Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Cypress]

Nope, nope and nope. Deacons are not ordained. They are selected as altar boys are selected. Yes, they get some training and are thusly given helper's responsibilities, and for that they get to wear a special getup, but they have no authority. Deacons fill the role of "additional manpower."

^^^
A militant atheist mansplaining Christianity after 20 seconds of frantic Googling.

 

[IBDaMann]

A militant atheist mansplaining Christianity after 20 seconds of frantic Googling.

Thank you for confirming.

 

[Cypress]

Nope, nope and nope. Deacons are NOT ordained!

"A deacon is an ordained minister of the Catholic Church" (Source: US Conference of Catholic Bishops)



Another one to add to the list of flagrant ignorance!

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

​

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

​

Nope, nope and nope. Deacons are not ordained.

​

 

[Cypress]

It's dangerous to know nothing about a topic and assume you can acquire expertise with just 20 seconds of frantic Googling, without the risk of fucking it up.

The perfect example of this kind of buffoonery is IBDumbass

 

[gfm7175]

For example?

Your own posts within this thread.

 

[gfm7175]

There is nothing being overlooked.

Splendid. Then there's nothing more to say.

It comes down to different interpretations of what is written.

No. It comes down to you denying the Bible. It comes down to you not understanding how Passover was conducted (re: choosing a lamb, inspecting the lamb for any flaws, and killing the lamb, and eating the lamb, and the timing of those events).

Again, hundreds of millions of people read the Bible and hundreds of millions of people can read the same passage and have a different understanding of what that passage means or says. You have your opinion/understanding and others have theirs, but do not think that you have the "right" understanding.

... welcome to Paradox City, good buddy!

1) ZenMode: MARK AND JOHN CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!!!! RAAAAA!!!!!
2) Also ZenMode: Don't think that you have the "right" understanding.

Which is it? Do I have the wrong understanding (#1) or is the correct understanding unknown/unknowable (#2)?

As I said a few posts ago, we are not going to agree. There is too much left up to interpretation.

It's not about interpretation. It's about you not understanding how Passover works and about you denying the Bible in favor of people like Bart Ehrmann who don't have the slightest clue as to what they are talking about.

 

[BidenPresident]

Why can't people be happy with their religion? Practice it and quit bothering others with it.

 

[IBDaMann]

"A deacon is an ordained minister of the Catholic Church"

Let's say that I acknowledge that this might have changed at some point (I didn't follow it). You are nonetheless acknowledging the much greater mistranslation of the Greek word for "servant" into the modern English word "deacon."

 

[gfm7175]

It's dangerous to know nothing about a topic and assume you can acquire expertise with just 20 seconds of frantic Googling, without the risk of fucking it up.

The perfect example of this kind of buffoonery is Cypress

Precisely!

 

[gfm7175]

Why can't people be happy with their religion?

I'm happy with mine.

Practice it

I do.

and quit bothering others with it.

I'm not forcing anyone to convert to Christianity, so why are you so bothered by my responding to others' erroneous claims about it?

While you're on this topic, will you also tell all the "thooper thmart perthons" (aka the Church of Global Warming, Church of Green, Church of Gender Confusion, Church of Karl Marx) to stop bothering me with THEIR religions? They're attempting to force me to convert to their religions.

 

[IBDaMann]

No. It comes down to you denying the Bible. It comes down to you not understanding how Passover was conducted (re: choosing a lamb, inspecting the lamb for any flaws, and killing the lamb, and eating the lamb, and the timing of those events).

You are soooooooo downplaying the unleavened bread. Well, everybody does. Nobody likes unleavened bread. Nowadays, if you want unleavened bread, you almost have to make it yourself.

Why hasn't someone already marketed ready-made Sedar meals?

 

[BidenPresident]

I'm happy with mine.


I do.


I'm not forcing anyone to convert to Christianity, so why are you so bothered by my responding to others' erroneous claims about it?

While you're on this topic, will you also tell all the "thooper thmart perthons" (aka the Church of Global Warming, Church of Green, Church of Gender Confusion, Church of Karl Marx) to stop bothering me with THEIR religions? They're attempting to force me to convert to their religions.

Use English.

 

[IBDaMann]

While you're on this topic, will you also tell all the "thooper thmart perthons" (aka the Church of Global Warming, Church of Green, Church of Gender Confusion, Church of Karl Marx) to stop bothering me with THEIR religions? They're attempting to force me to convert to their religions.

Oooooh, hitting below the belt! BidenPresident asserts that religion is for dummies, and we can understand his point of view, because every member of his Global Warming religion is as stupid as a sack of cobblestones.

 

[IBDaMann]

Use English.

Learn English.

 

[RB 60]

Use English.

Learn English...

 

[RB 60]

Learn English.

You just beat me!

 

[Truth Detector]

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Most people could care less whether it is or it isn't. If you're reading this, however, you probably care at least enough to read this.

To me, the Bible is important. It is for me the sacred story of the origins of my faith. In light of this, I could no more feel as if it were unimportant than a follower of Hinduism would feel the Bhagavad Gita is unimportant.

I do not believe, however, that the Bible is a Divinely-dictated book or a sacred text without error.

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Furthermore, you feel, if the Bible is allowed to be a very human book, instead of a Divinely-dictated one...you would have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," so to speak. That, if you questioned any of it, you'd undermine all of it and the end result would not be good either for you or the future of your faith.

This also explains why you and other literalists may be among those who are concerned about the recent release of the Hollywood film Noah, starring Russell Crowe. Since the movie's creators have taken liberty to create a movie not tied to a literal reading of the story of Noah, you regard that as objectionable, even a blatant disregard, and perhaps even disrespectful, of a literalist reading of the story.

As far as I'm concerned, however, I am bothered neither by Hollywood's version of the story of Noah nor whether it conforms to a literalist reading of Genesis. If you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2). I am more bothered instead by such sacred stories being made into movies at all.

Why? Because these Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component. When these movies are made, however, they are almost always recreated in a way resembling a literalist reading of the story. Which makes them about as believable as the movies Superman or Planet of the Apes. I can remember, for example, the first time I ever saw Cecil B. DeMille's classic story of Moses. As dramatic as cinematography would permit at that time, DeMille captured a compelling but literalist depiction of the Moses epic. Even as a child, however, I found it unbelievable.

The real Moses never wielded a staff with supernatural powers, the tip of which, when dipped into the Nile, turned the river into a cesspool of blood. Or, when dipped into the Red Sea, caused it to part so Israelites could pass to the other side on dry, not muddy, ground.

None of these Biblical stories, including the ones where Jesus is depicted as defying the laws of nature and performing miracles... as in, walking on water or giving sight to the blind or, most amazingly, raising dead people back to life were recorded as factual, or literal, eyewitness accounts. And, even if they were, they cannot be depicted as such today, if you want any of it to be believed... to be respected... or, to be read with any seriousness.

Anyone quoting the Huffington Post should not lecture us on what is truthful or factual. You give new meaning to the term illiterate leftist dumbass.

 

[Truth Detector]

Wait a minute, you saying the earth ain’t five thousand years old and Jonah didn’t live inside that whale for three days?

 

[Into the Night]

Right. So, you've got nothing.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You can't blame YOUR problems on anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

Three strikes. You're out.

Better luck next time!

Inversion fallacies don't work, Sock. Assumption of victory fallacy. Cliche fallacy.