[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

jackassery

not sure if he thinks he did anything wrong, but i'm pretty sure he doesn't care. why? because jesus still loves him and he will be forgiven.

i remember when i was a teenager a bunch of people my mom knew who were Catholic would basically run around and gossip about this person and that person, have affairs, cheat on their taxes, all sorts of really weird stuff that, as a teenager, I didn't really expect from anyone my mom would associate with. but they either never went to confession or just figured their hail marys would cover it because every week they were back at it. i guess they never grasped the concept that forgiveness is only going to be had by not only confessing your sins to god, but also changing your behavior.


so why is it such a problem that some (like me) choose to just take out the middle man on that one. i'd rather atone for my mistakes (sins) and humble myself enough to ask for forgiveness from those i've actually hurt.

That's where we all should start. Jesus even said so.
Lots of people take the view that they can do as they please and then confess to God and be ok. They do not understand the bible. I didn't really understand this phenomenon until a friend of mine (83 year old former Anglican minister) told me about a priest he used to work with years ago. The guy liked boys but it was ok because he would ask for forgiveness.

Originally Posted by analogbear

This is your second or third reference to hell...
I am still waiting for your description of hell...

The bible describes hell in a number of places I recommend that you check it out and then get back to me

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

The bible describes hell in a number of places I recommend that you check it out and then get back to me

I asked for YOUR description...I think I wrote in clear English, with little or no trace of accent...I have several bibles, in several languages, and, frankly, they all differ to some degree. Hence, my requesting that you benificiently share your great wisdom and experience regarding the afterlife with the rest of us, who don't really know...Sorry for the sarcasm.

[sinfuldragon]

Plus if you give the bible to 100 different people and ask them to all read the exact same parts then later ask them to describe what it was saying you are going to get a lot more than one different answer.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Plus if you give the bible to 100 different people and ask them to all read the exact same parts then later ask them to describe what it was saying you are going to get a lot more than one different answer.

And therin lies the principle problem with biblical interpretation, and why it has been frowned upon by most legitimate organized religions...Some of the more liberal sects allow reading, but not independant interpretation...I refer to an old Eddie Murphy line:
If you're gonna believe the myths, believe all the myths...

If you are going to believe in god, and you think the bible is "true," you must believe all of it...And that means sometimes believing against your personal interpretations. When biblical scholars or clergymen, with far greater experience with the text than you (the impersonal you, call him john everyman) provide an insight or interpretation based on history, tradition or experience that differs from what you perceive the text to mean, if you are really a believer, shouldn't you defer to the experts? Without those experts there would be no modern bible, so I think they may know a thing or two about it...

Otherwise, it's all fact or all metaphor depending on your perspective, and each interpretation is equally right...That nullifies any real truth in the book at all...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Plus if you give the bible to 100 different people and ask them to all read the exact same parts then later ask them to describe what it was saying you are going to get a lot more than one different answer.

The Bible, like any work of literature, needs to be read in context. You can take anything out of context if you pick and chose a verse here and there.

If you take the time to do this there are not many different interpretaions available. It says what it says.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

And therin lies the principle problem with biblical interpretation, and why it has been frowned upon by most legitimate organized religions...Some of the more liberal sects allow reading, but not independant interpretation...I refer to an old Eddie Murphy line:
If you're gonna believe the myths, believe all the myths...

If you are going to believe in god, and you think the bible is "true," you must believe all of it...And that means sometimes believing against your personal interpretations. When biblical scholars or clergymen, with far greater experience with the text than you (the impersonal you, call him john everyman) provide an insight or interpretation based on history, tradition or experience that differs from what you perceive the text to mean, if you are really a believer, shouldn't you defer to the experts? Without those experts there would be no modern bible, so I think they may know a thing or two about it...

Otherwise, it's all fact or all metaphor depending on your perspective, and each interpretation is equally right...That nullifies any real truth in the book at all...

It is up to each person to have knowledge, not rely on "experts".

And yes, you should (must) believe all the book.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

If you take the time to do this there are not many different interpretaions available. It says what it says.

As a lawyer, I can tell you with absolute confidence, that ANYTHING can have many interpretations, and each of them supported by context, etc. What I refer to is the historical legitimacy of interpretation that informs a modern interpretation. It is this failure to accept historical context, historical precedent, and historical definitions for the terms that allow for a personal -and therefore illegitimate- interpretation of the book...When one says "It says what it says" he or she sounds like a criminal arrested, who looks at the individual statute and says "I didn't do that!" without really understanding how EVERYTHING evolves over time, including the human-interpreted word of god...

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

As a lawyer, I can tell you with absolute confidence, that ANYTHING can have many interpretations,

That about says it allspoken like a lawyer.
That sort of logic may work in a court of law, but not with God.
Why do you want my definition of hell? Aren't the ones found in the bible sufficient? Well I'll just tell you what springs to mind. Lake of fire defines hell entirely to my satisfaction.

[sinfuldragon]

thats not so bad, just stand to the side of the lake and roast marshmallows

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

STUDY ALL OTHER RELIGIONS DEEPLY,

I don't have time for that. I might do a bit of research from time to time. I prefer to study my own. I find it uplifting in a way I can't quite describe.

[sinfuldragon]

Perhaps if you were to research others you would find one that better suits you and gives you an even more uplifting feeling.
How can you say your current one is right and the others are wrong if you haven't taken the time to research the others? Or did you base your "this one is right" off of the one that read the best to you on the first pass?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Perhaps if you were to research others you would find one that better suits you and gives you an even more uplifting feeling.
How can you say your current one is right and the others are wrong if you haven't taken the time to research the others? Or did you base your "this one is right" off of the one that read the best to you on the first pass?

You don't need to "DEEPLY RESEARCH" them to see the basics of what they believe. None have the fullness of Christ.

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by leelover

You don't need to "DEEPLY RESEARCH" them to see the basics of what they believe. None have the fullness of Christ.

Well said

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

That sort of logic may work in a court of law, but not with God.

So... god doesn't like logic? Or is there a particular form of logic that god prefers? If it's the former, please explain why we as humans possess the power of logic and reason (ok not all humans but you know what i mean lol) because if he doesn't like it then it would be a sin against god to utilize it. If its the latter, then its perfectly okay for Bear or anyone else to use logic to argue against religion, god, the bible or whatever.

Oh wait... that's right... faith, by definition, requires the atleast temporary suspension of reason, logic, and rationale. Seems awfully convenient. And rather logical argument from some perspectives in its own right.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

So... god doesn't like logic? Or is there a particular form of logic that god prefers? If it's the former, please explain why we as humans possess the power of logic and reason (ok not all humans but you know what i mean lol) because if he doesn't like it then it would be a sin against god to utilize it. If its the latter, then its perfectly okay for Bear or anyone else to use logic to argue against religion, god, the bible or whatever.

Oh wait... that's right... faith, by definition, requires the atleast temporary suspension of reason, logic, and rationale. Seems awfully convenient. And rather logical argument from some perspectives in its own right.

He didn't say God doesn't like logic, He is the authour of it.

He said THAT kind of logic. You are smart enough to see what he meant according to Abear's post.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

That about says it allspoken like a lawyer.
That sort of logic may work in a court of law, but not with God.
Why do you want my definition of hell? Aren't the ones found in the bible sufficient? Well I'll just tell you what springs to mind. Lake of fire defines hell entirely to my satisfaction.

1-Nothing in my statement was logic--go read a book on logic.
2-I asked you for one because you kept saying non-believers, and Italgirls ex wre going to hell, and I was interested in what you thought was so bad about the christian hell.
3-If lakes of fire are all you got, ask anybody who has a painful and chronic injury, or who has been married for more than 12 years, and that doesn't sound too bad...See the problem with the christian hll is that the threat is about suffering, and we can learn to endure, or at least get used to, just about anything. There is a REALLY TERRIBLE idea of hell, posited by Thomas Aquinas, but I suspect you don't know what it is, as it is in his philosophical writing, rather than his religious writing.

And, if you ignorantly fail to study other religions, especially ones that came befor christianity, and upon which much of christianity is based, you are purposefully remaining ignorant, which is something you just argued against by learning about god yourself...Seems to me, if god is so great, one little book couldn't hold all of his greatness...And, if the bible actually did contain truth, wouldn't an even minimally powerful god make it self evident AS the truth?

You guys are all nuts, and only a small improvised explosive device away from a islamic terrorist.

[ratchetman]

If God is who he says he is, then one book is all he needs. Seems to you have read too may books and have not done enough self examination. So if nothing in your statement was logic then your argument was illogical?
Someday I may come across Aquinas' idea of hell but I'm not going to rush off and look for it. I merely broached the subject of hell because a lot of folks don't feel that I am entitled to believe the way I do. The fact of the matter is that I have the right to believe as I chose and to say so. It's OK with me if you don't agree and I don't intend to force anyone to see things my way. I don't mind a bit of debate though.

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

If God is who he says he is, then one book is all he needs. Seems to you have read too may books and have not done enough self examination. So if nothing in your statement was logic then your argument was illogical?
Someday I may come across Aquinas' idea of hell but I'm not going to rush off and look for it. I merely broached the subject of hell because a lot of folks don't feel that I am entitled to believe the way I do. The fact of the matter is that I have the right to believe as I chose and to say so. It's OK with me if you don't agree and I don't intend to force anyone to see things my way. I don't mind a bit of debate though.

No one here is saying that you can't believe whatever you want just because thats what you want to do. Fact is you like every other christian wants your audience (us) to keep an open mind to what you are saying. to be willing to think it over to try to see the light by the wisdom of your words and those words of the bible YET you refuse to keep an open mind in return. Hypocrisy at its best if you ask me

Originally Posted by leelover

You don't need to "DEEPLY RESEARCH" them to see the basics of what they believe. None have the fullness of Christ.

I think if you are going to out and out call others wrong then you need to do the research to justify that thought. If you (not you you but you in general) are going to come out and say i'm right and I don't care what you think then why are we even talking about it. As I said above if you want me to open my mind to the possibility that you are right, then I want the same in return. If I wanted to talk to a wall... I have four in each room in my house

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

You guys are all nuts, and only a small improvised explosive device away from a islamic terrorist.

You are quite wrong about that. I spent time attending a church that many of my relatives still attend, that adheres to the doctrine of pacifism. A doctrine that is very easily defended based on scripture. I may not now be as pacifist as they are but that could change. Most mainline Christian denominations teach that we do not battle against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers. So therefore we believe that we can win without physical force. For example we are taught to be kind to our enemies and to pray for them. So how am I going to do something nice for my enemy if I have blown him up? Yes there you go again not using logic

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

No one here is saying that you can't believe whatever you want just because thats what you want to do. Fact is you like every other christian wants your audience (us) to keep an open mind to what you are saying. to be willing to think it over to try to see the light by the wisdom of your words and those words of the bible YET you refuse to keep an open mind in return. Hypocrisy at its best if you ask me

I can admit that I have a closed mind when it comes to certain things. All of us are to a certain point. I am not however totally closed minded. I do not expect that I will somehow convert you by my arguments, that is God's job. I do enjoy the debate and discussing my beliefs with those who believe differently.

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

You are quite wrong about that. I spent time attending a church that many of my relatives still attend, that adheres to the doctrine of pacifism. A doctrine that is very easily defended based on scripture. I may not now be as pacifist as they are but that could change. Most mainline Christian denominations teach that we do not battle against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers. So therefore we believe that we can win without physical force. For example we are taught to be kind to our enemies and to pray for them. So how am I going to do something nice for my enemy if I have blown him up? Yes there you go again not using logic

This offers little to no explanation for the countless deaths which occurred in the name of Christianity during recorded history.

And on the subject of islamic fundamentalism... has anyone read "Why I Am Not a Muslim"??

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

. So if nothing in your statement was logic then your argument was illogical?

The fact of the matter is that I have the right to believe as I chose and to say so.

I don't mind a bit of debate though.

Illogical is a colloquialism made popular by Star Trek, and is not a term of art within the confines of logical argument. Cogent, not-cogent; valid, invalid; etc are terms of art.

I made no argument...Look up what an argument is, and you will see I wasn't doing that. I think I was merely expositing a historical perspective of the bible/christianity.

You do have the right to believe any foolishness you want to, but unles you are one of "the people" I dispute your "rights" in a legal sense...I also dispute your right to say anything about what you believe spiritually, but I am somewhat extreme in my division between public and private spheres. I think religion, as opposed to politics, art, sports etc. all of which can produce hot-heads, is so private, that people should keep their religious beliefs to themselves. To spout about your personal relationship with god disrespects yourself and god...This forum is an exception, because it is a voluntary private club, and SOME of us pay to join...So go ahead, but limit your prosyletizing...

We have yet to debate, though...If you want to, let me know...And then suggest a topic (sufficiently narrow for a debate) and state whether you wish to be pro, or con. I will argue any point you wish, from whichever position you want me to, without bias or emotional investment.

[Italgirl1971]