Nevertheless that is the position I am taking. So for all intents and purposes that is my position. It can also mean there is mutual agreement, given the details. Which could be why the issue never has to come up. It depends upon what the issue is about. That's the topic for the discussion, imo. I'd want to know why it was inserted. Jan.
I can see why you like this idea. It means you can avoid all the horrible parts in the Bible and just stick with the bits you like. The problem with this approach is that YOU have to decide which bits you like. That makes YOU the moral judge, which means God is not. It also throws suspicion on the bits you like and puts you at odds with other people who like different bits. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then I really can't see any justification for ignoring the bits you don't like. And God might be very upset with your judgements ! I think your attitude highlights the whole Holy Scripture problem. If God wants to communicate with us, he should find a better medium than some ancient Hebrew stories.
Thanks for the link, but sadly, the page doesn't exist. Perhaps you can summarize ? I got this response... Error Sorry, we weren't able to find the content you're looking for.
Excellent point. God is like a useless lifeguard on a beach who watches a child drowning and does nothing to help.
The answr to that type of queston is::: We have no idea how much good can follow from sombody bein raped... such as some lost people feelin so sorry for the victim that they find Jesus an get saved.!!!
Well said sir. There is truth in the Bible, but it is just a book and was written by men who had thoughts and sometimes men think the wrong thoughts, especially when influenced by parents and relations who are stuck in a culture that controls the way they think.
When Jesus died, there was no Christianity - that developed later from the rebellious Jews that needed to convert non-Jews as the orthodox Jews would not listen and treated the rebels as heretics. The Jews didn't realise that their book, which was partially inspired by the Holy Spirit of the True God, predicted the coming of Jesus. They had the incorrect idea that the saviour would be a King/Warrior who would lead them from the tyranny that was the Roman Empire, just like Moses did. But Moses wasn't a King or a warrior ! He was a Son of God ! And he died before reaching the promised land, just like Jesus !
We may also need to look true sense behind any language. Probably many things are indirectly indicated for practical purpose. Today we being more influenced by science, we tend to look language instead of practical sense. Entity can also be a concept.
I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't answer the OP question, IMO. All creationist scriptures are metaphorical and by definition not real, i.e. True in and of themselves. Many fables also contain metaphorical truths, but they don't describe reality.
Real or false, I can/will not say. But basic intention should be good & practical. Hence, we can think of eating fruit pulp rather than caring for kernels. If we shall go in more deep in scientific way we may not get either. Moreover you can base "potential side effects" from any adoption and since scientific understandings are not yet absolute & final, we can not claim for sure, what can come tomorrow on ultimate understandings.
Well, I'll grant you one Truth, "beware the false prophet". And that may happene within the next few days.
Ok, will take care. If some distort basic sense of any religion due to self intrest, ego or deviated feeling, it can not mean basic sense of religion was wrong.
I don't doubt your commitment. With the term "false prophet" I was not speaking about you. And today I was proven right. Check out the latest news story.
Many times a myth with real benefits and without undue side effects can be better than a yet not absolute & final fact with substantial side effects and a reason to losing placebo benefits. Should we not see practical angle, alongwith?