Personal beliefs and Laws.

[Gregorio]

look, it's been said before. the bible can be interpreted however you want to, that's why it's so puopular because people can justify and support what wickedness they committed with biblical passages so they can sleep better at night.

you also can't argue with people who believe in a 2000-year old book written by a bunch of men who thought that the 6000 year old earth was the center of the universe, and that cheating women, gays, etc should be tortured and killed.

The bible can be interpreted to promote evil in the same way extremist Muslims use the koran to justify killing innocents, however, that interpretation is just flat out wrong. Serial killers interpret a dog barking as orders to kill people too, but that doesn't make the interpretation right at all.

And yeah blame the men 2000 years ago for not knowing the world was round (they should have learned 1st grade science!!!!) or having different cultures than we do today (we eat animals today, will civilizations 2000 years ago see us as barbarians?).

No, that is also incorrect Gregorio. The apple was not a direct cause of death; it was God imposing the concept of death upon mankind. Depending on what you choose to believe, the serpent didn't actually lie, because he was correct in saying the apple would not cause their deaths.

God didn't say the apple itself would kill them, he said that they would die. Being able to read the words after the story was told, we are able to see that he implied that they would lose paradise. And even through causation, the apple would technically be the "direct cause of death", because eating the apple lead Gods punishment.

no, the apple is not the direct cause of death. the act of eating the apple is. it represents the act of defiance and rebellion, against god's authority.

Thanks for clearing that up...Here I thought that since we've been discussing Adam and Eve eating the apple the whole time that the actual process of biting, chewing, swallowing, and digesting it would be assumed when I mentioned "the apple". Guess not though.

[Inverse]

look, it's been said before. the bible can be interpreted however you want to, that's why it's so puopular because people can justify and support what wickedness they committed with biblical passages so they can sleep better at night.

you also can't argue with people who believe in a 2000-year old book written by a bunch of men who thought that the 6000 year old earth was the center of the universe, and that cheating women, gays, etc should be tortured and killed.

The bible can be interpreted to promote evil in the same way extremist Muslims use the koran to justify killing innocents, however, that interpretation is just flat out wrong. Serial killers interpret a dog barking as orders to kill people too, but that doesn't make the interpretation right at all.

And yeah blame the men 2000 years ago for not knowing the world was round (they should have learned 1st grade science!!!!) or having different cultures than we do today (we eat animals today, will civilizations 2000 years ago see us as barbarians?).

i never said the interpretations are right, they're meant for the conscience.

plenty of genocides and carnages were justified the perpetrators' personal subjective interpretation of the biblical passages. however, in god's case, no one can conclusively say that he was killing people for the wrong reason because we never know the entire story. also, believers don't question, and non-believers don't care.

[Tricen]

Bible is a good place to have a relative comparisons to moral standards. So are story tales. I think the movie Dogma explains it real well.

[BRP]

cue the people who argue only to argue.

Hay guys, wats going on in this thread?

[Swampthing]

I doubt very much, any more, BRP. It will probably die now that it seems everything was "roughly" settled lol.

[Tricen]

cue the people who argue only to argue.

Hay guys, wats going on in this thread?

You don't want to know.

[Maguspk]

Sometimes when I poop my butt bleeds a little.

[Swampthing]

Sometimes when I poop my butt bleeds a little.

dude get out, me too!

[Bartylby]

commence 2+ pages of belief vs science


taking odds:

1:1,000 belief wins

1:1,000 science wins

1:1 both sides stalemate

PLACE YOUR BETS

AND THE STALEMATES HAVE WON!

pay up fuckers

[Swampthing]

commence 2+ pages of belief vs science


taking odds:

1:1,000 belief wins

1:1,000 science wins

1:1 both sides stalemate

PLACE YOUR BETS

AND THE STALEMATES HAVE WON!

pay up fuckers

nowai! you still owe me $$$ from the thing with the guy in the place...

[Melchiah]

Yeah, I know how Melchiah works, and I just won't waste my time being drawn into what is nothing more than a fruitless debate. I know full well Melchiah that you don't give a rats ass about anything but what your mind is already so dead set on.

The only thing that I will do for you in this thread is impart one single truth to you. They did die in the day of their eating it, because guess what? Mankind is STILL in that day. A day to Jehovah is thousands of years on our human calendar. God said they would die in the very day of their eating it, and they did die during Jehovah's seventh day.

The whole universe is still in Jehovah's seventh day.

Sigh, I'm not even going to acknowledge any more of your posts Melchiah. You are here for nothing but getting a rise out of people.

Beautiful cop out. You say every time we get into this that I ask questions just cause problems, or to rock your little boat. The universe is still in that day? Ok. Adding that to what Magus stated, we come to the second side of my point. Either the bible is cold hard fact to be read literally, OR it is open to the interpretation of the reader. You can't pick and choose which of these you are going to go with on the fly according to whichever suits your argument at the time. So pick one now. Either the bible is literal, or open to interpretation, meaning I can make it say whatever I want and so can you. Pick one. Now. And stop hurling bullshit semantics Swampthing and Maguspk.

[Swampthing]

Sigh.

Let's get something straight Melchiah, I am under the impression (that you have given me) that no matter what I say, you couldn't care less. If I told you a quarter was worth 25c, and I then showed you a bank statement confirming it, you would still find some way to not believe it. So, that being said...

The truth is, that your assertion is completely incorrect. Parts of the bible are spelled out, requiring nothing from us to understand, they mean what they say, other parts of the bible use metaphors, and require cross referencing with other parts of the bible to understand what it is talking about. It's not one or the other, it's both.

I'm more than willing to converse with you, if you can manage to keep it at an intelligent level, and not be stupid and "call bs" on everything everyone else says.

[Bartylby]

Yeah, I know how Melchiah works, and I just won't waste my time being drawn into what is nothing more than a fruitless debate. I know full well Melchiah that you don't give a rats ass about anything but what your mind is already so dead set on.

The only thing that I will do for you in this thread is impart one single truth to you. They did die in the day of their eating it, because guess what? Mankind is STILL in that day. A day to Jehovah is thousands of years on our human calendar. God said they would die in the very day of their eating it, and they did die during Jehovah's seventh day.

The whole universe is still in Jehovah's seventh day.

Sigh, I'm not even going to acknowledge any more of your posts Melchiah. You are here for nothing but getting a rise out of people.

Beautiful cop out. You say every time we get into this that I ask questions just cause problems, or to rock your little boat. The universe is still in that day? Ok. Adding that to what Magus stated, we come to the second side of my point. Either the bible is cold hard fact to be read literally, OR it is open to the interpretation of the reader. You can't pick and choose which of these you are going to go with on the fly according to whichever suits your argument at the time. So pick one now. Either the bible is literal, or open to interpretation, meaning I can make it say whatever I want and so can you. Pick one. Now. And stop hurling bullshit semantics Swampthing and Maguspk.

only a sith-lord deals in absolutes !

[Melchiah]

Sigh.

Let's get something straight Melchiah, I am under the impression (that you have given me) that no matter what I say, you couldn't care less. If I told you a quarter was worth 25c, and I then showed you a bank statement confirming it, you would still find some way to not believe it. So, that being said...

The truth is, that your assertion is completely incorrect. Parts of the bible are spelled out, requiring nothing from us to understand, they mean what they say, other parts of the bible use metaphors, and require cross referencing with other parts of the bible to understand what it is talking about. It's not one or the other, it's both.

I'm more than willing to converse with you, if you can manage to keep it at an intelligent level, and not be stupid and "call bs" on everything everyone else says.

Done. You show me a bank statement or something from the SEC that says a US 25-cent piece is worth $1/4, and I will say "Hot Damn, that quarter must be worth twenty-five cents." However in this case you are drawing a parallel that isn't accurate. Now, as for your counter-point above, if the bible is to be taken literally at times, cross-referenced at others, and taken metaphorically at still others, who is to be the authority on when to take what how, and what exactly those metaphors mean?

Let's start with the definition of a metaphor:

met·a·phor /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ [met-uh-fawr, -fer] –noun

1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”

2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Okay, I like definition 1 and the example they use since it is pertinent to the discussion. A mighty fortress is our God. Clearly God is not some impregnable bastion. We are to take from this metaphor that God offers the best protection from harm one can possibly get. As for definition 2, emblems and symbols can have extremely different meanings over different cultures and societies. However, metaphors are by their definition double-talk, and also ambiguous. Furthermore, metaphors that are over 2000 years old are at best outdated and do not generally apply to society today. In addition, if the bible is part metaphor, who is to be the one to interpret the metaphor for mankind? You? Me? The two of us might come up with something different, because we are different people who think about things differently. The metaphor can mean more than one thing? This gets complicated. How can the message for one man be different than for another? Are you and I to have a third party, say the church interpret these metaphors for us? Allow me to remind you of the problems in the Roman Catholic Church where the only people who could read were the rich and the clergy, so the bible was useless to the common man because he couldn't read it. He could only take at face value what the local clergy told him, and there are a multitude of accounts of misrepresentation and corruption in the RCC. Hence Martin Luther and his 95 theses. So, you can't be assured that the church is going to accurately interpret these metaphors either. So my question is, if we assume your statement to be true,

1) When are we supposed to take the bible literally, and when metaphorically?

2) Who are we to look to to accurately interpret these metaphors once we have decided which is which?

Or 3) Am I just to ignorant to see for myself what is literal and what is metaphor and again to ignorant to work out what that metaphor is supposed to mean?

Edit: Swampthing, when someone asks me a question and I don't know the answer, I just say "Man I really don't know. That's a good question."

[Saga]

Sigh.

Let's get something straight Melchiah, I am under the impression (that you have given me) that no matter what I say, you couldn't care less. If I told you a quarter was worth 25c, and I then showed you a bank statement confirming it, you would still find some way to not believe it. So, that being said...

The truth is, that your assertion is completely incorrect. Parts of the bible are spelled out, requiring nothing from us to understand, they mean what they say, other parts of the bible use metaphors, and require cross referencing with other parts of the bible to understand what it is talking about. It's not one or the other, it's both.

I'm more than willing to converse with you, if you can manage to keep it at an intelligent level, and not be stupid and "call bs" on everything everyone else says.

Except that your quarter example is based on a bartering system that everyone accepts. While most of America is Christian, there's still heavy debate on the topic - not everyone agrees with it. I'll say again what I said in the other thread, Swampthing.

You're using the Bible to defend the Bible...of course everyone's going to call BS on whatever you have to say. To someone who simply doesn't believe in the Bible, your attempt at justifications aren't going to mean anything. And don't presume you have anything to teach anyone, either - I'd say that a relatively arrogant assumption.

The fact of the matter is, you twist around everything and anything to make your point: when someone points out a contradiction in the Bible, you say there's just been a mistranslation and you're the correct one. When something wrong happens, it's Satan's fault. When something good happens, it's God's doing.

I'm sorry, but you can't defend the Bible with the Bible when arguing with someone who doesn't believe in it.

[Swampthing]

lol I just got home from a nice dinner, and I have a huge headache after reading both of those posts. Actually, I am impressed with Melchiah's post, because dude for the first time we have ever spoken to each other your post didn't come of, well, poorly to me.

But Saga, man ; ; Your making me sad. You are using the point that I am using the bible to defend the bible, and obviously that is true. But guess what dude, I openly admit that, and have said muuuuuuuuuuuuuuultiple times, that if you don't believe in the bible there is no reason to be posting in a discussion about the bible, is there? So, thanks for reiterating my point dude ^^v If you don't believe anything the bible says, you have no business posting here.

Back to Melchiah, fair questions. The short and sweet answer is that the bible is what actually tells us what the symbolic things and the metaphors mean. Any by that I mean, the point of me saying before that the bible is to be used as an entire unit that supports itself, was that in most cases, when multiple verses are examined, the true meaning of the symbol or metaphor can be found. Sometimes though, it takes intelligent reasoning on the matter.

Also, as for telling which verses are meant to be literally interpreted and which are to be interpreted as metaphoric, comes down to whether or not it makes sense literally. If you read it and think, wow that makes no sense whatsoever, chances are it was symbolic, or metaphoric.

A good example is in the book of Revelation, when the apostle John speaks of Babylon the Great (Rev 17:5). Well, it would be common sense that there is no more great city in Babylon, so clearly the Babylon the Great here is not a literal place. Actually it was a name given to Satan's world empire of false religion. If you read Rev 17:5, and need me to elaborate how I know that that is who that name is given to, I can do so.

[Melchiah]

The short and sweet answer is that the bible is what actually tells us what the symbolic things and the metaphors mean. Any by that I mean, the point of me saying before that the bible is to be used as an entire unit that supports itself, was that in most cases, when multiple verses are examined, the true meaning of the symbol or metaphor can be found. Sometimes though, it takes intelligent reasoning on the matter.

Also, as for telling which verses are meant to be literally interpreted and which are to be interpreted as metaphoric, comes down to whether or not it makes sense literally. If you read it and think, wow that makes no sense whatsoever, chances are it was symbolic, or metaphoric.

Even at this, you are leaving the situation wide open for human error, or worse human corruption.

I'd like to believe the bible. But I can't. Because no one knows what it really says. We are just guessing.

[Saga]

lol I just got home from a nice dinner, and I have a huge headache after reading both of those posts. Actually, I am impressed with Melchiah's post, because dude for the first time we have ever spoken to each other your post didn't come of, well, poorly to me.

But Saga, man ; ; Your making me sad. You are using the point that I am using the bible to defend the bible, and obviously that is true. But guess what dude, I openly admit that, and have said muuuuuuuuuuuuuuultiple times, that if you don't believe in the bible there is no reason to be posting in a discussion about the bible, is there? So, thanks for reiterating my point dude ^^v If you don't believe anything the bible says, you have no business posting here.

Back to Melchiah, fair questions. The short and sweet answer is that the bible is what actually tells us what the symbolic things and the metaphors mean. Any by that I mean, the point of me saying before that the bible is to be used as an entire unit that supports itself, was that in most cases, when multiple verses are examined, the true meaning of the symbol or metaphor can be found. Sometimes though, it takes intelligent reasoning on the matter.

Also, as for telling which verses are meant to be literally interpreted and which are to be interpreted as metaphoric, comes down to whether or not it makes sense literally. If you read it and think, wow that makes no sense whatsoever, chances are it was symbolic, or metaphoric.

A good example is in the book of Revelation, when the apostle John speaks of Babylon the Great (Rev 17:5). Well, it would be common sense that there is no more great city in Babylon, so clearly the Babylon the Great here is not a literal place. Actually it was a name given to Satan's world empire of false religion. If you read Rev 17:5, and need me to elaborate how I know that that is who that name is given to, I can do so.

Um? I don't need to believe in something in order to debate it. Most Democratic presidential candidates don't believe in the Iraq War, and they're arguing (or discussing, whatever word you want to use, discussion/debate/argument) it. Lots of conservatives don't believe in or advocate welfare, and they're debating it. Issues are debated because there are two sides.

[Swampthing]

I think saying wide open is a bit to large in scale. Is it open to some human error? I can't argue that it is not. But it nonetheless makes sense. If I read something and it makes sense, I'm going to accept it. The opposite also holds true.

Nothing in the bible, or that we have talked about here, has made me feel that something in the bible doesn't make sense. I am capable of admitting that that doesn't mean it has to make sense to you.

You aren't trying to hide the fact that you are trying very hard to discredit the bible and the people that listen to it's teachings. And I am not trying to say that you should not do that, far from it, be my guest. But why not try focusing your efforts more? Instead of something vague, perhaps try to attack something specific that you write off as bs.

[Swampthing]

Please hear me out Saga, I have a massive headache right now, I wasn't kidding about that. So it's not easy answering you guys right now.

What you just said is absolutely true. You don't have to believe in something to debate it, but if you don't believe in it, you DO have to believe against it to debate it. If you were indifferent, you wouldn't have any desire inside of you to debate it.

But that wasn't what you said before that I replied to. You said that I was using the bible to defend the bible, which I suppose is truth. However, debating simply for the sake of having a debate is a waste of time. Oh God my head hurts so bad ; ;