Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: How will McCain get things done when congress is democrat??? |
Tue 11/04/08 12:57 PM |
QUOTE:
How will McCain get things done when congress is democrat???
So we shouldn't elect McCain, because he will be stymied at every turn by the Democrat Congress? Hell, that's a selling point to me. Nothing coming out of the White House or Congress for 4 years except hot air, that sounds to me like what the founders intended. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 12:42 PM |
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
A metaphor is comparing two unrelated items, the siege of Jericho isn't a comparison and it's too complicated to be a metaphor anyways.
When you read the news paper, you don't need anyone to come over and explain to you when the writers are using a literary device. In my opinion, it's the same way with the Bible. You can tell by the context if the scriptures are presented as the literal truth, a parable, a metaphor, etc.
The siege of Jericho is presented as fact and recorded in a manner befitting an event that happened. The wheres, whens, whos and hows are all filled in.
"Spidercmb" aren't parables and metaphors also presented to be accurate ..also when it comes to the newspaper people expect an accurate account of events and not metaphors ..beside the part of the newspaper that may be in metaphors is the comic section ..
because one may say that something is the literal truth others may say it's a metaphor ...in them biblical days to say the bible was not the whole truth would be blasphemy
that's why to not view the entire bible as literal shows how people are distancing themselves from God
If you read "The Cowboys destroy the Packers", does that mean that the Cowboys literally destroyed the Packers?
I read an editorial in a Toledo newspaper, where the author told a story about a town run by donkeys being invaded by elephants. Was he being literal or was he suggesting that Republicans are growing stronger in a city run by Democrats?
If you read a Newspaper with an open mind, you will find nearly every possible literary device used. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Thousands of UFO's sightings.. tonight on Discovery channel |
Tue 11/04/08 12:38 PM |
WWII Ended in 1945.
The first flying saucer was sighted in 1947.
The US captured two German anti-gravity experiments during / immediately after WWII. According to eye-witnesses, both experiments were successful. One was saucer shaped and one was bell shaped.
I watched a documentary on it last night. There is ample evidence that the US started testing WWII designed anti-gravity aircraft of German design and created the story of UFOs and aliens to cover up their top secret tests.
Eventually, we will all know the truth, until then, I'm not losing any sleep. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 12:04 PM |
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
To believe a literal translation, foolish.
QUOTE:
I agree. But some parts of the Bible are literal and I see no reason why the siege of Jericho cannot be taken literally.
because the seige of Jericho may be the part of the bible that is fake
it all the bible is not literal then how can one tell what of the bible can be an actual account.. metaphors are fake accounts on the same level as gossip here-say or rumors
A metaphor is comparing two unrelated items, the siege of Jericho isn't a comparison and it's too complicated to be a metaphor anyways.
When you read the news paper, you don't need anyone to come over and explain to you when the writers are using a literary device. In my opinion, it's the same way with the Bible. You can tell by the context if the scriptures are presented as the literal truth, a parable, a metaphor, etc.
The siege of Jericho is presented as fact and recorded in a manner befitting an event that happened. The wheres, whens, whos and hows are all filled in. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Obama, "Brothers should" |
Tue 11/04/08 11:33 AM |
| It's actually funny to me. In prison, wearing your pants down like that is saying "I'm a bottom, looking for a top" (or in plain English "I want to be someone's girlfriend.") |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: I'm Undecided |
Tue 11/04/08 11:14 AM |
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
On Fox News he is. 
Why don't some of the things that McCain has done bother you? They sure bother me.
So if I criticize Obama, I must be a McCain supporter? Sorry, but you really shouldn't assume. I DON'T support McCain. Operative word being "DON'T". I have recently come to the conclusion that McCain is a better man for the job that Obama, I was undecided (I couldn't figure out which was the lesser of the two evils) for a long time. Obama is definitely the worst of the two, by a fair margin too.
I didn't assume. You were asking me why certain things about Obama didn't bother me. Now I'm asking you why things don't bother you about McCain. There is a lot that bothers me.
What about McCain bothers you? I will tell you if they bother me or not. There is a LOT about McCain that I don't like. There is less about McCain that I don't like than there is about Obama that I don't like. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Excellent news for Obama |
Tue 11/04/08 10:48 AM |
| Obama's going to lose, but the good news is that Jay Leno, Bill Maher, David Letterman, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, etc, etc will have plenty of material...They have the next four years to complain about how Bush helped McCain steal the election and make sexist jokes about our Vice President. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Stupidity and Religion |
Tue 11/04/08 10:02 AM |
| My son is mentally retarded and I will ask you nicely to not confuse mental retardation with being stupid. My son is as smart as he can be, but sometimes he acts stupid. Stupid is doing something you should know better than to do. Mental retardation is a reduced ability to comprehend. The two are obviously not the same. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 09:59 AM |
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
I agree. But some parts of the Bible are literal and I see no reason why the siege of Jericho cannot be taken literally. As I have said repeatedly, Archeology has confirmed that the walls fell. Archeology has confirmed that the walls on the North side of the city didn't fall. I'm not sure what is so far fetched about a claim that the creator of the Universe could cause a wall around a city fall. Your account is by far more miraculous than what is in the Bible. To imagine that the inhabitants of the city would sit idly by while the Israelites opened one gate after the other is ludicrous. To imagine that they somehow came in through a house on the outer most wall and somehow opened the outermost gate and the two inner gates without being killed themselves would require me to imagine that God made them invincible to damage. I'll trust to the Biblical account, because it appears to have been written as a literal truth and because it is far more believable than the alternative. In the end, my salvation isn't dependent upon if I accept the story of Jericho as a literal truth, a parable, an allegory or a metaphor. So I see no reason to argue with you over this detail. I think I have made my position clear, so I bid you good day.
I'll put one more arguement to it, just to show how a literal interpretation might be a bit simplistic of a tale (and by saying my account shows a greater miricale might just prove my arguement).
We know that the bible was passed down via oral tradition until such a time that there were scribes. This is fact. The oral traditions were best passed down in song, it is the same in all cultures. Now then in comparison to another song which tells of a great seige, would you say that the Star Spangled Banner tells an accurate story of the seige of Baltimore?
The Jews are a very interesting people, they always were. Their oral tradition was not one of song, they memorized the repeated the verses verbatim. Even today, Israel has competitions where the competitors will repeat whole books of the Torah. The Jews are very concerned about the laws of their religion and they would view it as a terrible sin to get anything wrong about the scriptures they believe were handed down by God. We see from the various Old Testament scrolls that exist today how exact the people who handed these traditions down were.
Now the account itself could be flawed, but I can't find any reason to believe that the story of Jericho would be any more difficult to transmit to others if the gates had been opened by an invading force.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I don't feel there is a convincing argument that the siege of Jericho described in Joshua is anything but a literal account of what happened. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 08:45 AM |
QUOTE:
Okay Spider, that was offensive. Saying I spout lies is the same as calling me a liar, and I have done no such thing, anyone spreading lies here is from the arachnid family
QUOTE:
I'm not sure why you have a desire to claim that the Bible lies about what happened at Jericho. Archeology supports the Biblical story of how Jericho fell.
RO...If you read the sentence above, you will see that I didn't say you were lying, I said you were claiming the Bible lies. So it's simply a misunderstanding on your part.
QUOTE:
First, I didn't say that the bible lied, I said the walls of Jericho did fall, but not by trumpet blast. The trumpet blast was the definately the start of the "fall" of Jericho, but once again, literal morons.
I certainly hope that you aren't calling me a moron, could you please clarify what you mean here?
QUOTE:
Second, Why can't you see past the language of a verbally passed down tradition. Tell me Spider when telling a story in song, can you get all of the desriptive terms in there. Go on write one!!! How about telling about the battle of the bulge in song? Could you tell in detail about the trees shattering under shells? Digging in the frozen earth? Piling bodies of frozen men to use as protection from shells? I doubt you could, but you could definately get the story across. These were oral traditions passed down in song. There were no scribes in the first books of the old testimant. Name the verse where it says "and Joshua had the tale set forth by scribes." How about "and Moses?" Job? Ruth? Ezikiel? No it's not there? Why, there tales weren't written until years after their deaths.
According to the Bible, Joshua recorded these accounts himself. Why shouldn't I accept that? I'm not sure how I can interpret those words to be anything other than the literal truth without questioning the veracity of the Bible.
QUOTE:
To believe a literal translation, foolish.
I agree. But some parts of the Bible are literal and I see no reason why the siege of Jericho cannot be taken literally. As I have said repeatedly, Archeology has confirmed that the walls fell. Archeology has confirmed that the walls on the North side of the city didn't fall. I'm not sure what is so far fetched about a claim that the creator of the Universe could cause a wall around a city fall. Your account is by far more miraculous than what is in the Bible. To imagine that the inhabitants of the city would sit idly by while the Israelites opened one gate after the other is ludicrous. To imagine that they somehow came in through a house on the outer most wall and somehow opened the outermost gate and the two inner gates without being killed themselves would require me to imagine that God made them invincible to damage. I'll trust to the Biblical account, because it appears to have been written as a literal truth and because it is far more believable than the alternative. In the end, my salvation isn't dependent upon if I accept the story of Jericho as a literal truth, a parable, an allegory or a metaphor. So I see no reason to argue with you over this detail. I think I have made my position clear, so I bid you good day. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 08:05 AM |
QUOTE:
It's all right there in the text.
Why did the prositute hang a rope from her window "outside" the walls for six days? So that when the troop paraded around the city blowing their horns they could secret their soldiers into the city. There would be no reason otherwise. Why would they even need to mark that window when every other man, woman and child of that city was slaughtered? Wouldn't she also be if the walls crashed down?
No what happended was the Israelis got troops in, the army crashed the city and the walls came down alright, when they were torched from the inside. And since this happened almost 3000 years ago, I would imagine the city walls would have to be excavated by archeologists.
Why is it that Christians have to attribute all of God's miralces to something gradniose? Why can't these miricales be simple in nature. I feel I'm speaking on deaf ears when I say this, cannot God just give wisdom to a man? We believed it with Solomon, why not with Joshua the chosen of Moses? Why can't God's chosen people have a brilliant military stratagist? Why can you not accept that these are parables alagories and mistold tales?
The walls of Jericho fell everywhere except on the north, where archeologists found houses built against the wall. That's where Rahab's house was.
Why would Rahab put a rope outside of her house? She didn't it was a scarf.
I'm not sure why you have a desire to claim that the Bible lies about what happened at Jericho. Archeology supports the Biblical story of how Jericho fell. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 07:47 AM |
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, it's intended to be read like a news paper. The Bible is full of literal truth, metaphors, similes, parables and just about every literary tool imaginable.
The Commandments are literal, but few Christians think in terms of absolute morality. The Commandments are to be interpreted objectively. If you can't get enough food for yourself or your kids legally, then you have to get it illegally. It's a bigger sin to allow yourself or your children to die than it is to steal. In your life is in danger, then you have the right to protect yourself, even using lethal force if necessary.
The only three prohibitions to objective morality in Christianity and Judaism are these:
1) Idolatry is strictly forbidden.
2) Sexual immorality is strictly forbidden.
3) Murder is strictly forbidden. Murder being killing someone who isn't a threat to you or others. As mentioned above, killing to save yourself or another is moral from the objective standpoint.
Actually, Christians do not have to follow the strict sexual mores of Judaism. We are not bound by the covenant with Israel. DUHH!!! That's why it's called the NEW testimant. It is a new covenant with God given to the Christians through his son.
Murder, falls under the love thy neighbor part, can't do that. Can't steal, not loving the neighbor. However, if you want to be specific, love thy neighbor as thyself, that allows for wife swapping, as long as it is mutually acceptable. Of course that's just an opinion and I'm not saying to pick it up in practice, unless your in to that kind of thing.
That's completely untrue. Christians aren't saved by keeping the law, but we keep the law out of love. The law still exists, so sexual immorality is a sin to Christians. Wife swapping is a sin to Christians. Christians are told to love their neighbors, but that is an admonishment to show brotherly love, not romantic love. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 07:44 AM |
QUOTE:
Well, there is only one part of the bible that needs to be taken literaly, at least if you're a christian. That's the two commandments Christ set out for his followers (and the two which almost never get followed):
1. Keep NO gods before THEE
2. Love thy neighbor as thyself
Other than that, most things in there are parables and alagories anyway, maybe a little bit of a history lesson for those that want it. However, the history lesson most be interepted. Joshua's horns didn't cause the walls of Jericho to fall. They did signal the troops inside the walls to open the gates so the city could fall. So, you have to be careful with that book. Read it wisely, more than once, and with an open mind, you should be able to find the real message buried inside. Which suprisingly enough, is the two rules I listed above.
Archeologists have found and studied the city of Jericho, the wall did fall down in all places except one.
Why do you believe that there were troops in the city who opened the gates? There is no evidence that such an event occurred. It actually makes no sense that a small force inside of a city with three concentric walls and three gates could somehow get them all open before they were killed by the archers on the walls. In this case, a miracle actually makes a lot more sense. Jericho was incredibly well defended. The city was built on a hill and had three walls surrounding the city. Each wall would have had archers and murder holes and all of the other things people have come up with to defend their cities. For an army to somehow get enough troops into the city to open one of the gates is hard to imagine. But enough troops to open all three? It's far easier to believe that God destroyed their walls when the Israelite army sounded off. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 07:26 AM |
QUOTE:
You don't know me, I don't know you, you can pretend to know god, but don't pretend to know me.
I know one thing that is certain, if (souls/spirits or whatever baseless terminology you wish to invoke) exist, my dog has one, and it is more pure than yours or mine.
Jeremy.
Jeremy,
You don't know me? You made a awful lot of assumptions and judgments of me in your previous post for someone who admits to not knowing me.
I don't have any rationalizations concerning the Bible, what I gave you is the absolute truth concerning the original texts of the Bible. The word is "murder", not kill.
The Bible teaches that we have the right to eat animals. Animals eat animals. Animals eat humans. It's how nature works. If you are so dedicated to science, then you should realize that nature created carnivores and omnivores to consume the herbivores. Do you feed your dog vegetarian dog food? Are you a vegetarian? If not, then who are you to judge me for eating meat? Even if you and your dog are vegetarians, if you believe in science and that life was created as an accident, then by what moral grounds do you judge me for doing what you believe nature designed me to do? And please don't tell me that you don't believe humans were designed to eat meat, because chimps (our closest cousins according to science) are omnivores and we are clearly designed to be omnivores. We have teeth designed for the consumption of both meat and vegetables.
Maybe you aren't angry, but your posts reveal a deep seated anger. Maybe it's towards the church or maybe you have simply made the church the focus of your anger. I know one thing, nothing I have said or done has earned your anger. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Mon 11/03/08 05:43 PM |
QUOTE:
I don't need to research your book to know living creatures feel pain, know joy, experience kinship and deserve life.
I did want to see how you rationalize it however . . . ahh semantics, figures.
This reiterates to me that religion is a convenience set outside of Morales to justify behavior.
You get to re-interpret this ancient text to justify your twisted view of life and death . . . . to me its utterly pathetic.
You want to understand morality, then place yourself in the position of each and every life you effect and tell me you can continue to do harm.
You are so filled with anger. I was like that once, so I know what you are going through. It's okay man, I know you don't mean it.  |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: I'm Undecided |
Mon 11/03/08 05:40 PM |
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
On Fox News he is.
Why don't some of the things that McCain has done bother you? They sure bother me.
So if I criticize Obama, I must be a McCain supporter? Sorry, but you really shouldn't assume. I DON'T support McCain. Operative word being "DON'T". I have recently come to the conclusion that McCain is a better man for the job that Obama, I was undecided (I couldn't figure out which was the lesser of the two evils) for a long time. Obama is definitely the worst of the two, by a fair margin too.
Your full of ****
You have read all the propaganda and bought it, your the type of guy everyone talks about being born every minute.
QUOTE:
You're full of ****
You have read all of the propaganda and bought it. You're the type of guy everyone talks about being born every minute.
I fixed that for you, because the way you wrote it made you sound like a moron. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Are you going up... or going down? |
Mon 11/03/08 02:59 PM |
Descendant: Something derived from another.
Since we are derived from our parents, we are their descendants. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: I'm Undecided |
Mon 11/03/08 02:55 PM |
QUOTE:
This is from Obama's website:
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
I don't watch South Park, btw.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/08/what-would-pres.html
QUOTE:
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign on Thursday spelled out the details of the Democratic presidential candidate’s tax plan on his website and in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
I just wanted to note the basic proposals for capital gains and dividend tax rates here:
--- Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15% on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase -- a top rate of 20%.
--- The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold.
--- For single people, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000.
The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, has endorsed keeping President Bush’s current tax rates as they are.
|
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: I'm Undecided |
Mon 11/03/08 02:54 PM |
QUOTE:
On Fox News he is.
Why don't some of the things that McCain has done bother you? They sure bother me.
So if I criticize Obama, I must be a McCain supporter? Sorry, but you really shouldn't assume. I DON'T support McCain. Operative word being "DON'T". I have recently come to the conclusion that McCain is a better man for the job that Obama, I was undecided (I couldn't figure out which was the lesser of the two evils) for a long time. Obama is definitely the worst of the two, by a fair margin too. |
|
|
|
Spidercmb
Joined Fri 04/27/07
Posts: 6987
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Mon 11/03/08 02:51 PM |
QUOTE:
So what about killing animals when you can live without killing them?
The commandment literally says "murder", not "kill". I know, the translation for KJV is "kill", but it's wrong in today's language. Please don't try to argue this, okay? The word is "ratsach", which means "To murder". The qal tense of "ratsach" is the equivalent to our word "homicide". People always stick on this one and will even cry foul when the mistranslation is pointed out. If you want to have an honest conversation AND you don't believe me, then you will research Exodus 20:13 before you respond. |
|
|
|
