Reply With Quote
that must have sucked
And that is pretty much the end of rational debate there.
Wonder what his take on slavery is.
Jesus said it was ok, and never said that it was immoral, as long as you don't beat them to death.
What is your excuse for that tack, Prophet Bob?
that must have sucked
That's because it's antiquated. It was made by certain people for certain people. It's strange that it has so much staying power. It would be like if those "For Dummies" books became the authorities on knowledge in 2000 years.Yes, it is more than a little hard here.
Rob tried until he got painted into a corner, then gave up, and now can't be man enough to admit he is wrong.
Personally, I have a friend who makes the same claim "well that stuff isn't meant to be literal", but that falls into the same "it was just rules for the Jews" camp.
Either way of putting it simply points out the glaring problem of interpretation. The bible didn't come with a cliff notes version.
Actually it isn't 'nuff, if it is ambiguous on the part of your readers.
Either you were clear, or you weren't, and simple yes or no questions could be made clear, if your intention is to be so.
Can't hurt to clearly state your beliefs, as these things get buried. Literally happened or not seems pretty straight forward.
It did. But I just started skimming through posts eventually. No offense, but nothing new really came up for like the last 150 posts before today. It was just different people trying different ways to lift a manhole cover with a toothpick.that must have sucked
No one, least of all me, is attempting to claim some sort of mythical "victory" here, this is not a contest that can be won or lost IMHO, and especially so on a message board.
All along I have maintained this was merely a "discussion" for me.
And yes, of course it is "symbolism", yet it is widely well known that this literary style that was used in the bible and other religious books like this were considered "allegory" to differentiate it from other literary styles.
And to "grasp" these stories in the correct manner in which they were written, you need to understand "why" the authors used this particular style before you can delve into the story for it's intended symbolism.
And that specifically is the point I am trying to make here.
Others want to make more out of it then what it is, pigeon hole, nitpick, and use straw man tactics in order to "win" some "mythical message board contest", when it isn't even a "contest" in the first place.
It is a "discussion" and a sharing of "opinions", nothing more, and nothing less.
I grant you, some on here are "arguing", but I am not.
EDIT: What I have been trying to get across here and do, is put this in the proper context so that it can be discussed in a competent manner.
I thought this was what RG was trying to do too, except for his forays with Rob, which I have no idea what that was all about.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-04-2014 at 12:40 PM.
This is a discourse. It might be a discussion, dialectic or debate, but it still has rules and etiquette. So while there aren't winners or losers, there are still rules folks should follow so that orderly conversation can be maintained.
If you want to just toss your opinion out there, you're welcome to. However, the moment you try to defend it, you are under the rules of discourse. If you break those, it destroys the chance of any discussion, dialectic or debate.
As far as the body of your post, don't count me as one who's keen on having this debate with you (the question of allegory is a debate and not a discussion). It's for you guys to sort out among yourselves. We'll see if this thread ever gets back on track.
God is not evil.
it's an allegoryGod is not evil.
Banana
gonna disagree with ya there.
you haven't answered anything. What you've done is type out 100s of phrases full of fence riding gibberish.
All we are looking for here is a "yes" or a "no".
Mainly because the jeebo s stopped discussing anything and started circlejerking with emoticons, memes, etc....
ParadoxGod is not evil.
Not true. All of RGs questions have been answered. If he wants to keep being an idiot then that's on him.
Obviously.
Check. Mate.
I have stated many times already that I don't think anything in the bible happened in a literal sense, but that it did in a symbolic sense, which would explain why it is written in an allegorical style that was common back then IMHO.
But then people want to interpret my stated opinion into something I am not saying.
No one here can say for sure what happened back then, so how can anyone be expected to know whether any of the events happened or not?
That should be common sense.
None of us were there.
Thus none of us can know.
Why is this so confusing for others to understand?
Answer is the same. Different times, different customs, different cir stances.
Yes or no.
Why is this so confusing for you, Dartmouth?
Bible says God is unchanging.
btw, not to be petty or anything, but do you reckon there's a difference between an event being symbolic and an event occurring symbolically?
I believe that since IMHO it WAS written in an allegorical literary style, then it was meant to be symbolism for deeper theological truths, not history in the literal sense of historical facts.
But lets keep in mind that history, even in modern day, is interpreted and thus written in favor of the victors.
I agree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
