[Serious] A Literal Bible. Answering questions

[arewethereyet]

Shame this is a serious thread.  There's a lot of behavior begging for commentary.

My bad - thread went sideways and the serious tag slipped my mind...I'll behave. 

Hopefully everyone else will too.

I just find anything that includes the words 'literal Bible' difficult to take seriously.

Play nicely everyone.

[Green Diogenes]

Reading is difficult, most people reply to the clickbait title instead of what was said. Filters out those who aren't interested though.

[arewethereyet]

Reading is difficult, most people reply to the clickbait title instead of what was said. People are predictable, but it still seems like a shame

Graceful acceptance of apology noted.

[Fake Messiah]

Reading is difficult, most people reply to the clickbait title instead of what was said. Filters out those who aren't interested though.

No, it's that this topic doesn't seem to have a point because your posts that are supposed to be about the "topic" are just a word salad, and then you whine about how you are being bullied because people are not talking about the topic because it doesn't exist.

[Green Diogenes]

You don't understand my posts, so you're annoyed, and are accusing me of whining about being bullied, despite that not having occurred. You're a liar making an emotional plea.

[Gwaithmir]

[Fake Messiah]

You don't understand my posts,

Because there is nothing to understand.

[The Grand Nudger]

Aye, figuring out how to break past the dichotomy and hit the core of the issue. It's difficult to break through multiple entrenched dogmas all at once, and I don't have any practice with Atheists so far lol
I'm not particularly interested in talking to Atheists per se, not because I'm not, but because I had 20 years experience being an atheist, and I already know where the 'veil' of the issue is, and can argue there myself. It generally comes down to an issue where two people look at the same piece of data and one man says he can see God, and another says he cannot.

Back to the issue in this thread though; the interpretation style I am using is Biblical, and can be defended extremely robustly in that context, as well as smashing apart the culturally accepted reading. Of course that doesn't mean anything to an atheist, unless possibly as method of engaging people who engage in the "If it's not in the Bible it's not real" line of thinking. It is a tool through that blockade. 

Individual examples and the arguments around the events they describe are something that comes in someone's own time, but the general spirit of empathy applies from the start. Where did this person come from, and when? What did he understand, and how would he describe the world around him, especially when it comes to things he does not really understand? 


(BTW is it just me or is the post new reply page really laggy?)

I guess I'll ask one more time before I drop it..but, who are we talking about here?  Are we trying to employ some kind of empathy for the man who was close enough to watch a person be vaporized by an airburst in 1500bce, and lived to tell the tale?

[Pat Mustard]

There seems to be a determination to miss the point, so that not even agreement can be had, as people repeat back each other's meaning in different phrasing, determined to disagree.

Oh I got the point all right, you're not arguing in good faith. What is the point for you joining the forum given that this fact has been established?

[Green Diogenes]

Aye, figuring out how to break past the dichotomy and hit the core of the issue. It's difficult to break through multiple entrenched dogmas all at once, and I don't have any practice with Atheists so far lol
I'm not particularly interested in talking to Atheists per se, not because I'm not, but because I had 20 years experience being an atheist, and I already know where the 'veil' of the issue is, and can argue there myself. It generally comes down to an issue where two people look at the same piece of data and one man says he can see God, and another says he cannot.

Back to the issue in this thread though; the interpretation style I am using is Biblical, and can be defended extremely robustly in that context, as well as smashing apart the culturally accepted reading. Of course that doesn't mean anything to an atheist, unless possibly as method of engaging people who engage in the "If it's not in the Bible it's not real" line of thinking. It is a tool through that blockade. 

Individual examples and the arguments around the events they describe are something that comes in someone's own time, but the general spirit of empathy applies from the start. Where did this person come from, and when? What did he understand, and how would he describe the world around him, especially when it comes to things he does not really understand? 


(BTW is it just me or is the post new reply page really laggy?)

I guess I'll ask one more time before I drop it..but, who are we talking about here?  Are we trying to employ some kind of empathy for the man who was close enough to watch a person be vaporized by an airburst in 1500bce, and lived to tell the tale?

The empathy point is a general point. 
In that specific example; a comet airburst involves an intense flash of light and heat, similar to a nuclear bomb. It lasts a moment, and doesn't penetrate the terrain. Getting up into the mountains for cover was the objective of the party, so it would stand to reason they were in mountainous terrain that shielded them from this effect, since they survived. One person being out in the open, observed by others in cover, is not a ridiculous idea. 
Having empathy for the author, who was having empathy for the figure in the story (which was derived from an Acacia bush, so the author says), is how you realise that 'pillar of salt' is the best terms a man who had no idea that space existed or what exactly was going on, could use to describe the appearance of what he saw.