Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Quirkybird, May 25, 2014.
I am not sure what you wanted me to say?
I expected you to engage in rational debate
You were the one who brought up the subject of Federal funding of non-scriptural activities, so I am keeping on topic.
You want to make a stand on the issue, but refuse to consider anything other than a couple of sexual issues? Is this because you never considered that making war might be against the teachings of Jesus?
Heaven, Hell, man made constructs for me... The ever popular what were the people like in the town you left story... Create, believe what you will about the next life in this life if it suits you in this life. Tis a shame to force same on others though... You made your bed.... we don't have to lie in it.
Sorry for the misunderstanding! I do recall thinking it strange that you would say all that because I normally don't have much of a problem with the things you say.
Now I don't know what to do. I guess I'll just let that post float down to the bottom.
The war and torture subject is still a diversion and a red herring. You should stick with the statement I made because you challenged that very statement, did you not? There is no reason to bring in additional variables and have me declare my stance on those too.
I simply stated that I don't like the government taking my tax dollars to fund unscriptural practices. 2 practices I specifically cited were abortion and promiscuous sex. Now, unless you want to argue that the bible does not necessarily forbid these practices, my claim stands. We can talk about my position on war and torture once we are done with this part. But if you want a little hint on them (though I will not go any further down that road yet) it goes like this: the bible clearly doesn't forbid governments from declaring war, and "torture" is a matter of opinion. The government denies using my tax dollars to fund the torturing of anyone. But even with that said, I haven't revealed my position on the subject of war and torture. Just because I haven't mentioned them, it doesn't necessarily mean that I support them.
Essentially, your red herring argument says that my claim to be against the use of my tax dollars to fund actions that the bible forbids, is false because I didn't include all the other actions my tax dollars support and whether or not the bible supports those actions. What you are not understanding is, just because I mentioned only 2 things out of what could be an infinite list, that does not render my claim false. To go outside the 2 items I mentioned is an unnecessary diversion.
No worrys. What's that saying, no harm no foul? Or was it no farm no fowl? Or maybe it was no foul fowl? Whatever, you get my drift, eh?
I believe I was quite rational about my point of view where the Biblical deity is concerned! If you don't think so fair enough, no worries!
In what way do you consider a non-sequitur answer to be rational?
You are getting boring! If you don't like my comments then you don't have to respond to them, it is as simple as that.
Hey, Wil — where the heck have you been!
Well, we all need our myths, as a wise old man once said to me.
If we're talking about the version of heaven and hell assumed of Christianity here, then we're well overdue an inquiry into the concept behind the construct, the idea behind why Our Lord chose gehenna as opposed to sheol or hades.
But that's another thread.
Big Hugz my brother, I've been on a sabbatical in my mind, refreshing, rejuvenating and ruminating
I look forward to that thread Thomas!
Oh...and just because anything is a man made construct...does not make it bad...
yes their are lessons in our myths, allegories, parables, that are sooooo worthy of contemplation...
my love is how they adapt to our life circumstances...and how numerous the lessons in any one scripture are....
I see in that the myths, metaphors, allegories and parables allude to first principles, the foundations of ontology ("None is good but God alone" Luke 18:19); of anthropology (the Beatitudes); of metaphysics ("I am the true vine" John 15:1); of the eschaton (gehenna); of ethics ...
I love that verse, because depending on the context, it could mean 2 completely different things. Early on in my Christian walk, I presented that verse as possible evidence that Jesus was claiming to be completely separate from God. He said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (ESV)
I took Jesus to be saying it is incorrect to have called Jesus good, because only God (therefore not Jesus) is good.
But then a seasoned Christian turned it around and said, no, Jesus was trying to make the listener realize, that by proclaiming Jesus as good, he was also proclaiming Jesus as God... which was correct, not incorrect.
Just interesting, is all. There are other verses in the bible which, depending on the context, can have opposite meanings. The rub is, knowing the correct context, and that takes study. Many people don't realize that proper biblical Exegesis requires not just a thorough knowledge of the words of Scripture, but a thorough knowledge of the times in which they were written and the culture of the people in that place, at that time. Not to mention a thorough knowledge of the writer, his style, his tendencies, etc. Without all that, a person (such as myself in the initial example) with good intentions can still walk away with a message quite opposite of what the author intended.
And on so many levels. That's why sola scriptura as is assumed today (which was never what the actual fathers of that doctrine intended) is a non starter, really. That's why without the commentaries of the Tradition, you're really in the dark.
There are many who argue that Jesus never declared His divinity. But then by saying that really one's ignoring the context of time and place and audience. One's reading His words through the lens of post-modern skepticism, rather that Second Temple Judaism. From that viewpoint, there is ample evidence that He did just that. It's what got Him crucified, after all.
Sitz im leben
I am having a hard time with the concept that in modern times millions of Christians reading the Bible every day have no clue what the text means.
Credo ut intelligam
All Christians--especially including the literal and figurative children--understand plenty enough of the bible on their own, to take in the milk - that which matters most. Later, when the Christian has matured enough and is ready, he/she can take in the meat. The milk-fed Christians may not understand all the nuances of every verse. But the point is they don't have to. Being forgiven and saved isn't contingent upon grasping the mystery of the Trinity, or completely understanding the Parable of the Sower.
As there are so many doctrines, dogmas ,sects and cults associated with Christianity, it is quite clear people interpret the Bible in the way which suits their needs!
Separate names with a comma.