[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by leelover

What you are saying does not apply.

The first part was not a simple written statement, it was a riddle meant to prove a point. I am not sying I have a different interprtatiion of your second statement, I am saying it is wrong.

And where, exactly, am I wrong? I don't see it. Is it wrong because it doesn't jive with what you think/believe? Or is it patently wrong? If the latter, then you ought to have something to back that statement up with. Otherwise, its the former.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

and a riddle cannot be a simple written statement then? perhaps i am interpreting your words "simple written statement" differently than you. either way... it proves my point (and Bear's from what I can gather), that there is no such thing as simple language, black and white, crystal clear. all words have meaning and they may mean different things to different people. therefore, there is no one "true" way to interpret the writing in the bible.

Ok, perfect defence attorney "logic" (term loosely applied here ).

Let's bring it into real life:

Suppose you were a parent of a young child. You are trying to teach this child right and wrong. You don't want them to get hit by a car, so you tell them "don't run in the street, because dead is forever". The child interperets this to mean she shouldn't run"in" the street, but running " across the street is OK.

There has to be limits to you "interpretation" arguement, or EVERTHING is up for interpretation.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

My point in all of this is that, over time, perspective can and likely will change from its original. And I suspect that is the sheepdom which Bear speaks of - that after 2000 years have passed, there are still those who do not question the words on paper. their (the words') intent may no longer remain true where it once was clear.

What I am saying is that the words have not changed. Go ahead and question them. you should, I do. They are not riddles.

If you have specific things in mind then I would be happy to address them.

[slorider18]

Let me lend lee a hand. we'll start with something simple. john 11:35 "Jesus wept." Shortest verse in the bible. what does everyone think that means?????

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by leelover

Ok, perfect defence attorney "logic" (term loosely applied here ).

Let's bring it into real life:

Suppose you were a parent of a young child. You are trying to teach this child right and wrong. You don't want them to get hit by a car, so you tell them "don't run in the street, because dead is forever". The child interperets this to mean she shouldn't run"in" the street, but running " across the street is OK.

There has to be limits to you "interpretation" arguement, or EVERTHING is up for interpretation.

First... I'm NOT a defense attorney.

Because you mentioned it, I went back and looked at my post because what you wrote doesn't sound like what I say to my children. I tell them not to run "into" the street. Feel free to go back to my previous post to check me on that one.

And pretty much everything is up for interpretation. Find me something that is a universally accepted truth and I will give you another way to interpret it.

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by slorider18

Let me lend lee a hand. we'll start with something simple. john 11:35 "Jesus wept." Shortest verse in the bible. what does everyone think that means?????

He was so happy that tears flowed from his eyes

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by slorider18

Let me lend lee a hand. we'll start with something simple. john 11:35 "Jesus wept." Shortest verse in the bible. what does everyone think that means?????

Which version of the bible are you referring to? The King James Version says "Jesus wept." The God's Word version says "Jesus cried." Is there a difference? If you've ever done both in your own life, then yes, there is a difference and you know the difference although I personally would be hard-pressed to describe the difference to someone who has never experienced them both. Just my :two cents: though.

[sinfuldragon]

either way it says the same thing. we can assume that he was happy about it or sad about it but bottom line is he was crying like a 4 year old church girl

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

either way it says the same thing. we can assume that he was happy about it or sad about it but bottom line is he was crying like a 4 year old church girl

all out sobbing, sniveling, and blithering? or just tears running down his face?

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

all out sobbing, sniveling, and blithering? or just tears running down his face?

you see I think his point is that all of those things are basically the same. i understand there are differences but the gist of the idea for them all is the same. base line he was crying. anything more is you adding your own person touch on the story (like when I added like the church girl)

[Italgirl1971]

my bigger question is this: why is that particular line important in life as any of us know it? was it even important then? i suppose its makes for a kinder, gentler story than "Jesus danced" but....

[sinfuldragon]

I agree no point in this line, get a line with some meaning and more than just a couple words.

by the way if it said Jesus danced.... it would have finally had a little humor to it, I think thats what the book is lacking to really make it well rounded.

[Italgirl1971]

now that you mention it, Sinful... that book does have just about everything else that makes for a good novel - death, suspense, women of questionable mores, hehehe. everything but humor and perhaps sarcasm.

[ratchetman]

If you look at the surrounding verses you find the answer. Jesus had just arrived at his friend's funeral. He was told that Lazarus was sick but delayed his arrival until four days after Lazarus was dead. The reason he did this was at least in part because he intended to raise Lazarus from the dead. Now if Jesus is God then he is not separated from Lazarus whether Lazarus is dead or alive. So I don't think that Jesus was grieving because he missed his friend. I believe that Jesus cried wept or what ever, (makes no difference to me how you say it) because he saw how grief stricken the family was. These were probably folks that he was as close to as his own kin. He was moved because he had compassion and empathized with the mourners. One could also look at it from the perspective that he empathized with them because he loves man so much that he died for us. And therefore would care about all humanity just as much as the family of Lazarus. This means that God is grieves for all the terrible things that happen in this world and the fact that he raised Lazarus from the dead speaks to the fact that he will take action in regards to wrong things that happen today. Some of us think that either God is not there or that he does not care or he is letting things slide too far, in the same way that the family of Lazarus thought that Jesus was too late to help Lazarus.
So there you have a very brief look into the verse "Jesus wept"

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

now that you mention it, Sinful... that book does have just about everything else that makes for a good novel - death, suspense, women of questionable mores, hehehe. everything but humor and perhaps sarcasm.

Oh there's humor and sarcasm in the bible. You just need to read a while and it'll come to you. It's had me rolling on the floor a couple of times. The perception is that there is no humor in there in large part because most clergy are a bunch of dried up prunes that couldn't say sh*t if their mouth was full of it.

[Italgirl1971]

OK. Here's some question....

Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph, right? There is an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would be descended from David. Joseph was (purportedly) descended from David. But yet Jesus' mother, Mary, was also purportedly a virgin. So... shouldn't Jesus have been born to a female relative to David? Joseph's lineage is irrelevant in fulfilling the prophecy from the Old Testament.

And Matthew and Luke give the "paternal" lineage of Jesus (via Joseph, a man not Jesus' father if the Bible is to be believed). The preceding generations differ both in number and in name. Also, both Mathew and Luke get Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus in entirely different ways. John says Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem at all and his followers were surprised to find this out.

Any explanations??

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

Oh there's humor and sarcasm in the bible. You just need to read a while and it'll come to you. It's had me rolling on the floor a couple of times. The perception is that there is no humor in there in large part because most clergy are a bunch of dried up prunes that couldn't say sh*t if their mouth was full of it.

I don't know about the bible, but that was funny.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

now that you mention it, Sinful... that book does have just about everything else that makes for a good novel - death, suspense, women of questionable mores, hehehe. everything but humor and perhaps sarcasm.

Has those too!

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

First... I'm NOT a defense attorney.

Because you mentioned it, I went back and looked at my post because what you wrote doesn't sound like what I say to my children. I tell them not to run "into" the street. Feel free to go back to my previous post to check me on that one.

And pretty much everything is up for interpretation. Find me something that is a universally accepted truth and I will give you another way to interpret it.

I didn't say you WERE one, you are using their tactics.

Sorry for the misquote, I had started writing and could not get back to get it verbatim.

Last line, come on, I get what you mean! And whether you admit it or not, you know what I'm saying. Or you are not as quick as I give you credit for.

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by leelover

I didn't say you WERE one, you are using their tactics.

Sorry for the misquote, I had started writing and could not get back to get it verbatim.

Last line, come on, I get what you mean! And whether you admit it or not, you know what I'm saying. Or you are not as quick as I give you credit for.

"their" tactics are, I think, best described as deductive reasoning. i think the whole South Park "Chewbacca Defense" episode was the reasoning taken to its most extreme and ridiculous - but i did laugh myself silly watching it

I get what you were saying - somethings are universally accepted. I would agree with that statement. I think most everyone who doesn't live under a rock or in a cave (literally) would agree with the statement "the sky is blue". but as far as its truth... i guess it depends on the time of day, now don't it? the bible is not one of those universally accepted things though. hence the existence of other religions and other books.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

Well the congratulations... you just took a simple written statement and interpreted it differently than I did. Way to prove my point.

Well done!

Originally Posted by leelover

What you are saying does not apply.

The first part was not a simple written statement, it was a riddle meant to prove a point. I am not sying I have a different interprtatiion of your second statement, I am saying it is wrong.

It was simple, it was written, and it made a statement through an answered query...That is called "rhetorical"...Do you need a dictionary?

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

and a riddle cannot be a simple written statement then? perhaps i am interpreting your words "simple written statement" differently than you. either way... it proves my point (and Bear's from what I can gather), that there is no such thing as simple language, black and white, crystal clear. all words have meaning and they may mean different things to different people. therefore, there is no one "true" way to interpret the writing in the bible.

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

And where, exactly, am I wrong? I don't see it. Is it wrong because it doesn't jive with what you think/believe? Or is it patently wrong? If the latter, then you ought to have something to back that statement up with. Otherwise, its the former.

You are experiencing classic lee behavior: The failure to actually respond thoughtfully to anything other than an absolute agreement...he doesn't like to have "long" posts, so instead of being thoughtful, he goes ad hominem even more quickly than I do, and never actually deals with a respone, saying your response wasn's a response to his post, which itself was no response to your original question. Sounds like a great skill for a politician in Florida...

Originally Posted by leelover

There has to be limits to you "interpretation" arguement, or EVERTHING is up for interpretation.

Everything about interpersonal communication IS up for interpretation...(That is why I spent about 15 posts in the truth thread (I think) outlining a system for ascertaining truth, and then got mad when you refused to then apply it to what might be the greatest sense of truth you have...It offended me, because I though we AGREED on the system, when we obviously didn't...) But that reaches way down to the essence of the issue:

The religious can never be assailed by logic or reason because belief in the supernatural is neither logical nor rational.

The rational and logical will never be assailed by faith in the supernatural because faith in the supernatural is neither rational nor logical.

That being said, if religious people just admitted they were just as lonely, confused, unsure, and afraid of the universe as the rest of us, and admitted they really didn't KNOW, but did get some comfort from their beliefs, and that the secular part of ALL religions was NOT IN CONFLICT, so let's go with that stuff, I would say "ROCK ON!" It is the false bravado, the self-delusion, and the hubris of telling anybody else that their invisible man is less of an invisible man than mine because his book is written right to left, or doesn't have the little symbol on it...Bullshit.

Originally Posted by slorider18

Let me lend lee a hand. we'll start with something simple. john 11:35 "Jesus wept." Shortest verse in the bible. what does everyone think that means?????

It means that, for either joyful or tragically sad reasons, Jesus experienced body-wracking sobs...However, the mot important part is NOT that he wept, but is (as Ratchetman said ) WHY he wept...I may not buy the rationale given by RM, nor any of the "part of god" BS, but at least there is a nod to context...NOTHING exists in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

OK. Here's some question....

Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph, right? There is an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would be descended from David. Joseph was (purportedly) descended from David. But yet Jesus' mother, Mary, was also purportedly a virgin. So... shouldn't Jesus have been born to a female relative to David? Joseph's lineage is irrelevant in fulfilling the prophecy from the Old Testament.

And Matthew and Luke give the "paternal" lineage of Jesus (via Joseph, a man not Jesus' father if the Bible is to be believed). The preceding generations differ both in number and in name. Also, both Mathew and Luke get Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus in entirely different ways. John says Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem at all and his followers were surprised to find this out.

Any explanations??

Well exactly my friend...And I am a defense atty....Proud, too...But a philosopher first...

Translations and different perspectives even at the historical time are different, so how can anyone NOW purport to know anything about it, for real?

Mary was NOT a virgin...At that time, in order to wed, the sheets with the bloody evidence of the maidenhead's piercing on the wedding night were brought to the father of the bride to confirm her status as a virgin for marriage, and having consummated the ceremony. They were NOt really married unless Mary got the high hard one, so either Jesus is a common law Bastard (Jesus Fitzchrist just doesn't have the same ring), or the apostles told a little fib to enhance the allure of the man in sandals...

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by analogbear

The religious can never be assailed by logic or reason because belief in the supernatural is neither logical nor rational.

The rational and logical will never be assailed by faith in the supernatural because faith in the supernatural is neither rational nor logical.

Mary was NOT a virgin...At that time, in order to wed, the sheets with the bloody evidence of the maidenhead's piercing on the wedding night were brought to the father of the bride to confirm her status as a virgin for marriage, and having consummated the ceremony. They were NOt really married unless Mary got the high hard one, so either Jesus is a common law Bastard (Jesus Fitzchrist just doesn't have the same ring), or the apostles told a little fib to enhance the allure of the man in sandals...

Did you mean to say that the rational and logical will never be assailed by faith in the supernatural because reason and logic require evidence/proof unattainable by faith alone?

As for Mary's virginity... I'm not up on the historical requirements in year's past to prove virginity but, as I understand it, the word "virgin" came about through a mistranslation from Hebrew into Greek. The Hebrew word almah (young woman) into the Greek parthenos (virgin). I'm not an etymologist, though.

So as not to cast stones at only the christians, though, there's a huge mistranslation in the Koran, as well, apparently. You know those 72 virgins they keep blowing themselves up to go meet? Yea, umm, its apparently 72 white raisins of crystal clarity.