Moderator: Community Team
hahaha3hahaha wrote:chang50 wrote: So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.
This is a provocative comment with no actual basis. If you're trolling, like I presume you are, try harder.
If you're indeed serious, I apologise if that is the impression you have perceived from my comments. I in no way profess to "have all the answers".
Whilst some of the Bible has been contentious and no doubt a tad confusing for some over the correct interpretation/meaning, it generally is pretty straight forward.
For example, when I claim that confessing and being forgiven of sins by a man behind a screen in a booth is not biblical, I can back that up with scriptural evidence, and upon request of evidence that disputes this, get no real response. So by making this claim I'm not professing to be a genius, only to have an apt understanding of general scripture.
hahaha3hahaha wrote:chang50 wrote: So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.
This is a provocative comment with no actual basis. If you're trolling, like I presume you are, try harder.
If you're indeed serious, I apologise if that is the impression you have perceived from my comments. I in no way profess to "have all the answers".
Whilst some of the Bible has been contentious and no doubt a tad confusing for some over the correct interpretation/meaning, it generally is pretty straight forward.
For example, when I claim that confessing and being forgiven of sins by a man behind a screen in a booth is not biblical, I can back that up with scriptural evidence, and upon request of evidence that disputes this, get no real response. So by making this claim I'm not professing to be a genius, only to have an apt understanding of general scripture.
hahaha3hahaha wrote:chang50 wrote:hahaha3hahaha wrote:chang50 wrote: So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.
This is a provocative comment with no actual basis. If you're trolling, like I presume you are, try harder.
If you're indeed serious, I apologise if that is the impression you have perceived from my comments. I in no way profess to "have all the answers".
Whilst some of the Bible has been contentious and no doubt a tad confusing for some over the correct interpretation/meaning, it generally is pretty straight forward.
For example, when I claim that confessing and being forgiven of sins by a man behind a screen in a booth is not biblical, I can back that up with scriptural evidence, and upon request of evidence that disputes this, get no real response. So by making this claim I'm not professing to be a genius, only to have an apt understanding of general scripture.
I'm not trolling.You just don't seem to see how claiming 'an apt understanding of scripture'.is anything but humble,considering the mountains of words devoted to it by thousands of 'experts',and the diversity of opinion thus produced.
Then I do apologize, I did not mean to give off that impression. Again, as I've already stated, I do not pretend like I know all the answers, but there are certain undeniable truths found in Christ's teachings that are not "subject to interpretation"- and I believe these are the ones I have been stating, separate to my own opinions and interpretations.
At the moment you generalizing, and are being careful not to mention anything specific. Would you like to specify what matter you're referring to when you speak of diverse interpretations?
hahaha3hahaha wrote:thegreekdog wrote:hahaha3hahaha wrote:chang50 wrote: So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.
This is a provocative comment with no actual basis. If you're trolling, like I presume you are, try harder.
If you're indeed serious, I apologise if that is the impression you have perceived from my comments. I in no way profess to "have all the answers".
Whilst some of the Bible has been contentious and no doubt a tad confusing for some over the correct interpretation/meaning, it generally is pretty straight forward.
For example, when I claim that confessing and being forgiven of sins by a man behind a screen in a booth is not biblical, I can back that up with scriptural evidence, and upon request of evidence that disputes this, get no real response. So by making this claim I'm not professing to be a genius, only to have an apt understanding of general scripture.
To sum up - "The bible doesn't say a man behind a screen can forgive your sins, so it must not be right."
As chang puts it, hahaha ignores 2,000 years of history and theology, nevermind that the Bible is hardly consistent and provides for various "to dos" that I'm relatively certain hahaha doesn't actually do (to be fair, no one else does either). I tend to get these types of anti-Catholic arguments from Christians whose religions are allegedly based only on the Bible. Historically, these religions sprang up mostly for political reasons and the "man behind the screen" quip is an example of this type of thing. A religion based on a literal reading of the Bible cannot possibly exist.
The early Roman church actually persecuted and slaughtered Christians, yet you are saying history should eb the basis of Christianity, not the Holy Scripture pertaining to Christ itself?
When Christ was on earth he made scathing claims against the pharisees of the church, the people who valued tradition and historical law over all else. He declared to them in Mark 7:8-9 āYou abandon the commandments of God to follow human traditions.ā He added, āYou have no trouble rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your own traditions!".
Secondly, catholicism was the first religion to be forged for political reasons, so I'm not sure if you should be throwing these remarks around about other denominations.
thegreekdog wrote:(8) And the last one - do you humble yourself such that you grieve and cry? I kind of get that you don't given your username, so...
2dimes wrote:We've all stoned various sinners I hope, it's one of the things that separates us from other species.
If you're a pharisee like myself I hope you re-read a couple of the laws Greek. You can get a tattoo there is just restrictions regarding why.
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.
2dimes wrote:You could always get a tattoo even if you are circumcised. Just treat my posts like the bible it's self, ignore what I actually wrote.
Just consult with Frac about what I'm trying to say, what's his opinion on Avatars?
2dimes wrote:Could I get a reference to the grieve and cry business, plox?
2dimes wrote:Ok James, thanks I guess. So you like to read a guy's website that explains how the bible is balogna, sexy. I might take a browse later.
For now though, could you narrow it down to anything close to answering my question? I'm ok if you won't, I foolishly thought you could.
2dimes wrote:The tattoo statements do not seem funny on my end but thank you. The law regarding tattoos is quite specific. Sorry about giving you a hard time here but you are being held to a higher standard because of some posts you have made. If you were crummy at catholic apologetics I would have left you alone already. It's healthy for me to learn why you would be a member
I would like to read the part of the Bible about grieving and crying.
2dimes wrote:I'm not taking umbrage, I'm trying to get you to direct me to the verse about "grieving and crying." I'm not letting up because I hope you can do it eventually.
I originally started corresponding with you in here because the Tattoo thing did not fit with the rest of your post to hahaha3hahaha. The law does not forbid tattoos there was just restrictions on why.
2dimes wrote:thegreekdog wrote:What law?
Levitical.
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users