogs. Everybody looks at bulproof in shock and awe and bemusement because he clearly missed the point

Who? So YOU say it's raining cats and dogs is exactly the same as your god saying it's raining cats and dogs.
What are the idioms that your god uses in his conversations with his prophets? Or are they just writing their own sh*t? Heaven forbid.

Ya see you people need to decide whether or not your holy book is the word of your god or it's the word of the goatshaggers who wrote it.

Make up your mind and stick to it.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:29:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 10:35:53 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I have noticed some Christians interpret the Bible very literally, and some feel a figurative understanding is appropriate. For what it's worth, I feel the Bible was intended to be understood literally. Which way do you feel is best, and why?

I think it should be understood as the writer meant and people should not usually make any interpretations, but read the whole text and let it explain the meaning of all what is written.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:53:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:59:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:33:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:24:44 PM, bulproof wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't.

Sometimes GOD is telling us the TRUTH and sometimes he's NOT.

Do you get it now atheists?

Are you really this fundamentalist?

Say it's raining really hard. I say "it's raining cats and dogs out here!" Bulproof walks in and declares me a liar because it is not literally raining cats and dogs. Everybody looks at bulproof in shock and awe and bemusement because he clearly missed the point

Who? So YOU say it's raining cats and dogs is exactly the same as your god saying it's raining cats and dogs.
What are the idioms that your god uses in his conversations with his prophets? Or are they just writing their own sh*t? Heaven forbid.

Ya see you people need to decide whether or not your holy book is the word of your god or it's the word of the goatshaggers who wrote it.

Make up your mind and stick to it.

This shows that you have no idea what Christians mean when they say the bible is scripture. smh
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:30:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:19:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:51:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 10:45:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Some parts are literal, some parts aren't. I don't understand why so many people have a problem accepting this. It's the same with any other type of literature, yet no one ever adopts an all or nothing approach with them.
Because some christians believe that A&E is literal and some believe it is mythological.
Ya see if A&E is myth then there is NO NEED for the Jesus character who appears later in the myth and that makes christianity a myth.


That doesn't follow. Jesus' redemption doesn't depend on the existence of a literal two person pair. the only way you could possibly think that is if you think christianity depends on the reading that a & e somehow made the rest of humanity "fall" due to their disobedience from a state of perfection (etc, etc.) The problem is that it doesn't.


And if A&E are literal then there is absolutely zero evidence that supports.
Either way Christianity, Judaism and Islam are LIES.

Simple isn't it?

Don't look now dude but that is what 95% of the 38K christian denominations TEACH.
Just because you disagree and yet still call yourself a christian is a problem to be sorted between you and them. 2.5billion verses YOU.

Not my problem.

You're full of it. You don't know what "95%" of the of the "38k" denominations teach.

And, bulproof, are you going to answer this? How do you know what "95%" of the "38k" denominations teach on this specific issue?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!