RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Please list Gods ABSOLUTE laws... |
Tue 11/04/08 10:15 AM |
QUOTE:
common house flies "get around " that one all the time.....
QUOTE:
Pretty sure his law of gravity is one you're not getting around.
I will grant that bumblebees get around that law(no scientific explination on how they fly), but houseflies eventually fall prey to gravity. We can free ourselves of gravity too, but only for a short period of time. |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 10:11 AM |
QUOTE:
The part that states "King James version" I take that literally....
If I remember right didn't King James have the monks at a monestary translate it. It should be "Monk Version" |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 10:09 AM |
QUOTE:
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.
Fair enough <<tips hat>> |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Start a scandalous rumour about the person above you. - part 21 |
Tue 11/04/08 10:07 AM |
QUOTE:
checks out girls in his rear view mirror
It's usually done with the quote "ooo that looked like it hurt, man I hope no one saw that" and then I floor it.
She has taken the "do not remove under penalty of law" tag off of mattresses throught the world. |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 10:01 AM |
Saying that the bible teaches us to fix ourselves does not imply that all humans are flawed. Nor does the quote imply that the bible says we are flawed. The quote only states that the original speakers mother interpereted the use of the bible in that manner.
I think the point of the quote is to say that we should only use the bible to better ourselves, and to learn to accept others for who they are. If we are setting any other agenda, besides personal enlightenment, then we are misusing the bible and twisting it's intent.
As that applies to the OP, it doesn't matter if the text is taken in a literal translation or not, only how the reader uses the information that is absorbed.
There is a good message in the bible, whether you want to believe the story of it's gods or not. There are hundreds of tales, parables, and analogies that tell of charity, kindness and goodwill and how we should take those qualities and teach them to the word.
But the idea was lost and replaced with dogmas and creeds. The church was built of stone and it is unyeilding, and it teaches it's subjects to be the same. That's why it's so easy to get christians riled up in the chat rooms. |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Goth Scene |
Tue 11/04/08 09:41 AM |
QUOTE:
smokin' weed and bagin' the bongos while reading poetry about "the man"
Oh well thanks a lot man, I was going to tell everyone what I did this weekend myself!!!  |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Do you like Feet?.... |
Tue 11/04/08 09:37 AM |
To be honest, I've never given them a second thought. However, since you asked...
I'm in favor of them. I think feet are functional, serve a purpose I think we should keep them. Oh there might be those that say "No, we no longer need feet." But to those I just scoff and say "Feet will always be a necessary evil."
Other than that, you should change your socks before their aroma can be smelled outside of your home. |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Goth Scene |
Tue 11/04/08 09:27 AM |
You mean to tell me the three piece suit with tie and wingtips is back in?  Well, that does it, I'm burning all of my suits and ties right now.  |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 09:22 AM |
QUOTE:
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.
Hey there...how have you been??? It's good to cya again~~~~
I think it's all literal as well as moral. As Christ came to fulfill the laws so we can more than just follow them we can actually get joy & life for living with them... I take the entire Bible as Literal. From God our Creator to God our Jehovah Jirah..to the parting of the Red Sea to Christ's resurrection & His second coming for His church. From the creation all the way to the book of Revelations. It's all true & it's all righteous.
...and that's the short of it.
I've been good. I've been transitioning the majority of my time from one my jobs to another, you know how change can disrupt a life. Other than that I'm good. Of course God never has seen to throw anything at me I couldn't eventually deal with. I've also noticed that if I look at a longer view, He's always making things turn out for the better.
Did I miss any good arguements? Surely someone said something to really get some good stuff flowing in here. I heard a good quote the other day, I guess it fits well in this room.
"My mother taught us that the Bible is used to teach us how to fix ourselves and be good to others. Short of that, we should use it sparingly or we will destort it's meaning." I don't even remember where I heard it, I just remember thinking "Wow, that's probably right." |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 09:16 AM |
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? |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 08:15 AM |
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
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.
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.
To believe a literal translation, foolish.
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Men answer this truthfully! |
Tue 11/04/08 07:58 AM |
QUOTE:
RoamingOrator said: "The viewing of women as sexual objects will remain exactly the same from male to male. The truth is, we pretty much so view all women as someone with "sexual potential." I know, it's horrible, but it's part of our wiring.
Now that being said, women of dating or courtship potential are viewed in an entirely different way. Actually that's not true, sexually they are viewed the same way. See, a man's mind really doesn't know how to tackle such concepts. Just know this, you're a woman, that means that 99% of all straight men want to have sex with you. The other one percent, is lying."
QUOTE:
my humble 2 cents..
where i agree with the roaming gentleman that sexuality is innate in all men - so too as men we have an opportunity to transmute that 'first thought' - and have experienced, with practice, amazing self-transformational results.
i disagree entirely about this 1% thing - or was that supposed to be funny?
Yes, the one percent thing was a poor attempt to add some humor and keep the topic light. However, I do think that even though it's humorous, it might be true, I mean stranger things have turned out to be true. |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 07:53 AM |
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? |
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
|
|
|
RoamingOrator
Joined Fri 07/20/07
Posts: 1914
|
| Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally |
Tue 11/04/08 07:32 AM |
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. |
|
|
|
I have my 'my vote counted' sticker stuck on my cleavage! Te He! Maybe more guys will go vote! 
