*OFFICIAL Bamabake - blackumbrella SMACKDOWN THREAD*

[blackumbrella]

Now you have a conscience huh? Like a dog huh? Well I know where this faulty logic will lead. Forget it.

if i didn't have a conscience i'd technically be a sociopath. are you suggesting there are two kinds of people in the world: god-believers and sociopaths? also, please explain how my post on moral relativism is faulty logic.

They will know you by your furits, the good book says.[/QUJOTE]

this is supposed to be 'objective'?! a metaphor?

In fact a great deal of time was spent proving the Bibles inerrancy. The discussion of what a day means in Genesis comes to mind as one of the many.

oh i'm well aware of all the efforts put into propping up the literality of the bible, a curious fact since, as i understand it, god himself guided the translation of his word through the ages. if god's word is 'day,' anyone who says it's a mistranslation is going to hades. if all this carbon-dating and geology is such mumbo jumbo, why are so many apologists trying to contort god's word to make it fit the evidence?

Besides you dont, sadly, even understand a faith past your own religion of humanism. It is really sad to me.

do you even know what humanism means? here's some help from answers.com: "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." are you honestly trying to say that such a general, inclusive doctrine is less understanding of other faiths than one that claims they're all wrong and going to hell?!

 

[bamabake]

if i didn't have a conscience i'd technically be a sociopath. are you suggesting there are two kinds of people in the world: god-believers and sociopaths? also, please explain how my post on moral relativism is faulty logic.

They will know you by your furits, the good book says.[/QUJOTE]

this is supposed to be 'objective'?! a metaphor?



oh i'm well aware of all the efforts put into propping up the literality of the bible, a curious fact since, as i understand it, god himself guided the translation of his word through the ages. if god's word is 'day,' anyone who says it's a mistranslation is going to hades. if all this carbon-dating and geology is such mumbo jumbo, why are so many apologists trying to contort god's word to make it fit the evidence?



do you even know what humanism means? here's some help from answers.com: "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." are you honestly trying to say that such a general, inclusive doctrine is less understanding of other faiths than one that claims they're all wrong and going to hell?!

if i didn't have a conscience i'd technically be a sociopath. are you suggesting there are two kinds of people in the world: god-believers and sociopaths? also, please explain how my post on moral relativism is faulty logic.

Well your argument that a conscience is the same as a spiritual and biblical understanding of morality was a false premise from the beginning so it is litterally impossible to debate it since you lack that basic understanding.
As for moral relativisim it is a world view in action today for sure but that doesnt make it right. It is the one of the reasons the country is so divided politically. God is the source of morality. It is from there that our civil laws have come from. Apart for being wrong, moral relativism leads to chaos in a society, with everyone deciding individually what is right and what is wrong. In that world what would stop people from molesting kids, or even someone shooting someone else? I mean that is the logical conclusion to moral relativism. Who would you to tell someone that being a child molester is wrong if to him it is perfectly normal and moral.


http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/Morality.htm

Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis defines them as: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior.


In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars."


They will know you by your furits, the good book says.[/QUJOTE]

this is supposed to be 'objective'?! a metaphor?

You asked was morality determined by your thoughts or actions. I told you what God says in the Bible. By your fruits ( actions).




oh i'm well aware of all the efforts put into propping up the literality of the bible, a curious fact since, as i understand it, god himself guided the translation of his word through the ages. if god's word is 'day,' anyone who says it's a mistranslation is going to hades. if all this carbon-dating and geology is such mumbo jumbo, why are so many apologists trying to contort god's word to make it fit the evidence?


This paragraph is so full of sheer ignorace I dont even know how to respond.


oh i'm well aware of all the efforts put into propping up the literality of the bible, a curious fact since, as i understand it, god himself guided the translation of his word through the ages.


First off , the Bible dosent need propping up in regards to literality. It takes someone that is intellectually honest. Which you are not capable of from what I have seen from your ramblings the past year. Also God did not guide the translation of His word. Read " Evidence That Demands A Verdict". I dont have the time to educate you on the Bibles construction and translation myths.



if god's word is 'day,' anyone who says it's a mistranslation is going to hades.
Again you leave the subject matter. Debating you is like arguing with my wife. She also likes to go off on tagents that trail away from the topic. Here is the original issue ( and I am not doing this crap everytime so try really hard to stay on topic yourself please):

BU
their trouble, same as yours, is you don;t have enough faith in your god. if you have to look to answersingenesis.com, you must not have found the 'answers' in genesis yourselves. if you have to run to quack scientists to confront evolution, you must feel your dogma alone is inadequate for such a confrontation. kindly send illvo and cabam my love.

BB
And this proves two things, your sheer ignorace of the volume of information on creation science and the fact that you either dont read or cant comprehend
a post that is made to you. In fact a great deal of time was spent proving the Bibles inerrancy. The discussion of what a day means in Genesis comes to mind as one of the many. Besides you dont, sadly, even understand a faith past your own religion of humanism. It is really sad to me.

From that exchange here is what you mutter:

if god's word is 'day,' anyone who says it's a mistranslation is going to hades.


So back to intellectual honesty rather than ignorant conjecture. The term day in genisis cannot be a mistranslation. It was brought up in the evolution debate when someone said that a day is like a thousand years etc, in a vain efort to try and justify evolution into the bible or implying that evolution is a process God started , and used the day in Genisis as their evidence. In fact the word is “yom” and while it can have different meanings, just like the word “day” in English, when it is modified with a number (as in first day, second day, etc.) or when it is defined by the terms morning and evening, it means a normal 24 hour day. In Genesis 1, it is modified not just by one of these cases, but by both of them. It actually could not be much clearer. There are other Hebrew words which could have been used to indicate a long period of time (olam or qedem), but were not used. Why is it that only in Genesis 1 is the definition of “yom” questioned? When it is used elsewhere in the Bible with the noted modifiers, there is not a question as to whether it actually refers to long periods of time. If God had wanted to indicate long periods of time, he could have compared the long ages to grains of sand on a beach or the number of stars in the sky.

As far as 2 Peter 3:8 is concerned, he is not defining a day, but comparing periods of time. It says “a day is like a thousand years” indicating a figure of speech or simile. In fact, Peter is actually referring to Psalm 90:4 which says “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night”. A watch in the night wouldn’t be perceived to equal a thousand years, would it?
(from Beccas post)

 

[blackumbrella]

Well your argument that a conscience is the same as a spiritual and biblical understanding of morality was a false premise from the beginning so it is litterally impossible to debate it since you lack that basic understanding.

never said they were the same. just responding to your insinuation that the godless had no morality.

As for moral relativisim it is a world view in action today for sure but that doesnt make it right.

more than a world view, it's the most accurate description of morality. when you look at the cultures and peoples of the world, you plainly see differences in what they consider right and wrong. how else would you possibly describe this condition besides morally relative or subjective?

God is the source of morality. It is from there that our civil laws have come from.

completely unsubstantiated. moreover, it's wrong. i know bc i'm jesus.

Apart for being wrong, moral relativism leads to chaos in a society, with everyone deciding individually what is right and what is wrong. In that world what would stop people from molesting kids, or even someone shooting someone else? I mean that is the logical conclusion to moral relativism.

you're aware aren't you, that by and large the mostly atheistic european nations have far less crime than we do?

Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis defines them as: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior.

critical? how so? take away #3 and you just have good ole common sense.

They will know you by your furits, the good book says
You asked was morality determined by your thoughts or actions. I told you what God says in the Bible. By your fruits ( actions).

the point was that you've implied the bible constitutes objective morality. and yet, even in your one sentence citation, you have to provide interpretation. plainly, interpretation is not objective.

as for 'day,' thanks for the philology. what you're saying is:

there was nothing, the proverbial deep and darkness, and one week (as we understand the term) later, the universe and earth existed pretty much as we see it today.

now, compare that assertion to this--

And of course we all know that this complexity all happened as the result billions of years ago when nothing somehow became something the, universe. Then we all know that a boiling lava flowing orb cooled off eventually and again, from nothing comes something, life. Simple cell, no one knows what it ate to survive the millions of years before it evolved into someting a bit more complex, or even why it was compelled to change. Eventually after miraculously surviving as a one cell organisim all of those millions of years it decides to become an animal that lives in the water. Oh, water evolved too, from the orb that was boiling with lava, one day water evolved. Not sure from what, maybe from a meteroite I suppose. Then a plant evolves, not sure what from but it does, of course since plants need dirt and there were no plants around before the first one to creat it, we can just assume that the plant surrvived on air untill the day it decided, hey there is some dirt over there, it is time to evolve and grow roots. Milllions more years past and from a single cell that came from nowhere life on earth diversifies, it makes a mistake of course as male and females evolve. It is a very inneficient way to reproduce given all of the choices evolution provides but, hey even a theory can make a mistake once every 500 million years or so.

which one sounds more far fetched?

 

[bamabake]

never said they were the same. just responding to your insinuation that the godless had no morality.

Yes you did. You did it again.




Originally Posted by bamabake
And of course we all know that this complexity all happened as the result billions of years ago when nothing somehow became something the, universe. Then we all know that a boiling lava flowing orb cooled off eventually and again, from nothing comes something, life. Simple cell, no one knows what it ate to survive the millions of years before it evolved into someting a bit more complex, or even why it was compelled to change. Eventually after miraculously surviving as a one cell organisim all of those millions of years it decides to become an animal that lives in the water. Oh, water evolved too, from the orb that was boiling with lava, one day water evolved. Not sure from what, maybe from a meteroite I suppose. Then a plant evolves, not sure what from but it does, of course since plants need dirt and there were no plants around before the first one to creat it, we can just assume that the plant surrvived on air untill the day it decided, hey there is some dirt over there, it is time to evolve and grow roots. Milllions more years past and from a single cell that came from nowhere life on earth diversifies, it makes a mistake of course as male and females evolve. It is a very inneficient way to reproduce given all of the choices evolution provides but, hey even a theory can make a mistake once every 500 million years or so.

Shows that common sense is probably the weaksest link in your mental makeup.
I was being facetious in showing how stupid evolution is.


completely unsubstantiated. moreover, it's wrong. i know bc i'm jesus.

You shouldnt be so quick to mock the Lord of Lords.
The Bible says " every knee shall bow and every tounge shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That includes you my friend. I hope you confess your sins and ask Christ into your heart while you can.If that happens we will have some fond memories to discuss one day . You can say unsubstantiated or whatever it will not change the truth.

I wish you well.

 

[stammerman80]

There Is No Need Of Explaining It To Him. I Am Sick With The Stench Of How He Talks About God. If The Bible Says A DayIt Means A Day. Or Why Else Would It Say It Or Say "The King Saw A Tree Of Great Height At The Center Of The Earth Reaching With Its Top To The Sky And Visible To The Arth’s Farthest Bounds" If YouCould Not Really Seee The Hole World From Such A Tree?? Evolution And Globalists Should Trust The Bible Not Scientists.

 

[blackumbrella]

Yes you did. You did it again.

point to where i said a biblical understanding is the same as a conscience.

And of course we all know that this complexity all happened as the result billions of years ago when nothing somehow became something the, universe. Then we all know that a boiling lava flowing orb cooled off eventually and again, from nothing comes something, life. Simple cell, no one knows what it ate to survive the millions of years before it evolved into someting a bit more complex, or even why it was compelled to change. Eventually after miraculously surviving as a one cell organisim all of those millions of years it decides to become an animal that lives in the water. Oh, water evolved too, from the orb that was boiling with lava, one day water evolved. Not sure from what, maybe from a meteroite I suppose. Then a plant evolves, not sure what from but it does, of course since plants need dirt and there were no plants around before the first one to creat it, we can just assume that the plant surrvived on air untill the day it decided, hey there is some dirt over there, it is time to evolve and grow roots. Milllions more years past and from a single cell that came from nowhere life on earth diversifies, it makes a mistake of course as male and females evolve. It is a very inneficient way to reproduce given all of the choices evolution provides but, hey even a theory can make a mistake once every 500 million years or so.

Shows that common sense is probably the weaksest link in your mental makeup.
I was being facetious in showing how stupid evolution is.

i'm well aware. you're missing the point. look at how detailed your satire is, compared to: 'a supernatural being we have no evidence of made everything in a week bc that what it says in this book that also says it's written by the very same supernatural being.' further, parts of your satire expose a fundamental ignorance on your part and are very easily explained by anyone with a elementary scientific understanding (early cells probably 'ate' sunlight, they didn't decide to change into water animals but probablly began in the water to begin with, water doesn't evolve--it's a foregone chemical conclusion based on the atomic properties of hydrogen and oxygen).

completely unsubstantiated. moreover, it's wrong. i know bc i'm jesus.

You shouldnt be so quick to mock the Lord of Lords.
The Bible says " every knee shall bow and every tounge shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That includes you my friend. I hope you confess your sins and ask Christ into your heart while you can.If that happens we will have some fond memories to discuss one day . You can say unsubstantiated or whatever it will not change the truth.

i wasn't mocking the lord of anything. i was mocking you. ie your persistent statement of your dogma as fact. again, this goes back to the shaky faith inherent in a biblical literalist mentality. on some level you believe that your religion is meaningless if the bible isn't literally true (nevermind the blatantly obvious fact that it's full of figurative languge, as you've already demonstrated).

 

[bamabake]

point to where i said a biblical understanding is the same as a conscience.


i'm well aware. you're missing the point. look at how detailed your satire is, compared to: 'a supernatural being we have no evidence of made everything in a week bc that what it says in this book that also says it's written by the very same supernatural being.' further, parts of your satire expose a fundamental ignorance on your part and are very easily explained by anyone with a elementary scientific understanding (early cells probably 'ate' sunlight, they didn't decide to change into water animals but probablly began in the water to begin with, water doesn't evolve--it's a foregone chemical conclusion based on the atomic properties of hydrogen and oxygen).



i wasn't mocking the lord of anything. i was mocking you. ie your persistent statement of your dogma as fact. again, this goes back to the shaky faith inherent in a biblical literalist mentality. on some level you believe that your religion is meaningless if the bible isn't literally true (nevermind the blatantly obvious fact that it's full of figurative languge, as you've already demonstrated).

QUOTE=blackumbrella]point to where i said a biblical understanding is the same as a conscience.


Pay atention sir. I commented about you making the claim that a concience equals morality. Try and keep up.




i'm well aware. you're missing the point. look at how detailed your satire is, compared to: 'a supernatural being we have no evidence of made everything in a week bc that what it says in this book that also says it's written by the very same supernatural being.' further, parts of your satire expose a fundamental ignorance on your part and are very easily explained by anyone with a elementary scientific understanding (early cells probably 'ate' sunlight, they didn't decide to change into water animals but probablly began in the water to begin with, water doesn't evolve--it's a foregone chemical conclusion based on the atomic properties of hydrogen and oxygen).


The satire wasnt meant to be detailed. Besides the "details" you refer to are pitiful and scientifically unprovable. Weve been down this road before and you had difficulty staying on topic over and over again. I truly dont have the energy to dicuss evolution again. It is too exausting haveing to constantly copy and paste your own words just to try and keep you on subject.



i wasn't mocking the lord of anything. i was mocking you. ie your persistent statement of your dogma as fact. again, this goes back to the shaky faith inherent in a biblical literalist mentality. on some level you believe that your religion is meaningless if the bible isn't literally true (nevermind the blatantly obvious fact that it's full of figurative languge, as you've already demonstrated).[/QUOTE]

Yes you did. A biblical literalist isnt blind to metaphors BU. Do you really think that only you or your type are capable of discerning a metaphor. I bet so and it reeks of arrogance. Just for you I will repost old material so you can understand a literalist point of view. I doubt you will get it but I do hope that if other Christians see it they can see why believing evolution might be part of Gods plan is wrong and not supported in scripture.


You say that you believe in the Bible completely, but you also think that time and translations have created misunderstandings. How do you choose what part of the Bible to believe? This is part of why refuting evolution is such a big deal to me. If you try to add ideas to the Bible that came from man, you are compromising it’s authority as the Word of God. Why would God be so misleading in describing how he created our world and everything in it if evolution were the means by which he created? If you set aside any preconceived ideas that you have about evolution and read Genesis and took its meaning at face value, could you come up with any other conclusion then that he created in six days and rested on the seventh? Isn’t this where the basis of the seven day week that we still use today came from? Where in Genesis do you start believing what he said? Do you believe that he saw his creation as “very good” when he finished? What about Adam and Eve? Do you believe that sin, and consequently death and suffering, entered the world through Adam? Isn’t that why Christ came to this earth? To take the place of the first Adam and to take the punishment for sin upon himself? Jesus Christ himself took the events recorded in Genesis literally. In addition, there is significant manuscript evidence (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) that the Bible has been interpreted correctly. Please check out this web site. http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html 2

2 Timothy 3:16 says that “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness”

I find it hard to believe that Our perfect Lord and Creator would have allowed the person he chose to document his word to misunderstand what he was saying especially if he wanted it to be “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. The writers of the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit not be clear?

I’m not implying that every word of the Bible should be taken literally, but the key to interpretation any part of it lies in realizing what the author intended to convey. The Bible contains poetry, parables, prophecy, letters, biography, autobiography/testimony, and authentic historical fact. Check here for more on interpretation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre.../i1/genesis.asp

You’re right, the message is what is important, so it is important that we understand what that message is and believe that the Bible is true, all of it.


BTW I prayed for you today at church. Hope you dont mind

 

[stammerman80]

I’m not implying that every word of the Bible should be taken literally, but the key to interpretation any part of it lies in realizing what the author intended to convey.

What Gives You The Right To Chose Which Of Gods Teachigs Are Metaphors? A Literalist Who Believes In Metaphors Is Not A Literalist. You Trust God More Than Blackumbrellan But I Wonder If You TrustHim Completely.

 

[bamabake]

What Gives You The Right To Chose Which Of Gods Teachigs Are Metaphors? A Literalist Who Believes In Metaphors Is Not A Literalist. You Trust God More Than Blackumbrellan But I Wonder If You TrustHim Completely.

Well since you dont know me or, apparently what I was trying to convey, please take the time to ask me what you would like clairfication on rather than pass judgement on me. I would recomend you PM me.

 

[blackumbrella]

forgive me for not keeping up. rather than avoiding the conversation by saying it's pointless to talk about, maybe you should clarify your ideas about why people who don't believe in god aren't moral so we can discuss them. as to the evolution issue, the bottom line is that I side with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, you side with the overwhelming minority. you can't disagree with that. i can't speak for you, but i'm pretty sure you agree with 'scientific' ideas based on the same criterion you use in deciding whether or nor to dis/agree with every other type of idea--if it comports with your interpretation of the bible. is this an unfair characterization of you? do you agree with any ideas, scientific or otherwise, that conflict with your interpretation of the bible? if not, it's perfectly understandable why you can't grasp the fact that beginning with the bible is not a viable way to do science.

 

[IH8Orange]

Wow!!!

Now We Have The Guy Who Posts Fully In Camel Case Involved. This Could Get Very Interesting.

He Doesn't Believe That The Bible Contains Metaphors. I Wonder How He Explains The Fact That Jesus Said In Matthew 13:13 That He Speaks "in parables" To His Followers. Parables Are Stories That Use Metaphors To Infer A Moral Or Religious Principle. So, If Jesus Says That He Uses Metaphors And The Camel Case Guy Says That The Bible Doesn't Contain Metaphors, Who Will You Believe?

 

[bamapeppy]

What Gives You The Right To Chose Which Of Gods Teachigs Are Metaphors? A Literalist Who Believes In Metaphors Is Not A Literalist. You Trust God More Than Blackumbrellan But I Wonder If You TrustHim Completely.

Where Did You Learn How To Write? Man, It Takes A Lot Of Extra Effort To Type Like This.

 

[bamapeppy]

There Is No Need Of Explaining It To Him. I Am Sick With The Stench Of How He Talks About God. If The Bible Says A DayIt Means A Day. Or Why Else Would It Say It Or Say "The King Saw A Tree Of Great Height At The Center Of The Earth Reaching With Its Top To The Sky And Visible To The Arth’s Farthest Bounds" If YouCould Not Really Seee The Hole World From Such A Tree?? Evolution And Globalists Should Trust The Bible Not Scientists.

Nay. We should continue to witness to him even when he mocks us.

Now, a man can be moral without being Christian. Even an athiest or agnostic can have morals. Just because a man does not believe in MY god doesn't mean he is immoral or worships the devil and sacrifices kidnapped children on Friday nights. I wish for all men to learn of God's love and accept Jesus Christ as their savior. But, there are many men past, present and future that have not or will not be witnessed to. Should I shun these people or hold them near and witness to them? Did Jesus shun the wicked?

Stammerman. READ your Bible. 2 Peter 3:8 - ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

The context of this passage is not defining a day because it doesn’t say ‘a day is a thousand years’. The correct understanding is derived from the context. The Apostle Peter’s readers should not lose heart because God seems slow at fulfilling His promises because He is patient, and also because He is not bound by time as we are.

The text says ‘one day is like (or as) a thousand years’ . The word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1000 years. To the Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same.

Also read Psalms 90:4 - For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

In 2 Peter, Peter is in fact quoting the Psalm. This is synonymous parallelism (Stammerman, a dictionary will help you understand the big words though I am not trying to denigrate you, only help you understand), where a long period of a thousand years is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and a night watch. The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mortal man in comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching, saying that no matter how long a time interval is from man’s time-bound perspective, it’s like a twinkling of an eye from God’s eternal perspective.

 

[stammerman80]

Wow!!!

Now We Have The Guy Who Posts Fully In Camel Case Involved. This Could Get Very Interesting.

He Doesn't Believe That The Bible Contains Metaphors. I Wonder How He Explains The Fact That Jesus Said In Matthew 13:13 That He Speaks "in parables" To His Followers. Parables Are Stories That Use Metaphors To Infer A Moral Or Religious Principle. So, If Jesus Says That He Uses Metaphors And The Camel Case Guy Says That The Bible Doesn't Contain Metaphors, Who Will You Believe?

Are You Saying That Genesis Is A Metaphor?

 

[IH8Orange]

Are You Saying That Genesis Is A Metaphor?

Did I say that?

 

[NYBamaFan]

Are You Saying That Genesis Is A Metaphor?

Do you know, for a fact, that it does not contain metaphorical references?

 

[blackumbrella]

In 2 Peter, Peter is in fact quoting the Psalm. This is synonymous parallelism (Stammerman, a dictionary will help you understand the big words though I am not trying to denigrate you, only help you understand), where a long period of a thousand years is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and a night watch. The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mortal man in comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching, saying that no matter how long a time interval is from man’s time-bound perspective, it’s like a twinkling of an eye from God’s eternal perspective.

this passage exemplifies the artfulness of the text and, by extension, the readership (thoughtful interpretation) involved in bible study. it's powerful bc it's artful. this is true if you see it as artful bc of it's writers and translators or bc it's the word of god. i mean, what's so wrong with thinking that god could be poetic?! there's a longstanding view among certain scholars (lucretius, james mill, bertrand russell) that religion, at least in the last few thousand years, is a cognitive coping device of fearful, nerveless weaklings. i personally disagree bc this analysis seems to ignore alot of things, most egregious of which is the clear social cohesion (not always positive as we well know), but these biblical literalists with all their neurotic equivovating, and sweaty desperation give credence to the old 'crutch of the fearful' argument. i recently discussed this with an israeli friend, who said there is no analog to 'biblical literalists' in judaism bc there is so much ambiguity inherent in hebrew, and therefore scholarly exploration of all the possible meanings is a necessary cohort to the text itself. hell, hebrew doesn't even have vowels. yet somehow, once it becomes english, it's undisputably literal, despite the fact that it's chock full of figurative language, and direct contradictions.

 

[SexyBamaDr]

this passage exemplifies the artfulness of the text and, by extension, the readership (thoughtful interpretation) involved in bible study. it's powerful bc it's artful. this is true if you see it as artful bc of it's writers and translators or bc it's the word of god. i mean, what's so wrong with thinking that god could be poetic?! there's a longstanding view among certain scholars (lucretius, james mill, bertrand russell) that religion, at least in the last few thousand years, is a cognitive coping device of fearful, nerveless weaklings. i personally disagree bc this analysis seems to ignore alot of things, most egregious of which is the clear social cohesion (not always positive as we well know), but these biblical literalists with all their neurotic equivovating, and sweaty desperation give credence to the old 'crutch of the fearful' argument. i recently discussed this with an israeli friend, who said there is no analog to 'biblical literalists' in judaism bc there is so much ambiguity inherent in hebrew, and therefore scholarly exploration of all the possible meanings is a necessary cohort to the text itself. hell, hebrew doesn't even have vowels. yet somehow, once it becomes english, it's undisputably literal, despite the fact that it's chock full of figurative language, and direct contradictions.

You say you disagree with the analysis because it ignores many things, notably the social cohesion of religion. However, do you think that it is the "coping device of fearful, nerveless weaklings"? Many a stronger and better man walks away from the fight. It is usually an insecure rebuttal of a man to stay and try to fight. What good does it serve, what purpose does it gain....merely only a reflection for your ego to feel better. Isn't everything done in order to satisfy the ego? Either produce pleasure or suspend pain? So I do NOT think it is the weak who use spirituality as a guiding source, but rather the stronger, better of the two. If one is driven by ego, then insecurities are packaged throughout. You can be sure of that.

Second....What direct contradictions are you speaking of? Can you please give me examples?

 

[bamapeppy]

Of course I am weak. It is my faith that gives me strength.

Bible study is an ongoing process. There are people who read the Bible every day, have read it cover to cover several times, can quote scripture, yet cant tell you what that passage means. Gather 100 Christians together and have them read the same passage you will likely get 20 different interpretations. Even the trusty King James Bible has had several revisions made to it. I just keep reading, witnessing and trying to understand and when I need a lesson the Lord usually reveals something to me in sometimes the least likely place.

 

[SexyBamaDr]

Of course I am weak. It is my faith that gives me strength.

Bible study is an ongoing process. There are people who read the Bible every day, have read it cover to cover several times, can quote scripture, yet cant tell you what that passage means. Gather 100 Christians together and have them read the same passage you will likely get 20 different interpretations. Even the trusty King James Bible has had several revisions made to it. I just keep reading, witnessing and trying to understand and when I need a lesson the Lord usually reveals something to me in sometimes the least likely place.

I understand what you write and I agree with you. However my response was on what Umbrella thought.
I do not think religion is a cover up for weak, nerveless people and I don't think you do either. It is through christ that all things are possible and the weak are made strong. I think you misunderstood my response.