Conquer Club

2dimes wrote:

rishaed wrote:In which it states roughly paraphrased that in terms of grieving (as for the dead) you were not supposed to mark, cut, and (insert something else I can't remember) yourself because of the dead.

quentin wrote:Check out the big brain on Brad.

So yeah. You could get a tattoo just not an "In memory of dead person." one.

I got it. I didn't know that. I've sent a text to my mom (she indicated to me in prior years that all tattoos were prohibited by the Catholic Church).

The verse (Lev 19:28) is split in two parts- first part references cuttings for the dead. The second part references tattoos and that part does not restrict it to "for the dead". Though you could make a case that the first part does and the second is a restatement of the command, but that might be straining it a bit.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.

What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.

I'm not here to defend that argument; I'm simply explaining how Christians and particular sects aribtrarily behave by flipping between the literal and the figurative. It's a fact that it occurs, and that's the relevant point here. So,...

Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?

And, how old is the Earth?

It's actually not all that hard to find out what should be taken literally. The parts that are historical are meant to be literal. The poetic stuff is clearly not. The prophetic books have their own set of rules but by and large are not literal.

You want it laid out book by book?

People make it hard on themselves. And really they should know better, the Bible says pretty clearly that if you want to believe it you have to give up other forms of authority. But most people have trouble doing that and attempt to force a book into an interpretation that it clearly says otherwise.

So here's a question:
How much of the Bible was literally dictated by God to some human?
(Obviously not all of it - I don't think anyone, apart possibly from the Exclusive Brethren, believes that)

-deleted-

Because one group doesn't call themselves christian and the other does.
Again, what's your own church?
Why are fundamentalist people so reluctant to say this?

puppydog85 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.

What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.

I'm not here to defend that argument; I'm simply explaining how Christians and particular sects aribtrarily behave by flipping between the literal and the figurative. It's a fact that it occurs, and that's the relevant point here. So,...

Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?

And, how old is the Earth?

It's actually not all that hard to find out what should be taken literally. The parts that are historical are meant to be literal. The poetic stuff is clearly not. The prophetic books have their own set of rules but by and large are not literal.

You want it laid out book by book?

People make it hard on themselves. And really they should know better, the Bible says pretty clearly that if you want to believe it you have to give up other forms of authority. But most people have trouble doing that and attempt to force a book into an interpretation that it clearly says otherwise.

Since there's no part in the Bible which states you must take everything literally, then it's up to the reader to separate the literal from the figurative. You chose your standard, and other people will choose their standards. Both sides can use the exact reasoning of your last paragraph and arrive at different conclusions. Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?

RE: the question on the age of the Earth. If one takes the Genesis story literally--as well other parts of the Bible literally (in order to calculate some date), then wouldn't one confine oneself to an age of the Earth which can be falsified? I believe so, which in turn opens the Bible to error in this aspect---if taken literally. How does one overcome this problem?

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.

What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.

I'm not here to defend that argument

I'm genuinely curious to hear your interpretation of creation. Disappointed you won't follow through.

It's up to you to critically think about your position, which is why I ask questions that get to the 'heart of the matter'. If you don't wish to address the fundamental problems of your position, then why bother?

-deleted-

hahaha3hahaha wrote:So, all you have to do to be a true Christian is to call yourself one?
Gee, in that case, I'm an astronaut!

Well, you seem to think that you are better judge of what the bible means, based only on your own cognisance.

Ground Control to Major Tom...

-deleted-

jonesthecurl wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:So, all you have to do to be a true Christian is to call yourself one?
Gee, in that case, I'm an astronaut!

Well, you seem to think that you are better judge of what the bible means, based only on your own cognisance.

Ground Control to Major Tom...

Acting stupid aside, jones, He does ask a fair question, that is why don't you take the creation literally and not figuratively. If God is all powerful he could (and did) create the world in 6 days (he rested on the 7th), why should we make it figurative simply to fit your world view (when it isn't even proven, nor can be proven, but requires an amount of faith.)

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.

What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.

I'm not here to defend that argument; I'm simply explaining how Christians and particular sects aribtrarily behave by flipping between the literal and the figurative. It's a fact that it occurs, and that's the relevant point here. So,...

Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?

And, how old is the Earth?

It's actually not all that hard to find out what should be taken literally. The parts that are historical are meant to be literal. The poetic stuff is clearly not. The prophetic books have their own set of rules but by and large are not literal.

You want it laid out book by book?

People make it hard on themselves. And really they should know better, the Bible says pretty clearly that if you want to believe it you have to give up other forms of authority. But most people have trouble doing that and attempt to force a book into an interpretation that it clearly says otherwise.

Since there's no part in the Bible which states you must take everything literally, then it's up to the reader to separate the literal from the figurative. You chose your standard, and other people will choose their standards. Both sides can use the exact reasoning of your last paragraph and arrive at different conclusions. Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?

RE: the question on the age of the Earth. If one takes the Genesis story literally--as well other parts of the Bible literally (in order to calculate some date), then wouldn't one confine oneself to an age of the Earth which can be falsified? I believe so, which in turn opens the Bible to error in this aspect---if taken literally. How does one overcome this problem?

Whilst some aspects to the Bible may be confusing as to whether they're to be interpreted literally or figuratively, most of it is clean cut, no debate necessary.
For example, when God commands us not to steal, it's pretty obvious that it's a command to literally, not steal. No degree in theology required.
You still have not given any basis regarding why you believe creation was figurative and not meant to be taken literally. This is an open discussion, don't be shy.

Your response doesn't resolve the dilemma. Sure, "don't steal", that makes sense, but saying "it's obvious" when in many cases, it isn't, fails to demonstrate that your standard (whatever it is) is correct while all others are incorrect.

Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?
(We actually can't know, yet somehow you do because you're special? Or... you have access to Godlike truth? Or you don't realize the limits of your stance?)


I already addressed your tangent about the Genesis story. You're not interested in addressing the fundamental problems of your stance (which is disappointing).

-deleted-

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:
Well, you seem to think that you are better judge of what the bible means, based only on your own cognisance.

You've made this claim multiple times, and when queried about evidence for such a claim, never provide any. I've actually stated the quite opposite of what you're saying.

This is very very easy.
Lots of people, reading the same text as you, don't agree with you.
Who says you're right and they're wrong?

rishaed wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:So, all you have to do to be a true Christian is to call yourself one?
Gee, in that case, I'm an astronaut!

Well, you seem to think that you are better judge of what the bible means, based only on your own cognisance.

Ground Control to Major Tom...

Acting stupid aside, jones, He does ask a fair question, that is why don't you take the creation literally and not figuratively. If God is all powerful he could (and did) create the world in 6 days (he rested on the 7th), why should we make it figurative simply to fit your world view (when it isn't even proven, nor can be proven, but requires an amount of faith.)

I don't take it at all. I don't accept any divine authority for his magic book.

-deleted-

So, again, you are right and millions, possibly billions of bbible devotees are wrong.

-deleted-

Um, I don't grant the Bible any authority whatsoever.
I'm not attempting to use it to back up MY position, I am ( I repeat) not a christian. This is after many years of serious consideration (as I've said lots, mostly before you appeared on the scene).
But (once again) the "vast majority" of "Christians" accept evolution.
Go ahead and agrue it with them.



Oh, and again -
Again, what is your church?

I won't mock you. I do that only under extreme provocation. I sincerely want to know. You see, we non-believers seem to need to argue against a huge range of different interpretations of the bible. I have tried to get a discussion going several times on this issue, to see to what extent you guys agree with each other. I find it a little frustrating to be told that the "T"ruth of the bible is "Obvious" when you guys seem to have fundamental differences between you.

I mean, ultimately, I don't really care, it's just that it's hard to have a discussion when the ground keeps shifting underneath us.

So what is you curch, hahaguy?

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?
(We actually can't know, yet somehow you do because you're special? Or... you have access to Godlike truth? Or you don't realize the limits of your stance?)

Give me an example of when I've claimed to be special or have access to Godlike truth.

Still can't answer the underlined, huh?

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I already addressed your tangent about the Genesis story. You're not interested in addressing the fundamental problems of your stance (which is disappointing).

You have not specified any "fundamental problems". It's hard to address an unaddressed problem.
In fact not only have you not mentioned any of these "fundamental problems",

Sure, I have. Go back to page 6 and reread. If you care to answer questions, then we can continue toward the fundamental problems. If you want to delve into tangents, then so be it.

-deleted-

-deleted-

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Um, I don't grant the Bible any authority whatsoever.
I'm not attempting to use it to back up MY position, I am ( I repeat) not a christian. This is after many years of serious consideration (as I've said lots, mostly before you appeared on the scene).
But (once again) the "vast majority" of "Christians" accept evolution.
Go ahead and agrue it with them.

Your whole premise to arguing against me (that you are self-admittedly not even supporting yourself anyway) is that if someone claims something to be true- it must be true, regardless how little logic and rationale it contains. You STILL have not been able to provide me any evidence that the Bible supports evolutionism. Your only support for the Bible teaching evolution is that "because people claim it to be true- it must be true"- regardless of the fact that this claim is completely baseless.

You've totally missed his point,he and others have been banging their heads against a brick wall,trying to ascertain how NON-BELIEVERS can know which of all the competing interpretations is truest when Christians can hardly agree on much amongst yourselves.If the Catholics for example are right the others are necessarily wrong to some degree.You accused me of trolling a while back,either you are trolling or a bit slow..I mean why would a non-believer look to the Bible for evidence to support evolutionism,come on..??

-deleted-