(October 26, 2015 at 11:14 am)ChadWooters Wrote: In most instances, Jor takes reasonable and nuanced positions. Not in this case. The question at hand is whether some interpretations of the bible are better than others. First, she denies this on the grounds that the bible is a sacred text. She then offers here own interpretations i.e. that it is largely fictitious, contains forgeries, and that the canon was assembled politically. All that may or may not be true. But she cannot escape the fact that by rendering those judgments she has expressed an opinion about how the text should be received. Either some opinions are better than others or not. She’s trying to have it both ways.
You seem to be arguing against the literalist interpretation typical of baptists (and to which denomination many of our members formerly belonged) are you not thus arguing that baptists have incorrectly interpreted scripture and are thus not "true christians"?
As for the information regarding forgeries and fictitious content, that is widely documented particularly in archaeology as the text directly contradicts the physical evidence to ~450 BCE.
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?-Esquilax
Evolution - Adapt or be eaten.
