(October 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I repeat, I am not a slave to your book of superstitions as others may be. As a writer, I am always conscious of the need for clarity, out of basic respect for the reader. So I think we've reached the point where it's cards on the table time. If you have something to say, please say it. If not, go away.

It has nothing to do with you being a slave. You said "what makes you think I haven't read the bible?" So most people would assume that by your own statement you've read it. Is that a logical conclusion? Why do you equate reading a book with being a slave to it? Its funny how you say that you've read the bible then gripe that I wasent being clear about something that's in the book you say you've read but then when something goes by you then it's "I'm not a slave to your book of superstitions" which seems a creative way to say "I was talking out of my butt when I said I read your book of superstition". Ahhh,good so we've established you arent very knowledgable about the bible after all.

This is gonna be good!

(October 15, 2012 at 9:03 am)Tnmusicman Wrote: It has nothing to do with you being a slave. You said "what makes you think I haven't read the bible?" So most people would assume that by your own statement you've read it. Is that a logical conclusion? Why do you equate reading a book with being a slave to it? Its funny how you say that you've read the bible then gripe that I wasent being clear about something that's in the book you say you've read but then when something goes by you then it's "I'm not a slave to your book of superstitions" which seems a creative way to say "I was talking out of my butt when I said I read your book of superstition". Ahhh,good so we've established you arent very knowledgable about the bible after all.

I think it's pretty clear that
1. he read it, and
2. he doesn't take everything/anything in it at face value on faith

I'd like to see someone defend the validity of the Noah's Ark story, as no one has succeeded in doing so. Either that or admit it's a metaphor.
Likewise, about the 'clarity'. There have been many different interpretations of the bible, and none have yet been proven to be the 'correct' one.

Exactly. To me the 'holy' bible is essentially a reference book for verifying or demolishing (as appropriate) xtian assertions about the book. Have I read it? Yes, I have; several times right through, though not in single sittings and with regular vomit-breaks etc. More often on an ad hoc basis, with reference to my first point. Do I understand it? I would say, with all modesty, probably about as well as any casual reader with no vested interest or career-based obsession. If any of this says that I am talking out of my barrel to you, that says a lot more about you than it does me.

(October 12, 2012 at 1:19 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Indeed. I do wish those of our theist number who do this would simply get to whatever point they're going for, rather than trying to appear all mystic and deep and failing hard.

It would not make any difference how well we stated our position, you would pull out the mystic card. This is why, you do not care what truths are put before you from scripture, why because you can not understand that which you can not see. The more I am here the more I understand what Christ meant by the blind.

(October 12, 2012 at 1:19 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Indeed. I do wish those of our theist number who do this would simply get to whatever point they're going for, rather than trying to appear all mystic and deep and failing hard.

You would not care how much truth we would give, you would still clam mystic. You do not care to learn from anyone who's view differs from your's. You also could not understand what comes from scripture, why, because you are blind, the more time I spend here the more truth I see in what Christ said about those who are blind.

(October 16, 2012 at 12:26 am)Godschild Wrote: You would not care how much truth we would give, you would still clam mystic. You do not care to learn from anyone who's view differs from your's. You also could not understand what comes from scripture, why, because you are blind, the more time I spend here the more truth I see in what Christ said about those who are blind.

Says the guy quoting a book he has yet to establish the credibility of...

(October 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 16, 2012 at 12:26 am)Godschild Wrote: You would not care how much truth we would give, you would still clam mystic. You do not care to learn from anyone who's view differs from your's. You also could not understand what comes from scripture, why, because you are blind, the more time I spend here the more truth I see in what Christ said about those who are blind.

Says the guy quoting a book he has yet to establish the credibility of...

How could he, when this is written about it by the believers themselves:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm Wrote:The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council (this one happened in 1545).
[...]
Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: II Peter, iii, 15, 16, supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration. Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full.
And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries.
[...]
This view that Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the New Testament canon, is favoured by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the New Testament catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship.
Moreover, the advocates of this hypothesis point out that the Apostles' office corresponded with that of the Prophets of the Old Law, inferring that as inspiration was attached to the munus propheticum so the Apostles were aided by Divine inspiration whenever in the exercise of their calling they either spoke or wrote. Positive arguments are deduced from the New Testament to establish that a permanent prophetical charisma (see CHARISMATA) was enjoyed by the Apostles through a special indwelling of the Holy Ghost, beginning with Pentecost: Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 15:28; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, are cited. The opponents of this theory allege against it that the Gospels of Mark and of Luke and Acts were not the work of Apostles (however, tradition connects the Second Gospel with St. Peter's preaching and St. Luke's with St. Paul's);

well.... even the NT seems to be mostly "divine inspiration"...

(October 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote: well.... even the NT seems to be mostly "divine inspiration"...

Well, now that's funny, no wonder no one who actually saw the events or knew anyone who did were the ones to write about it! They God filled in all of the mystical lies missing details for themselves!

(October 16, 2012 at 12:26 am)Godschild Wrote:

(October 12, 2012 at 1:19 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Indeed. I do wish those of our theist number who do this would simply get to whatever point they're going for, rather than trying to appear all mystic and deep and failing hard.

You would not care how much truth we would give, you would still clam mystic. You do not care to learn from anyone who's view differs from your's. You also could not understand what comes from scripture, why, because you are blind, the more time I spend here the more truth I see in what Christ said about those who are blind.

What makes you think I was talking about you? I referred to " those of our theist number who do this", ie pretend there's "some secret True Christian Club thing". If that triggered your Martyr Sense, it's no-one's problem but yours.

Still, as long as we're here, I can't help feeling you completely misinterpreted what I said anyway. It's no wonder there's a breakdown in communication when one side apparently can't understand plain English. Perhaps try again?