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.
While if scripture is a spiritual language ( i believe it is) does it not make sense then that it can only be interpreted spiritually?
That is a meaningless claim unless there's a lexicon / dictionary / syntax somewhere that delineates how one decodes and translates this alleged language. Otherwise it's means whatever anyone alleges that it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The problem with both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheist is they read the scriptures literally. I see this happen all the time here. the fundamental atheist read the scriptures about the flood and God telling Moses to kill babies etc. and poke fun at it and ask the fundamental christian to explain why God would do such a thing when God is suppose to be love. And the fundamental christian has no answer for them except to say something like it is God creation and He can do what He likes with it.
I think you're mistaking our addressing the fundamentalist literal interpretation with our actually taking it literally ourselves. But even if not ... if it's not to be taken literally then even a fundamentalist will tell you it's a judgment call how literally / figuratively to take a passage -- and indeed, it's entirely possible to take it 2 or more ways. I can't count the number of "dual fulfillment" prophecies for example, or the number of passages that fundamentalists will happily mine for both temporal and "spiritual" purposes.
The basic problem is that especially if you want to take holy writ figuratively / symbolically / metaphorically then you have to demonstrate how you do that. Most will suggest you do that via discernment provided by the Holy Spirit. And you have to demonstrate how you'd tell god's guidance from your own imagination or from your particular hermeneutic system or from group hysteria and the like. You'd also have to demonstrate that the real world outcomes are what you would EXPECT if there was such a thing as spiritual discernment: Christians would widely agree on how figuratively to take a passage and exactly how to interpret it. That you can ask 20 Christians questions on specific matters of interpretation and application and get somewhere between 15 and 30 answers strongly suggests that there is no guiding Spirit animating these efforts.
That is a meaningless claim unless there's a lexicon / dictionary / syntax somewhere that delineates how one decodes and translates this alleged language. Otherwise it's means whatever anyone alleges that it means.
Yet most people understand the meaning of Animal Farm. And Flatland.
That is a meaningless claim unless there's a lexicon / dictionary / syntax somewhere that delineates how one decodes and translates this alleged language. Otherwise it's means whatever anyone alleges that it means.
I think you're mistaking our addressing the fundamentalist literal interpretation with our actually taking it literally ourselves. But even if not ... if it's not to be taken literally then even a fundamentalist will tell you it's a judgment call how literally / figuratively to take a passage -- and indeed, it's entirely possible to take it 2 or more ways. I can't count the number of "dual fulfillment" prophecies for example, or the number of passages that fundamentalists will happily mine for both temporal and "spiritual" purposes.
The basic problem is that especially if you want to take holy writ figuratively / symbolically / metaphorically then you have to demonstrate how you do that. Most will suggest you do that via discernment provided by the Holy Spirit. And you have to demonstrate how you'd tell god's guidance from your own imagination or from your particular hermeneutic system or from group hysteria and the like. You'd also have to demonstrate that the real world outcomes are what you would EXPECT if there was such a thing as spiritual discernment: Christians would widely agree on how figuratively to take a passage and exactly how to interpret it. That you can ask 20 Christians questions on specific matters of interpretation and application and get somewhere between 15 and 30 answers strongly suggests that there is no guiding Spirit animating these efforts.
While scripture actually gives us the testing method via the spirit and the fruits thereof; so if it does not match up with the fruits of the spirit then it is not of the spirit but of our carnal understanding. It is actually an easy testing method but people refuse to use it.
While scripture actually gives us the testing method via the spirit and the fruits thereof; so if it does not match up with the fruits of the spirit then it is not of the spirit but of our carnal understanding. It is actually an easy testing method but people refuse to use it.
Amen. Jesus describes the Holy Spirit in detail in at least three places, 1 Cor 13, Galatians 5 and the Sermon on the Mount. Anyone who cannot use those detailed descriptions to test whether or not something is compatible with or consistent with them is just not trying.
That is a meaningless claim unless there's a lexicon / dictionary / syntax somewhere that delineates how one decodes and translates this alleged language. Otherwise it's means whatever anyone alleges that it means.
I don't think you can claim that the Bible, as it is since 1611, is lacking any lexicon, dictionary, or syntax. There has been more written about this book than any other. How many years would it take to saturate yourself with this big book, and think about it, to begin to understand it? at least 40 years, IMO.
Yeah, it must be to people that don't read words very well, with little understanding; words mean whatever anyone alleges it to mean. And I'm not sure any spoken word I know means only one thing. An alleged language?
And I would say the book requires analytic ability, to analogize and be analytic...ie. if spiritual is an alleged language to you...to think thoughts of things other than matter.
While scripture actually gives us the testing method via the spirit and the fruits thereof; so if it does not match up with the fruits of the spirit then it is not of the spirit but of our carnal understanding. It is actually an easy testing method but people refuse to use it.
For the uninitiated, here's a list of the "fruits of the [holy] spirit":
love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control
Unless you're willing to suggest that people who believe differently from you, or not at all, cannot exhibit these qualities, then they are not indicative of god's influence, they are simply positive human qualities that anyone could have. Therefore they are not useful for measuring anything as to being from, or not from, god.
For the uninitiated, here's a list of the "fruits of the [holy] spirit":
love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control
Unless you're willing to suggest that people who believe differently from you, or not at all, cannot exhibit these qualities, then they are not indicative of god's influence, they are simply positive human qualities that anyone could have. Therefore they are not useful for measuring anything as to being from, or not from, god.
It has nothing to do with what you believe, mordant. Jesus detailed the characteristics of the Holy Spirit and here is the best example:
13 If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;
2 and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing;
3 and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.
4 The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up,
5 doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil,
6 rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth;
7 all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.
8 The love doth never fail; and whether [there be] prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless;
9 for in part we know, and in part we prophecy;
10 and when that which is perfect may come, then that which [is] in part shall become useless.
11 When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe;
12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
13 and now there doth remain faith, hope, love -- these three; and the greatest of these [is] love.
Furthermore, under Bibliolatry to "John's" "Revelations," Satan (who is supposed to be the fallen-angel Lucifer) is set to have a child in the future of the prophecy (not a child that always existed along with him) to be the ultimate antichrist.
Damien? I believe is his name, according to the revelations found within The Omen. The name means Submission and is from the Ancient Greek story about two best friends who are spared by a despot.
As you may or may not remember I have some respect for that passage and in fact committed it to memory in my youth and consider it one of the passages in the Bible that has merit. But it is about love, just one of the fruits of the spirit. The topic under discussion is the alleged fruitS (plural) of the spirit.
But my point still holds when discussing any one of these "fruits". Unless you allege that unbelievers cannot exhibit, e.g., love (or that god withholds his grace in these matters from the unbelieving), then it is no useful measure of influence or communication from god. And certainly not the evidence of sanctification it's generally touted as.
As you may or may not remember I have some respect for that passage and in fact committed it to memory in my youth and consider it one of the passages in the Bible that has merit. But it is about love, just one of the fruits of the spirit. The topic under discussion is the alleged fruitS (plural) of the spirit.
But my point still holds when discussing any one of these "fruits". Unless you allege that unbelievers cannot exhibit, e.g., love (or that god withholds his grace in these matters from the unbelieving), then it is no useful measure of influence or communication from god. And certainly not the evidence of sanctification it's generally touted as.
no, mystic, mordofarant is only interested in what he believes. One is never a cured fundy. They basically swap one literal belief for another literal belief. In this case, literally, deny everything to sell atheism.
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.
Amen. Jesus describes the Holy Spirit in detail in at least three places, 1 Cor 13, Galatians 5 and the Sermon on the Mount. Anyone who cannot use those detailed descriptions to test whether or not something is compatible with or consistent with them is just not trying.