Originally posted by Nellinator
Basically. He has never used it for the Jews or any believers. An example of the contrast would be the fact that angels appeared to the Jewish shepherds, but God used a star to bring unbelievers.
So, god is smart enough to talk to people in the way they would understand? (that sounds sarcastic, but I do not mean it to be). If what you are saying is true, then there maybe a lot of things in the bible that were written for people who did not understand science or how the universe really worked. In other words, the bible should not be taken literally.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Unless it is teaching on the matter no, it shouldn't. When the Bible presents itself as literal then we can accept it as literal. It is a book of history as well spirituality.
The problem is deciding what is literal and what is not.
Also, the bible being a history book is like Gone With the Wind being a history book.
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
Originally posted by Nellinator
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
I respect and understand that you have chosen the Bible as your source of guidance, and that it has not failed you so far. I do not expect you to betray your Faith to it and discipline towards it.
If it works for you, and I am sure you will claim that it has, then I am all for it. I am all for your Faith and practice, because of the good you feel it has done in your life.
What I am not for, however, is any attempt you may make to either limit the freedom of another person or any attempt you may make to impose your religion and practice on another.
This includes but is not limitted to:
-Voting to pass a law to ban Gay Marriage
-Voting to pass a law or enabling an act which disparages another religion or limits the freedoms and speeches of other religions and cultural groups
-Attacking another's religion or belief or life choices in a way which is illogical, hateful, closed minded, unfounded, etc.- like Marcello had done
You may notice I did not include anything about Abortion. The reason being, I do not see Abortion as a "religious" issue, but as a "life or death" and "freedom of choice" issue alone.
I hope you understand my point. I am fine if you are personally against Gay Marriage, alternate lifestyles, other religions, or what not. What I am not okay with is if you try to take action to limit another person and/or try to impose your own choices onto them.
That is not your right to do so. I hope you understand that.
Originally posted by Nellinator
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
That is rationalization. Ether the people who wrote the bible did understand, or they did not. I believe they did not understand the true nature of reality, and neither do we. If you try to use the hidden truth argument, I will have to ask you why are you right and everyone else wrong? Why is the bible true and not the Koran? There is no hidden truth; no special way of looking at the bible to get some concealed truth. I was a Christian, and I believed in that, but what I saw was evil people using the bible to get what they want. So, forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And people also know a lot about Superman. In 5,000 years, I bet, people can calculate Superman's birthday to some where around the 1950s.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...As Superman's birth is clearly outlined. But, your point was that Moses's lifetime could be any time because of the lack of evidence of his existence (which statement unverified). I replied that people have estimated his lifetime and the events of the golden calf, disproving your point.
My point is that fiction can be anything you want it to be.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I respect and understand that you have chosen the Bible as your source of guidance, and that it has not failed you so far. I do not expect you to betray your Faith to it and discipline towards it.If it works for you, and I am sure you will claim that it has, then I am all for it. I am all for your Faith and practice, because of the good you feel it has done in your life.
What I am not for, however, is any attempt you may make to either limit the freedom of another person or any attempt you may make to impose your religion and practice on another.
This includes but is not limitted to:
-Voting to pass a law to ban Gay Marriage
-Voting to pass a law or enabling an act which disparages another religion or limits the freedoms and speeches of other religions and cultural groups
-Attacking another's religion or belief or life choices in a way which is illogical, hateful, closed minded, unfounded, etc.- like Marcello had doneYou may notice I did not include anything about Abortion. The reason being, I do not see Abortion as a "religious" issue, but as a "life or death" and "freedom of choice" issue alone.
I hope you understand my point. I am fine if you are personally against Gay Marriage, alternate lifestyles, other religions, or what not. What I am not okay with is if you try to take action to limit another person and/or try to impose your own choices onto them.
That is not your right to do so. I hope you understand that.
Would you shut the **** up about your "issues" with Christianity? We've heard them dozens of times, and you're just using this as an opportunity to sound off. Would you really like to hear me talk about why secular humanism fails in one out of three posts?
Furthermore, your entire idea of "rights" is ridiculous, a man-made concept that matters little. This entire notion of "having rights" has become a growing irritation like a thorn in my side wedging itself deeper. "Rights" are nothing--they are a social construct; nothing more, and nothing less.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is going to sound REALLY bitchy, but...Would you shut the **** up about your "issues" with Christianity? We've heard them dozens of times, and you're just using this as an opportunity to sound off. Would you really like to hear me talk about why secular humanism fails in one out of three posts?
Furthermore, your entire idea of "rights" is ridiculous, a man-made concept that matters little. This entire notion of "having rights" has become a growing irritation like a thorn in my side wedging itself deeper. "Rights" are nothing--they are a social construct; nothing more, and nothing less.
Please don't run for government office.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is going to sound REALLY bitchy, but...Would you shut the **** up about your "issues" with Christianity? We've heard them dozens of times, and you're just using this as an opportunity to sound off. Would you really like to hear me talk about why secular humanism fails in one out of three posts?
Furthermore, your entire idea of "rights" is ridiculous, a man-made concept that matters little. This entire notion of "having rights" has become a growing irritation like a thorn in my side wedging itself deeper. "Rights" are nothing--they are a social construct; nothing more, and nothing less.
1) Your repeated irritable display may be a result of your stubborn decision to remain a virgin. I suggest you lose your virginity fast before you explode.
2) I do not have "serious issues" with Christianity. I made my peace with it. All I am telling Nellinator is that I hope he does not try to apply his own decisions onto other people. He has no right to do that.
3) Religion, like "rights" is also a human construct. I don't see what you are trying to say here.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) Your repeated irritable display may be a result of your stubborn decision to remain a virgin. I suggest you lose your virginity fast before you explode.2) I do not have "serious issues" with Christianity. I made my peace with it. All I am telling Nellinator is that I hope he does not try to apply his own decisions onto other people. He has no right to do that.
3) Religion, like "rights" is also a human construct. I don't see what you are trying to say here.
He is trying to say, we don't have right unless his god says so.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He is trying to say, we don't have right unless his god says so.
I know that, but he is trying to use the tool of a "human construct" to justify his claim that what we think are rights don't truly exist.
He has a point, up until he tries to argue that God is the creator of those rights. Religion is just as much a human construct as "rights" are. And for all he knows, his God is also a human construct.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I know that, but he is trying to use the tool of a "human construct" to justify his claim that what we think are rights don't truly exist.He has a point, up until he tries to argue that God is the creator of those rights. Religion is just as much a human construct as "rights" are. And for all he knows, his God is also a human construct.
BINGO All is equal.