The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
Thanks FreeThought and StarCrash for saying what I was trying to say better than I could.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjs's post
19-01-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(19-01-2013 01:27 PM)cjs Wrote:  Thanks FreeThought and StarCrash for saying what I was trying to say better than I could.


No need to thank me, it was my pleasure!

I am sure StarCrash might say the same thing.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
20-01-2013, 06:04 AM
The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(17-01-2013 08:56 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It's called communication.

We (they) instantly understand the point that is being conveyed through the words that are used.

Will Jesus literally be wearing a white robe and a crown? Maybe. Probably not. Most likely not. But, the message here is that He is almighty and sovereign.

If you're trying to convey a message, it's an effective form of communication.

And, I never even mentioned a "No True Scotsman". I just said most Christians don't believe in a literal book.

I picture Jesus wearing a Metallica t-shirt and baseball cap. Smoking a fatty while sipping a jack and coke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(19-01-2013 09:24 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is one of the main problems with defining everything that doesn't make sense as "metaphor"; one must consider whether such a metaphor is useful or practical. There are many, many fundamentalists who have been led to believe that it's a literal "book" of life because it isn't spoken of in parable or marked as a metaphor in any manner, but instead left to be believed as literal until understood that it can't be. How does one separate the literal from the metaphor? I'm sure you've heard it before, KC, but you moderates who make things into metaphor only do this with passages that are impossible or illogical... that is, you come to the conclusion first and then fit the facts to it.
No. It's pretty easy to "see" what's literal and what's not.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(21-01-2013 09:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-01-2013 09:24 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is one of the main problems with defining everything that doesn't make sense as "metaphor"; one must consider whether such a metaphor is useful or practical. There are many, many fundamentalists who have been led to believe that it's a literal "book" of life because it isn't spoken of in parable or marked as a metaphor in any manner, but instead left to be believed as literal until understood that it can't be. How does one separate the literal from the metaphor? I'm sure you've heard it before, KC, but you moderates who make things into metaphor only do this with passages that are impossible or illogical... that is, you come to the conclusion first and then fit the facts to it.
No. It's pretty easy to "see" what's literal and what's not.


Then why do people argue about it endlessly? Obvious? I think not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-01-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
@KC in the Middle Ages they used the verse, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live to burn many women at the stake, and we don't do that anymore. The verses on slavery seem pretty literal, but now we've reconsidered them. Christians don't follow the food dictates in the OT because they say it only applies to Jews. Seems to me it's not very obvious, nor has it been through the ages.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(21-01-2013 09:50 AM)cjs Wrote:  @KC in the Middle Ages they used the verse, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live to burn many women at the stake, and we don't do that anymore. The verses on slavery seem pretty literal, but now we've reconsidered them. Christians don't follow the food dictates in the OT because they say it only applies to Jews. Seems to me it's not very obvious, nor has it been through the ages.
That's because people want to use the Bible to fulfill their own agendas.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(21-01-2013 10:04 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 09:50 AM)cjs Wrote:  @KC in the Middle Ages they used the verse, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live to burn many women at the stake, and we don't do that anymore. The verses on slavery seem pretty literal, but now we've reconsidered them. Christians don't follow the food dictates in the OT because they say it only applies to Jews. Seems to me it's not very obvious, nor has it been through the ages.
That's because people want to use the Bible to fulfill their own agendas.


You mean, like Calvinists, right?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-01-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(21-01-2013 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 10:04 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That's because people want to use the Bible to fulfill their own agendas.


You mean, like Calvinists, right?
Calvinists don't have agendas.

We're actually the least likely to have one.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: The Book of Life (God's Big Book of Names)
(21-01-2013 10:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  You mean, like Calvinists, right?
Calvinists don't have agendas.

We're actually the least likely to have one.


Of course you do. I've read your interpretations of the Bible. You interpret it to match Calvinist doctrine.
Is that not an agenda?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: