Carlene

Obviously.....and criticizing Ron's literal view of the Bible means you aren't going to heaven, so BE CAREFUL. You could end up stranded in hell with the Dixie Chicks!

Not me....I think he's the Anti-Christ. (That's a joke, for the benefit of those who take themselves way too seriously.)

Since we're so far off topic anyway..... I walked 4 1/2 miles yesterday, although I'm sure it looked like I was glued to my monitor all day long! Going to walk the dog now. He has started looking forward to this little ritual - a one mile jaunt around the neighborhood. I figure a mile is a long way when your legs are only 6 inches long, so I don't make him do the whole route....not yet, anyway. If he turns over the wastepaper basket again, I might.

Yana... Please don't judge all of us by one raving zealot. Most of us are totally in agreement with you. And you are absolutely correct....Jesus died a practicing Jew. People do tend to forget that. Just as Martin Luther had NO intention of leaving the Catholic Church - he just wanted to change some of its practices. By the way, I hope to visit your country one day. My youngest son has been there and it sounds AMAZING.

Oh, THAT was a nice, Christian thing to say.

I'm sure our Atheist friends on LBT are getting a TON of amusement out of all this. In their "context", we have spent countless hours arguing over what a non-existent Deity "said" thousands of years ago. In their context, this makes about as much sense as rehashing old reruns of the Simpsons to see what Bart was writing on the blackboard during the opening credits. (Yes, there are people who do that.) "Context" and "opinion" are really kissing cousins, when you think about it.

And why, exactly, should we accept the opinion of ANY (or all) "Conservative Bible theologian(s)"? Because they say so? Because you say so? And don't say God says so, unless you can quote me chapter and verse from your LITERALLY interpreted Bible.

This is so true, only not in the "context" you intended, I'm sure. You are the one, Ron, who endlessly attacks other people's beliefs - even going so far as to suggest that those who do not agree with you are going to hell. You know, you can stand up for your beliefs and preach the Gospel without being a jerk. Sanctimonious ranting will not win you any converts, nor any points with God. Jesus did not preach in that manner - why would you? As an example, it's no secret that I am pro-life. I don't think abortion on demand should be legal. But I do not call women murderers if I learn they have had an abortion. I have no right to judge them....no right at all. I do not know God's purpose for me. But I'm quite sure it is not to browbeat other people with the doctrine of my CHRISTIAN church, which would be an oxymoron anyway, since the essence of Christ is peace and love and tolerance.

Oh, I did read it! And I must say, this "explaination" is anything but literal. It presumes a LOT. And still doesn't explain those kangaroos.

No, it wouldn't hold "two of every kind". Two elephants, two giraffes, two antelopes, two buffalo, two cows, two horses, two kangaroos (hey....how did Noah manage that, since there are no kangaroos in the Middle East?).

Specific though they may be, the dimensions of the Biblical ark would not physically hold two of every species of animal known to man.

The problem with this "rule" is this....who gets to decide which passages should be taken literally and which should not? My church, at one time, literally interpreted an obscure passage about women covering their heads to pray. For I don't know how many generations, Catholic women wore weird looking lace doilies on our heads when we went to Mass. The Church of Christ cites one passage from the Bible as evidence that musical instruments should not be permitted in church. There are scriptures that say women should not cut their hair, and some Fundamentalists would not dream of doing so because they read that as a direct order from God. See my point? Who's to say that any of these sects are wrong, or that yours is right?

Catholics DO take the command literally. Remember the doctrine of transubstantiation? The bread and wine are consecrated and literally changed into the body and blood of Christ, at each and every Mass.

I'm not convinced they were always meant literally, even in the time the Bible was written. Much of the Bible is written in parables, which were NEVER meant to be taken literally. At any rate, I still maintain that a literal interpretation can never be dependent on context. The two are mutually exclusive. Literal means absolutely, word-for-word...context means maybe, depending on the circumstances.

You are not arguing context. You are still arguing semantics. Don't convet your neighbor's possessions - period. Virtually no one would argue that it's permissible to covet an automobile, but not a donkey. Again, nouns do not lend themselves well to this discussion.

Nouns (as in cloak or coat) really aren't good examples of literal thinking. You can, for one thing, show a person a picture of a cloak and a coat, to prove your point (that a cloak and a coat are pretty much interchangeable). Not so with ideology.

You are confusing context and semantics. Context means "setting" or circumstances. The term "cloak" has nothing to do with the context.

....HUH????....

Ron....(and all) I'm going to go walk my dog now. Thanks for all the stimulating conversation. I will be back later. For the record, I just want to say that I respect all religions and beliefs. I respect Atheists, too. In general, I have found them to be highly intelligent people - thus their drive to question and to look for proof what the rest of us sit back and accept on faith. I believe that there is room in heaven for all who want to go there. And even though the Bible says "narrow is the way", I think it's not as narrow as some people's minds. Jesus did not die for Catholics, for Baptists, for Methodists, or LDS members. He died for ALL of us - so that our sins might be forgiven. Let's don't be making him build a bunch of fences in heaven so some of us won't be disappointed to know the others got there!

Of course I comprehend that. And thank you for owning your opinion - at long last.

Oh, PLEEEEZE! You have been telling us for how many pages now what is right and what is wrong? Do I need to cut and past examples? And don't be blaming it on the Bible! Whenever anyone else quotes the Bible, it's "out of context", but when it suits YOU, it's all literal truth.

Because he believes they ARE in the throes of adultery. He just won't take responsibility for his opinion. I hate that. If you believe it's true, by golly, say so!

I absolutely believe that Paul was a male chauvinist. Not too sure that you aren't, as well. I would not live with a man who believed this way. My husband can be co-head of the household. But he ain't gonna be my boss!

Actually, I've never been divorced. I know there are many on this board who have been, however. And I think that no matter what beliefs you hold in your heart, it's very, very arrogant and unChristian of you to call them adulterers. Judge not, lest you be judged.

I do trust God. It's people like you I don't trust to "judge righteously". I told Cheyenne that Kate was most certainly going to heaven when she does finally die. And I believe that. Because if you take this little life and look at the good she did, vs the bad, she is deserving of God's grace. It was not Kate's fault that she was not brought up to go to church. If there is punishment due for her not accepting Christ, then it's her parents who should burn, not her. What if she had been 10, or 11? Would that have earned her a get-out-of-hell free card?