Question for religious people...

[betsy]

I find the way the religious wield words like "understand" interesting. To "understand" the Bible means to completely agree with their chosen interpretation. If you do not then you are not just aren't reading it correctly.

Not with me.

It's only logical to understand the doctrine or the Book one is criticizing about, don't you think so?

Dawkins made that big mistake....thus even atheists philosophers have called him ignorant! Why do you think Dawkins has become nothing more but a court jester now?

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

She didn't even address my interpretation or offer up her own to be criticized the way she's criticizing my argument. Which for the record isn't really an argument at all. It's rather banal to say "some people would disagree and here's why." That's not even saying that I disagree. I'm not even arguing for their side. I'm just saying "Hey! There's a bunch of different interpretations and here are the passages that could lead to different conclusions from yours." Saying that people can interpret the Bible in many different ways is not an argument it's obvious and trite. So I'm not really sure what betsy wants me to "understand" from her post, but I can assuredly say that she hasn't the slightest understanding of what it is I posted.

Doesn't make any difference.

You quoted from NIV with your examples! Read NIV.

Actually, that version is easier to read than KJV....though KJV is one most used by scholars. Get one with the Bible Study footnotes...lots of vatiety in Christian Bookstores. Definitely you'll need one with the bible study, and that's not an insult.

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[cybercoma]

First of all, it doesn't matter whether I quoted it from the NIV or the KJV. You want those passages again in KJV. Here you go:

Matthew 5:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Romans 3:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law

Luke 16:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Luke 21:33

King James Version (KJV)

33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

source: http://www.biblegateway.com

It doesn't matter what version you use, the meaning is the same. Christ did not abolish the laws. He came to fulfill them. And until His prophecy is fulfilled (the returning of Christ), ALL of the laws still apply.

That is a perfectly valid interpretation of the text, which leads me to my second point.

A study guide is not necessary. I don't need someone else's interpretation of the text to guide my reading of it. In fact, if you're from a Protestant sect (which includes Baptists) that's about the worst thing you can say. Martin Luther (a Catholic for the record) fought tooth and nail for a democratized version of the Bible because he didn't believe people needed intermediaries translating the text for them. He believed people could read and understand the text themselves and have their own personal relationship with God, rather than having to defer to the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church, according to Martin Luther, was abusing its power and amassing great wealth at the expense of the people, while keeping the Bible mysterious by holding services in a language very few people understood (Latin).

So, it is an affront to Protestantism that you would insist that I get a "Bible Study" version of the book with some other person's interpretation of the text. If I am created in God's image, then I ought to be perfectly able to read the text and know what He means through it. I should have my own personal connection to God, since I was created by Him. I don't need someone else chewing my food for me and regurgitating it. If that were the case, then my spiritual life would be wholly dependant on other fallible people who have and could use that position of authority to oppress me and keep me from God.

I'll give you one thing though. You're exactly like Martin Luther. Despite believing everyone could read the text and interpret God's message, Luther also believed that the fact everyone was made in God's image meant they would all come to the same interpretation of the text as he did. You and Martin Luther have that in common. You believe your interpretation is the only correct interpretation, despite beckoning others to read it for themselves.

[betsy]

First of all, it doesn't matter whether I quoted it from the NIV or the KJV. You want those passages again in KJV. Here you go:

It doesn't matter what version you use, the meaning is the same. Christ did not abolish the laws. He came to fulfill them. And until His prophecy is fulfilled (the returning of Christ), ALL of the laws still apply.

That is a perfectly valid interpretation of the text, which leads me to my second point.

A study guide is not necessary. I don't need someone else's interpretation of the text to guide my reading of it. In fact, if you're from a Protestant sect (which includes Baptists) that's about the worst thing you can say. Martin Luther (a Catholic for the record) fought tooth and nail for a democratized version of the Bible because he didn't believe people needed intermediaries translating the text for them. He believed people could read and understand the text themselves and have their own personal relationship with God, rather than having to defer to the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church, according to Martin Luther, was abusing its power and amassing great wealth at the expense of the people, while keeping the Bible mysterious by holding services in a language very few people understood (Latin).

So, it is an affront to Protestantism that you would insist that I get a "Bible Study" version of the book with some other person's interpretation of the text. If I am created in God's image, then I ought to be perfectly able to read the text and know what He means through it. I should have my own personal connection to God, since I was created by Him. I don't need someone else chewing my food for me and regurgitating it. If that were the case, then my spiritual life would be wholly dependant on other fallible people who have and could use that position of authority to oppress me and keep me from God.

I'll give you one thing though. You're exactly like Martin Luther. Despite believing everyone could read the text and interpret God's message, Luther also believed that the fact everyone was made in God's image meant they would all come to the same interpretation of the text as he did. You and Martin Luther have that in common. You believe your interpretation is the only correct interpretation, despite beckoning others to read it for themselves.

NIV or KJV...take your pick. Read my (lips) - My answer still applies.

Like I said, you've gotta read the Bible - with a Bible Study! Because Jesus also specified a lot of things. And Jesus being God - I'd say the Author knows more about what He's talking about, don't you think so?

I keep telling you - if you want to be mouthy about the Bible, you better read and understand it....otherwise you're sounding like a kindergarten arguing with an adult about politics!

You believe your "interpretation" is the only correct interpretation of the Bible ...... oh boy - a non-believer interpreting the Bible, when most Christians are still in the process of understanding it as they mature.....

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Your post demonstrates that you haven't the foggiest clue about anything I posted. Sorry, but I'm not going to continue engaging with your misguided ramblings about this. Go back and try to understand what I posted if you want to continue having this discussion because your responses are completely irrelevant.

Edited January 19, 2013 by cybercoma

[jbg]

If you accidentally break the rules of your religion, do you think your God cares as much as if you do it deliberately?

I mean, if you're a Roman Catholic, and you accidentally eat meat on a Friday, does God care as much as if you downed a couple of lamb curries on purpose.

I ask out of a genuine curiosity over whether I'll get banned or not.

I think either way, the consequences should be beheading or at least having your hands cut off. More detailed response to follow.

[Mighty AC]

The Vatican, Iran and other religious states are resisting efforts by a U.N. conference, which started Monday, to demand tougher global standards to prevent violence against women and children.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Mar-06/208968-vatican-iran-resist-un-efforts-to-fight-abuse-of-women.ashx#ixzz2Mkdh2nGq

Religious people, do you feel it is your job to fix the evils of your own club or is it a membership requirement to believe in the infallibility of the executive members?

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Mar-06/208968-vatican-iran-resist-un-efforts-to-fight-abuse-of-women.ashx#ixzz2Mkdh2nGq

Religious people, do you feel it is your job to fix the evils of your own club or is it a membership requirement to believe in the infallibility of the executive members?

Seeing what happened to that Tory who made comments about pictures of children and then comparing it to Mohammed and his 6 year old bride, I'd say that the executive members are beyond the mere morality of humans. One is clearly bad while the other is clearly...good?? Well...not discussed much in the bright light, anyways.