Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're a literalist? You don't see how this could have a spiritual significance that has nothing to do with genie-in-a-bottle? I mean, if you're going to quote a spiritual book, it makes sense to look at it spiritually.
"In my name" ... in his nature ... a nature of love according to this spiritual book. Ask anything of "God" in the nature of Love (concern for others), and see where that gets you. It might even transform you and cause you to act on behalf of Love. Maybe meditating on how to Love others will even give you insight into how to help people. Hmmm, maybe that's what prayer's all about anyway.
And maybe this is what Violett is trying to say ... stop looking at the concept of "God" in such a "magical" way and you might be surprised what you find. At least, that's what I take away from what she's saying.
The Quran recounts many of the same stories found in Jewish and Christian sacred book, varying only in details. Also, many scholars will tell you that the meat of the values and laws regarding God found in the Quran is close to the same as those of Christian-Judeo texts, but that the CULTURES' TRANSLATIONS are what lead to the extreme differences between white Christian, Jewish and middle eastern culture.
In other words, most of the main ideas are the same and vary insofar as a particular culture's interpretation of them.
You're a literalist? You don't see how this could have a spiritual significance that has nothing to do with genie-in-a-bottle? I mean, if you're going to quote a spiritual book, it makes sense to look at it spiritually.
Ah yes, of course! It's not to be taken 'literally'.
Tell me, just how do you guys go through your Bible and decide what is literal and what isn't, what is true and what is metaphor, what should be believed and what shouldn't? How do you decide that, for example, the story of Adam and Eve should not be taken literally but the story of the crucifixion should?
Ah yes, of course! It's not to be taken 'literally'.
Tell me, just how do you guys go through your Bible and decide what is literal and what isn't, what is true and what is metaphor, what should be believed and what shouldn't? How do you decide that, for example, the story of Adam and Eve should not be taken literally but the story of the crucifixion should?
imo, all of those stories are parables and are more about what they symbolize and tell us about humanity than they are literally true stories.
imo, all of those stories are parables and are more about what they symbolize and tell us about humanity than they are literally true stories.
So there was no Adam and Eve which means there was 'original sin'. There was no original sin so there was nothing for your Jesus to save you from. If there was nothing for your Jesus to save you from there was no crucifixion. No crucifixion means no resurrection. Whoops!!
So there was no Adam and Eve which means there was 'original sin'. There was no original sin so there was nothing for your Jesus to save you from. If there was nothing for your Jesus to save you from there was no crucifixion. No crucifixion means no resurrection. Whoops!!
You are the one trying to frame the argument as "the only one on offer."
False. It is you who put forward an answer... declared based on nothing that it is the most plausible one out there... and acted then as if that means it must be true. This is, as I said, a canard on your part.
Even if there was 1000 answers, declaring based on nothing that 1 of them is the most "plausible" does not make that one true. Sometimes the right answer to a question turns out to be what on the face of things was the LEAST plausible answer.
The tripe you are espousing here is akin to a prosecution lawyer walking into a court room and saying "Either the accused did the murder or this cockroach did, and since it is more plausible the accused did it... that means he did it".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have asked for your argument for your version and have received silence and repeated derailing and sidestepping.
Not at all. I have simply come on here saying what is wrong with YOUR argument. I have not put forward a version of my own yet, so I have nothing to back up.
Quote something I actually said that you want back up for and I will be happy to give it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
