Repent!

[homersapien 11,387]

30 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sure. I believe you are a soul with an earthly body. You believe the opposite.

Why is it your "soul" can't provide a simple answer to a direct question? 

And you got it wrong.  I don't believe the "opposite". I believe we have a body and a "soul" - aka "sentience" -  and both start and end on earth.  That can be proven.

Edited April 10 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

Just now, homersapien said:

Why is it your "soul" can't provide a simple answer to a direct question?

And you got it wrong.  I don't believe the "opposite". I believe we have a body and a "soul" - aka "sentience" -  and both start and end on earth.  That can be proven.

“Sure” is about as direct as one can get.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why is it your "soul" can't provide a simple answer to a direct question?

And you got it wrong.  I don't believe the "opposite". I believe we have a body and a "soul" - aka "sentience" -  and both start and end on earth.  That can be proven.

Well of course we do on earth. We will in heaven at some point.

[homersapien 11,387]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

“Sure” is about as direct as one can get.

 

So, just to confirm, you (at least) believe in God and a heaven.

So, can we go back to Genesis and flesh out the remainder of what other Biblical notions you believe?

Again, I am seriously interested.

 

 

[homersapien 11,387]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

Well of course we do on earth. We will in heaven at some point.

Thanks.  That's more direct than you've been.

Now, about Genesis and creation......

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, just to confirm, you (at least) believe in God and a heaven.

So, can we go back to Genesis and flesh out the remainder of what other Biblical notions you believe?

Again, I am seriously interested.

 

 

I feel no need to “flesh out” my biblical beliefs with you. We have been through this in past. 

[homersapien 11,387]

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I feel no need to “flesh out” my biblical beliefs with you. We have been through this in past. 

OK, fine. 

I'll just assume you are a biblical literalist like most evangelicals.

I'm curious though:  Presumably you have a preferred version of the bible?

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

OK, fine. 

I'll just assume you are a biblical literalist like most evangelicals.

I'm curious though:  Presumably you have a preferred version of the bible?

 

My preference is NIV. Like the readability and try to read through it annually. Have done so for the past several years. No I am not a “literalist” in the sense you are referencing. Way to much taken out of context.
 

 

[auburnatl1 4,957]

24 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

My preference is NIV. Like the readability and try to read through it annually. Have done so for the past several years. No I am not a “literalist” in the sense you are referencing. Way to much taken out of context.
 

 

Interesting. I think the NIV is terrific but some denominations consider it “non sanctioned” (vs  ie king James) because it’s not a word for word translation. Which goes to slow how literally anything can be debated.  Forever.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

11 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Interesting. I think the NIV is terrific but some denominations consider it “non sanctioned” (vs  ie king James) because it’s not a word for word translation. Which goes to slow how literally anything can be debated.  Forever.

 

In those particular verses from one of the “wisdom” books they mean the same thing. Never really understand any version without understanding the when, why and reasoning. We have people try and justify slavery for no other reason than it existed in Biblical times and is mentioned in the Bible.

[auburnatl1 4,957]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

In those particular verses from one of the “wisdom” books they mean the same thing. Never really understand any version without understanding the when, why and reasoning. We have people try and justify slavery for no other reason than it existed in Biblical times and is mentioned in the Bible.

True. Btw You could also argue the entire evangelical (besides the traditional societal stigma) issue with LGBT is based on one ancient Greek word - “"arsenokoitai”.  Which doesn’t translate well and its meaning is unsure and debated to this day amongst scholars and denominations. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 4/5/2024 at 1:27 PM, auburnatl1 said:

I don’t have a problem with people  that dumb. Not their fault whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the people that see her as a US Congress woman. That’s friggin scary.

https://www.astronomy.com/observing/humans-have-been-predicting-eclipses-for-thousands-of-years-but-its-harder-than-you-might-think/

 

Lots of crazy in Congress. 

https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-previously-science-space-committee-mocked-over-moon-comment-1888606

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

And my favorite:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/

[homersapien 11,387]

12 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Interesting. I think the NIV is terrific but some denominations consider it “non sanctioned” (vs  ie king James) because it’s not a word for word translation. Which goes to slow how literally anything can be debated.  Forever.

"Word for word" implies there is an established standard (original) version.

But in fact, these stories were was passed down by word of mouth for like, 400 years before it was ever written.  Bottom line, it's like most "folk tales" in that it evolved from an oral tradition, undoubtedly undergoing constant revisions.

[homersapien 11,387]

12 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

True. Btw You could also argue the entire evangelical (besides the traditional societal stigma) issue with LGBT is based on one ancient Greek word - “"arsenokoitai”.  Which doesn’t translate well and its meaning is unsure and debated to this day amongst scholars and denominations. 

Speaking of religion and homosexuality, ever heard of the "Secret Book of Mark"?   (I hadn't until The Atlantic published an article on it.) While there's a lot of debate on its validity, to me, its provenance is no less convincing than anything else in the bible. 

Bottom line, one has to be really determined to believe the bible - any bible - is the literal word of God.

Edited April 10 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 4,957]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Speaking of religion and homosexuality, ever heard of the "Secret Book of Mark"?   (I hadn't until The Atlantic published an article on it.) While there's a lot of debate on its validity, to me, its provenance is no less convincing than anything else in the bible. 

Bottom line, one has to be really determined to believe the bible - any bible - is the literal word of God.

For a “man of science”, I understand. You may want to look up the Council of Nicaea. Pretty interesting. Those of faith believe that’s where God instructed men which scriptures to included in the Bible, and which to omit. Ps the book of Revelations (end of the world/anti-christ prophesy) barely made it in. 

The interesting dynamic is new scriptures discovered since then (ie the dead sea scrolls).

[CoffeeTiger 5,127]

19 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

For a “man of science”, I understand. You may want to look up the Council of Nicaea. Pretty interesting. Those of faith believe that’s where God instructed men which scriptures to included in the Bible, and which to omit. Ps the book of Revelations (end of the world/anti-christ prophesy) barely made it in. 

The interesting dynamic is new scriptures discovered since then (ie the dead sea scrolls).

From a protestant/Evangelical perspective It's kind of funny to me the idea that the early Catholic and Orthodox Churches were inspired enough by God to correctly and unerringly pick out which writings were inspired and canon, yet at the same time were apparently not inspired enough to be able to correctly interpret the teachings and commands of those same writings in many important areas. 

[auburnatl1 4,957]

24 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

From a protestant/Evangelical perspective It's kind of funny to me the idea that the early Catholic and Orthodox Churches were inspired enough by God to correctly and unerringly pick out which writings were inspired and canon, yet at the same time were apparently not inspired enough to be able to correctly interpret the teachings and commands of those same writings in many important areas. 

If some Christians would revisit Jesus’s sermon of the mount (ie book of Matthew) he explicitly says he is overturning some of the Old Testament. “A new covenant”.  Eye for an eye becomes turn the other check and love your enemy.  Ie he explicit said to not hurt their oppressors.

The point being some Christians  will conveniently pick passages out of the Old Testament or Paul letters (who never met Jesus) without context. IMO -   If Christians would focus more on the 4 gospels - Jesus’s exact works - they’d find their hard line positions on some things aren’t in alignment with Jesus’s message. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

6 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Eye for an eye becomes turn the other check and love your enemy.  Ie he explicit said to not hurt their oppressors.

No it doesn’t. Eye for eye in Exodus was clearly Gods instructions regarding the Israelite civil law. Jesus was speaking of personal behaviors.

Edited April 10 by SaltyTiger

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

6 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The point being some Christians  will conveniently pick passages out of the Old Testament or Paul letters (who never met Jesus) without context. IMO

Non Christians do as well, probably more so. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Bottom line, one has to be really determined to believe the bible - any bible - is the literal word of God.

Correct in part. 

Edited April 10 by SaltyTiger

[homersapien 11,387]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Correct in part. 

What's the "part" I neglected?

[homersapien 11,387]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Non Christians do as well, probably more so. 

From what sacred text are they "conveniently pick(ing)  passages from?

Edited April 11 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:36 PM, homersapien said:

What's the "part" I neglected?

“Neglect”? You just blab too much in want of being an argumentative jack @$$ Brother Homer.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:41 PM, homersapien said:

From what sacred text are they "conveniently pick(ing)  passages from?

@auburnatl1 just gave one. Do your own search.