Pope Benedict XVI to Resign

[Landlord]

Literal (adj) being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

 

Shrugs shoulders, wanders about misuse.

 

 

wanders...

 

What I meant by that is that interpretation and exegesis of Scripture is a lot more complex and refined than just "is this literal or is this not literal." 9 times out of 10 that's not the right question to be asking.

[JJ Husker]

I corrected the a to an o. Posting from my droid can suck. It always wants to fill in extra words and when the post gets long, can't scroll to the end of it.

 

Maybe "literal" is not the most appropriate word. Strict interpretation would be more accurate.

[Junior]

I can't help but be struck by how people taking a literal reading of the Bible are being accused of applying some crazy interpretation and people applying cryptic symbolism and outside sources to the scripture are reading the book as it was meant to be... I'd laugh if it weren't so ridiculous.

 

You would have to show me where anybody claimed the literal translation was some "crazy" interpretation. What I have done is simply said that maybe it isn't that cut and dried and absolute. Why does everything have to be so black or white? Please tell me what your goal is in this discussion. Do you want me to denounce enough points of my personal belief structure that I become just like you? Do you want me to take every sentence in the Bible at face value in a vacuum and reach the conclusion that if every word, in the most simple terms, is not absolutely true on it's own, then the whole shootin match must be a crock?

 

What's ridiculus is an atheist sticking up for compartmentalized, literal interpretations, when he is in basic disagreement of the most crucial parts, simply because another party agrees with him that is exactly how everyone should interpret it. It's ok, you can discount my beliefs and opinions because it is true I do not know scripture to the degree Landlord does. Funny thing is, I'm still Christian and very happy with my understanding of it. If I know anything at all about it, it is that I will not be judged by any man and God understands how and why I am where I am.

 

I really just think that a person who believes in God should... you know... follow what God says.

-- Don't bow before others

-- Don't eat shellfish

-- Love others as yourself

 

You know, the basics.

The picking and choosing parts to follow is what drives me crazy, along with the flawed logic of the Mary argument.

[carlfense]

If he bases some assumptions on his own interpretation of the Manifesto, and then asserts he found a "Marx's logic" that is the only way of reading the text, then yes JJhusker would probably be entertained. I would yawn because I've heard it before.

Interpretation would be one thing but how about using the words of the text itself?

 

(Now if you'd like to argue that the bible has been interpreted, re-interpreted, revised, cut and pasted, translated, etc. so many times that any claim that it's the word of god should be met with derisive laughter . . . well I'd have to agree. That said, I think that it's fair for someone who claims that it is the infallible word of god to be reminded of the actual words of the text.)

[carlfense]

I can't help but be struck by how people taking a literal reading of the Bible are being accused of applying some crazy interpretation and people applying cryptic symbolism and outside sources to the scripture are reading the book as it was meant to be... I'd laugh if it weren't so ridiculous.

 

Exactly but it might help explain the old lamentation about christians being so unlike christ.

[carlfense]

We didn't say "crazy." I would say self-serving and highly partisan,. btw the word "literal" did not exist in the times that the Bible was written.

Guess what else didn't exist in biblical times and doesn't appear in the bible?

 

"Pope."

 

I suspect that this doesn't bother you.

[Junior]

If he bases some assumptions on his own interpretation of the Manifesto, and then asserts he found a "Marx's logic" that is the only way of reading the text, then yes JJhusker would probably be entertained. I would yawn because I've heard it before.

Interpretation would be one thing but how about using the words of the text itself?

 

(Now if you'd like to argue that the bible has been interpreted, re-interpreted, revised, cut and pasted, translated, etc. so many times that any claim that it's the word of god should be met with derisive laughter . . . well I'd have to agree. That said, I think that it's fair for someone who claims that it is the infallible word of god to be reminded of the actual words of the text.)

 

+1000

[JJ Husker]

 

I really just think that a person who believes in God should... you know... follow what God says.

-- Don't bow before others

-- Don't eat shellfish

-- Love others as yourself

 

You know, the basics.

The picking and choosing parts to follow is what drives me crazy, along with the flawed logic of the Mary argument.

 

Don't bow before others. I don't

Don't eat shellfish. I do, and like it.

Love others as yourself. I try, I really really try. Sometimes I don't succeed and sometimes it's because I just don't try that hard.

 

I think everyone should believe in and worship God and...... you know......follow what he says, to the best of their ability at determining what that is and how to apply it.

Looks like neither one of us is getting exactly what we think should happen. You'll have that on a job this size.

[Notre Dame Joe]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

[JJ Husker]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

 

I would guarantee you won't get the same strict interpretation of the Constitution from the atheists on this board. They're already well on the way to morphing freedom of religion, as in the government can't interfere with your practice of religion, to freedom from religion, as in they don't want to see or hear about your religion, especially if it is Christian.

[sd'sker]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

 

I would guarantee you won't get the same strict interpretation of the Constitution from the atheists on this board. They're already well on the way to morphing freedom of religion, as in the government can't interfere with your practice of religion, to freedom from religion, as in they don't want to see or hear about your religion, especially if it is Christian.

freedom of religion and freedom from religion are not mutually exclusive, they are both good. freedom from religion just means the state does not favor any religion over any other religion, or shall not favor any religion whatsoever. it is the symbiotic relationship between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

[JJ Husker]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

 

I would guarantee you won't get the same strict interpretation of the Constitution from the atheists on this board. They're already well on the way to morphing freedom of religion, as in the government can't interfere with your practice of religion, to freedom from religion, as in they don't want to see or hear about your religion, especially if it is Christian.

freedom of religion and freedom from religion are not mutually exclusive, they are both good. freedom from religion just means the state does not favor any religion over any other religion, or shall not favor any religion whatsoever. it is the symbiotic relationship between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

[JJ Husker]

Fricken Droid POS. What I wanted to reply was, that was a good way to put it sdsker. But there is no denying there is an element that wants to take it much further than that. And, I guess to be fair, there is also a religious element that wants the government to espouse their religious views too.

[sd'sker]

Fricken Droid POS. What I wanted to reply was, that was a good way to put it sdsker. But there is no denying there is an element that wants to take it much further than that. And, I guess to be fair, there is also a religious element that wants the government to espouse their religious views too.

it is a fine line. you get d'bags that throw a hissy-fit just because a public school starts its day with the pledge of allegiance or says a pray at graduation. then you have the very network that propagates a 'war on christmas' making a national scandal out of a 'ground zero mosque', which is no such thing.

 

i think it is not as bad as either side would be willing to admit.

[Junior]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

 

I would guarantee you won't get the same strict interpretation of the Constitution from the atheists on this board. They're already well on the way to morphing freedom of religion, as in the government can't interfere with your practice of religion, to freedom from religion, as in they don't want to see or hear about your religion, especially if it is Christian.

 

I completely disagree with that statement. I agree wholeheartedly with freedom of religion. The government should not interfere with your ability to worship. However, posting the ten commandments in a federal building or a public park is government sponsoring religion.

 

Ironically, the people complaining most about the "war on religion", don't believe in freedom of religion, they believe in freedom of their own religion. Rest of the religions be damned.

 

Stakes escalated last week when, to the frustration of some lawmakers, the Islamic School of Greater New Orleans applied for federal funds under the voucher program. Republican state Rep. Kenneth Havard objected to the Islamic School's request for 38 government-paid student vouchers, saying he opposed any bill that "will fund Islamic teaching," the Associated Press reports.

"I won't go back home and explain to my people that I supported this," he said.

"It'll be the Church of Scientology next year," Democratic state Rep. Sam Jones told AP.

The Islamic School of Greater New Orleans withdrew its request for vouchers before the bill went to vote.

 

Critics have pointed out that while the potential diversion of federal funds toward a Muslim school generated controversy among legislators, the state was already slotted under the new voucher program to provide millions of dollars to schools run by Christian churches.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/louisiana_n_1593995.html