And Hells come back to haunt me

[Cyberman]

I agree, as that's not at all what heat death means.

[Simon Moon]

Which one?

"I still find it amusing that you claim to have a working heuristic that you utilize in order to discern which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't."

Not every Christian or Christian sect accepts the same interpretation as to which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. Correct?

Do you disagree with at least some Christians or Christian sects as to which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not? It seems impossible to agree with them all, some are mutually exclusive.

If you don't agree with every Christian or Christian sect, you must have used some method of discerning which parts of the Bible you personally take as literal and which parts you do not.

[catfish]

"I still find it amusing that you claim to have a working heuristic that you utilize in order to discern which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't."

Not every Christian or Christian sect accepts the same interpretation as to which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. Correct?

Do you disagree with at least some Christians or Christian sects as to which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not? It seems impossible to agree with them all, some are mutually exclusive.

If you don't agree with every Christian or Christian sect, you must have used some method of discerning which parts of the Bible you personally take as literal and which parts you do not.

lol, you don't know my position on the Bible, do you?

[Captain Colostomy]

Not every Christian or Christian sect accepts the same interpretation as to which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. Correct?

Do you disagree with at least some Christians or Christian sects as to which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not? It seems impossible to agree with them all, some are mutually exclusive.

If you don't agree with every Christian or Christian sect, you must have used some method of discerning which parts of the Bible you personally take as literal and which parts you do not.

lol, you don't know my position on the Bible, do you?

No one does, moron. You refuse to state it.

[Owlix]

I firmly believe that the bible is an object that I could use to boost my kid closer to the table.

Of course, I don't possess a bible.

Or children.

But it could be used for such a thing.

[snowtracks]

afterlife makes sense from this angle, the universe is heading for a 'heat death' since it's expanding and getting cooler to the point where information can't be transmitted for lack of concentrated heat (energy) which would mean anything that happened in the trillion years would be lost forever. so, no afterlife, nothing ultimately matters.

Unfortunately, the universe cares not for the desires of human beings and their need to have everything "ultimately matter."

What you have basically said is that the afterlife makes sense, because that's how you want things to be. Besides, just because nothing you've deemed important won't be important in a trillion years doesn't mean that stuff isn't still important now.

ETA: Fuckin' ninjas.

[Brakeman]

But anyways, I still find it amusing that atheists tend to stick to a literal reading, it leads to good stuff.

How would that start to become understood metaphorically? What quality of the kidneys were chosen to embody the meaning that the writer wanted to communicate? When an author chooses to use a metaphor there is a quality that one intends to communicate. For example, the metaphor "the "rock" of ages", makes sense since the rock is hard, strong, and unmoving, which is what the writers wanted to convey with that sentence. "The sock of ages" makes no sense as there is no quality of a sock that a writer would be intending to portray. So what about a kidney was the writer or jesus trying to convey to the bible audience? If a metaphor is created it must have a origin and a basis for that origin.

The origin of our common "feelings in your heart" metaphor originates from the ancient belief that the heart was the center of feeling. In the same way, the ancients actually believed that the mind and soul resided in the kidneys. So whether or not we use it as a metaphor today is beside the point, originally it was the scientific thought of the day. It was simply ignorant and wrong, but jesus forgot to tell the ignorant gospel writers about the correct science. Dumb jesus!

Did you have an explanation as to what quality of the kidney that caused them to create this supposed metaphor? Was it the piss? Was it the ammonia smell?

[catfish]

Did you have an explanation as to what quality of the kidney that caused them to create this supposed metaphor? Was it the piss? Was it the ammonia smell?

I didn't, the Lexicon did... "A.used of the inmost thoughts, feelings, purposes, of the soul"

More to the point, why do you still insist on the litteral reading?
Have you ever used the phrase(s) "kicked in the nuts" or "stabbed in the back" when you felt betrayed?
Would you understand that if someone else said either phrase to you?

Or are you just pretending to be an ignorant, intentional dick?

[snowtracks]

didn't say important. seems the U. is rational, and rational would mean it's activity would have meaning. heat death or no afterlife would certainly imply nothing eventually matters. no, yes?

[catfish]

But anyways, I still find it amusing that atheists tend to stick to a literal reading, it leads to good stuff.

Personally, I find it amusing that you feel no need to ever justify your alternate readings. As if we should just take your word for it.

I don't have to "justify" my alternate readings, they are mine. Personal and unique, dammit!

All I have to do is point out the many alternate readings and people like you come along and insist on their own literal interpretation. Aeonian is a prime example, I don't care which way you believe it was intended, just be aware of the alternates and make up your own mind.