ST Alpha - "Well, kinda, it does, IMO. If you're telling me "these parts of the book...they're not to be taken as literal events...but THESE are" it calls into " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 163

In response to "Why is it an all or nothing proposition? -- nm" by oblique

Well, kinda, it does, IMO. If you're telling me "these parts of the book...they're not to be taken as literal events...but THESE are" it calls into

Posted by Jim (aka Jim) Dec 9 '09, 09:01

question the validity of any of the events. Again...IMO.

Responses:

do the events need to be "valid" to have meaning? -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:04
Are you even differentiating between the Old and New Testament here? There's only about a thousand years' difference between them... -- nm - con_carne Dec 9, 09:04 6
- Why should it matter though. Did God change his mind in those thousand years? As I understand it, they're both supposed to be The Word Of God. - musubi Dec 9, 09:06 5
  - Frankly, I think TV evangelists have confused us a lot on how we should take the Bible. "Believe this entire book" is simply not a majority view. -- nm - con_carne Dec 9, 09:09 3
    - What with differing adherence to church doctrine, I don't doubt it. My question is with regards to church doctrine though. - musubi Dec 9, 09:16 2
      - For my denomination, they have had this to say: - oblique Dec 9, 09:21 1
        
        "In fact, to deny the possibility that evolutionary processes were used is seen by some as an attempt to limit God's power." - TFox Dec 9, 09:35
  - The OT God was all piss and vinegar. The NT God is all sweetness and light. - TWuG Dec 9, 09:09
It's not like it's one giant story. It's many different writings collected in one cover -- nm - oblique Dec 9, 09:03 8
- But, if we're to accept it as The Word Of God, as most religions tell use, it's not *really* different tomes under one cover, right? (nm) - musubi Dec 9, 09:04 7
  - again, you're taking the literalist view. I don't subscribe to the idea that every word of the bible was straight from God's mouth to someone's hand - oblique Dec 9, 09:06 1
    - I don't believe I'm being literalist, but I do appreciate that you are engaging those who question The Book. - musubi Dec 9, 09:11
  - Here's how it seems to me: It is when it's convenient to say it is. It's not when it's convenient to say it's not. -- nm - mara Dec 9, 09:05 4
    - And when I asked, if this is the word of God, why were parts excised and others added? - Will Hunting Dec 9, 09:06 3
      - Islam had it right. They won't even let translations be referred to as the Koran. -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:09 2
        
        Nah, imo, Islam has it wrong too, but at least they have a logical consistancy to their Book. (nm) - musubi Dec 9, 09:13 1
        
        that's more what I meant. -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:22

Post a message top

Well, kinda, it does, IMO. If you're telling me "these parts of the book...they're not to be taken as literal events...but THESE are" it calls into

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.