C'jais Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 Parts of the Bible are ment to be taken literally like the ten comandments. but others are meant to be taken metaphorically like being born again. And who are you to judge which parts must be taken literally, and which must be taken metaphorically? Who decides this? Y'know, for all but the most fundamental American literalists, it is widely that the Genesis is to be taken as one, big metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 how literaly should the 10 comandments be taken-i think the best way to fallow religous rules is by simply fallowing the ones we find in context such as to do the rite thing and stuff and not to commit sins by commision or omision the 10 comandments arnt important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais And who are you to judge which parts must be taken literally, and which must be taken metaphorically? Who decides this? Y'know, for all but the most fundamental American literalists, it is widely that the Genesis is to be taken as one, big metaphor. Go read my post in the "Sex vs. Bible" thread. It talks about this in one big paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 i like your poste its good...also does anybody here beleive in "evil" i can think of few evil things because if you thinmk about terrorists while being well idiots who want death they are doing for a reason thinking they can make the world better ...as in the garden od eaden the fruit is ofcourse sin and it shows our temptation but the snake is evil wut could evil be? im curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler as in the garden od eaden the fruit is ofcourse sin and it shows our temptation but the snake is evil wut could evil be? im curious. I don't quite understand your question. Could you rephrase it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 yeah sorry- the garden of eaden rite thats where adam and eve ate the forbidin fruit on the tree god said dont eat off of. he said you can eat off any tree but this one , which shows he gives us freedom of choice to fallow him or not we have free will he says its just better to fallow him but we still have free will. on the tree is the forbiddin fruit or sin which we are tempted bye and if we go that way itll be worse and yet we have free will and can. but the snake that is there sybolizes evil, my question is how many evil acts can there bei cant think of many people who were actaully evil. rapists and child molestors are mean and evil yes but im talkin down rite evil. take hitler he was "evil" yet he thought he was helping the world by genicide and killing off the brown haired browned ayed and jews. but othetr than chil rape , hanicped being done wrong to which are bad but not neciseraly evil, wut is evil?-i hope this is better , im kinda a bad typer when i am debating lol also like original sin , there is no original sin just that we have the free will to commit sin its just like the law ..you dont have to follow the law but if you do things turn out much better for you. so sin just leads to worse things. a long time ago at the babolonian council it was said that if a child was not baptised it had original sin and couldnt go to heaven. but they did say we would go to another place inbetween hell and heaven its weird. so its like this in literal sence you could be goin to connfesion for sins and get killed on the way in literal tense you would go to hell but thats not goin to happen and you wont go to hell if are truly sorry and realize wrongs rite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 um... yes of course theres evil the devil helo! how literaly should the 10 comandments be taken-i think the best way to fallow religous rules is by simply fallowing the ones we find in context such as to do the rite thing and stuff and not to commit sins by commision or omision the 10 comandments arnt important. so you think of them as the 10 suggestions then right? I think the 10 commandment's are to be taken quite litterally. there is evry evidence of this in the bible. most things that are literal are quite obviouse, like the ten commandments. to determin what is literal or metaphorical is kinda the point of a pastor and scolars and stuff like that, like the point of a scientist. a scientist to tell us how our world functions and to studdy diseases and publish there discoveries in books. It is up to us what we choose to believe. Science and religion fuctuion exaclty the same in that aspect. Cjas you keep on saying "who are you to say this and that" I'm only saying what I believe. duh. is that so hard to understand? I think you should have gotten that by now. I don't mean to be offensive in this, that's the problem with typing, you can't type somthing in ways you say stuff, like if I had in fact said the above it would have been in a casual way and you would not have been insulted right? well whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 a scientist to tell us how our world functions and to studdy diseases and publish there discoveries in books. It is up to us what we choose to believe. No. If there is evidence for TV's working, then it is fact. You don't "believe" it works. It works. If there is evidence of antibiotics working, then it is fact. You don't "believe" they cure you of diseases and bacteria. They do work. This is the fundamental difference between science and religion. You accept evidence as fact and reality in science. You don't in religion. Cjas you keep on saying "who are you to say this and that" I'm only saying what I believe. duh. So by admitting that you merely believe you're right, then you have forsaken any attempt of proving yourself right. Which means you also imply that how you interpret the Bible is ONLY your personal, subjective opinion, and that it can never be anything more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 im not saying you shouldnt fallow the 10 comandments ,but i thing there are more importants aspects to religion than rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler im not saying you shouldnt fallow the 10 comandments ,but i thing there are more importants aspects to religion than rules. Without the 10 Commandments there would be Christianity. And I know that C'jais or someone will talk about the Crusades but, those were messed up Christians that did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 i just dont think you will go to hell if you dont fallow the 10 commandments. there important and there would be christianity without them. they say what good thins to do are because you will have a better life if you do. but i think love, compassion, and not comiting sins of comision or omision are just as important. a religion cant be based on rules or they would only be faith in rules not a people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Let me illustrate the stupidity of litteralism for a moment, for everyone's amusement (this is just my little indulgance): The ten commandments say, litterally (or as litterally as any translation can, which I'll adress below): "kill!". But in context they say: "You shall not kill!" The above example illustrates that litteralists will always be forced to draw some subjective line somewhere, to seperate the 'litteral' from the 'contextual', whereas the contextualist has no such problem, as he only has to judge between the relevant and the irrelevant, which can be done by the set standards of historical research. Litteralism is infact nothing but out-of-context quotes. In any other business this would be counted fraud at best. Also there is the problem of translations: Try, for example to translate this post to German. Already here trouble begin to arise. Now try a whole other language family like Russian or Chinese... Get my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 first off i didnt say there wasnt evil im just trying to find out how you define evil! jesus people read what i write! and temple dud you are write im all context! whooooo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler first off i didnt say there wasnt evil im just trying to find out how you define evil! We don't define evil. You do. We define tragic accidents and genocides, while you define evil and works of Satan. The concept of evil is reassuring and comfortable at first, but it turns sprawly, hollow and useless upon closer look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais We don't define evil. You do. We define tragic accidents and genocides, while you define evil and works of Satan. The concept of evil is reassuring and comfortable at first, but it turns sprawly, hollow and useless upon closer look. C'jais there are evil... look up evil in the dictionary and you'll find that it's not all about Satan.... unless I misunderstood your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 i dont see evil as satan geez im not like that its a simple question. it can be defined. genocide i beleive is wrong but is it evil since they beleive they are making the world better to live in, its a question!-i agree with outcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.