BJean

Nytol. I'm afraid this is all too deep (pardon the pun) for me this late in the day.

Oh good grief.

gadgetlady: At one point you asked how one is to determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not. If you have faith you can glean most everything that is intended to be conveyed from the Bible. If you insist that the Bible is to be taken as literal, and you must determine which parts are literal according to today and which parts are not, won't you be consistently confused? Continually questioning different words and phrases? That is of course, unless you are absolutely certain that your interpretation of the Bible is the only accurate interpretation.

Like I said, gadgetlady, to each his own.

My point exactly, Wheetsin. The story of Noah is beautiful and there is much to be learned from it, but to declare that if we don't take the words literally then we can't possibly understand it is pretty odd to someone like me who has had the benefit of teachings from the Bible her whole life. I don't believe I ever, EVER, thought that Noah and the ark were absolutely real. It's a wonderful lesson, but impossible as a reality. Some of you seem to be from the group who tried to declare that they had found "THE ARK" on Mount Ararat a while back. It must be pretty important to some people for them to go to so much trouble. Why can't you just have faith and read and study the Bible for what it is?

No Ron, you're not grasping something. I do believe that what the Bible teaches. I find it very distasteful that you would use the phrase, "you may as well use it for kindling in your fireplace." The very idea! What in the world makes you think that any of us discounts the Bible just because we are discussing whether it is completely literal or not? Just because one doesn't believe that it is word for word literal in its' verbage doesn't mean that one doesn't trust it's words or think that it is accurate. You may believe that perhaps, but not me.

Even about the word literal, we're arguing semantics. I don't know that anyone here is arguing that if we take the Bible literally, and we don't we adapt the Biblical words to today's needs, that we are going to miss the message. I would imagine that we all pretty much agree that we must adapt the Bible's words to today's vernacular so that we can understand the messages. The argument started out as one person saying that the Bible proves that the Bible is a literal document. Obviously it isn't and even the people who say that some of the Biblical teachings can be taken literally, they agree that some cannot. So that pretty much wraps it up, doesn't it?

Literal means literal. You can't say that something is literal and then say that it isn't literal because the words need to be changed to fit the meaning of words today. Sure, we can understand that it makes sense to use a different term today for cloak, like maybe coat, but that would keep the phrase from being literal. I don't understand all this arguing - literal means literal. If there are exceptions to the Bible's words being literal, that's fine with me. I'm taking the whole thing on faith anyway. Because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say that the Bible is literal... "except when"...."context of".... blah, blah, blah. Ron you can't understand how someone can believe in the Bible and Jesus without believing that the Bible is literal and came directly from the mouth of God. I say that you are the one who is unbelievable and whose religion I find suspect. What you have decided about the Bible "proving" that the Bible is literal is gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned. But just because you believe it doesn't threaten my spiritualism or my belief in God, the resurrection, or the Bible in any way. Whatever floats your boat, I say. But if someone someday is able to show you in a convincing way that you are wrong about your "proof" your ministry may just be in trouble. TOM you are welcomed to speak for me at any time. I'm a big girl (literally and figuratively) and I can straighten you out if you are incorrect. In the above case, you were correct.

I hope to God we don't witness AIDS exposure!

Ron your last 2 posts seems to be yelling.

Ron: To answer your question, I have one word for you that is all important: FAITH Just because someone doesn't interpret the Bible to be the exact word of God, or because one doesn't believe that the Bible should be taken literally, does not mean that they can't have faith in the Bible or in God. Just because it is necessary for you to believe that the Bible is literal, doesn't mean that it is necessary for everyone. TommyO made some excellent points about that. Not all of us have to have proof that we are not going to hell. Some of us just believe that we are not going to hell because we believe in the love of God and because we have faith that our good works and our love for God, ourselves and mankind will be sufficient reasons for us to be allowed to grace God's presence in heaven. Besides there are too many inconsistencies in the Bible and the Bible has been passed through too many hands and been translated too many times for anyone to have no shadow of a doubt that it didn't change some in the process.

Well I'm not TOM and not authorized to speak for him, but I can tell you what I think are some of TOM's views. I think he does believe in reading the Bible. I think he attends church and is in fact quite active within his church community. He believes in prayer. He believes that the Bible is not the recorded word of God that should be taken literally. But he does believe that the Bible has many good lessons. He believes that people who think that they have all the answers with regard to the Bible are mistaken. He believes that the Bible and belief in God and Jesus is a personal thing and that God expects us to believe in Him because of our faith that He is the creator, not because we have to go about PROVING anything. Religion is based on faith not science. And I believe that he views that as a good thing, not a bad thing. I could, of course, be way off track and I welcome his input if he chooses to straighten me out. Fact is, most of the above is what I also believe. But please don't yell at me Ron, I'm one of the chosen who is not going to hell. You don't have to worry about that on my behalf. I've done all the things you say I need to in order to be welcomed into heaven.

I've been reading most of these posts and I feel I have a pretty good idea of what TOM's views are. I can't understand why you don't, Ron. I'm curious, what is it that you're wanting him to put in print?

I already gave my advice once, it wasn't appreciated so I'm just sitting here hoping she's using condoms.

Sherry: I don't have a set time that I go in for fills. I see the dietician every 2-3 weeks and we talk about it then. If I report that I can eat too much (she uses a fake plate of food to go by) too quickly, and I haven't lost too much too fast, she suggests that I get a fill. I think I've had 5 fills. I haven't kept track like most of you have. I don't even know how much I currently have in my band. I am relying on my doc - probably too much. I know that we need to pro-active in every aspect of this journey. lisa: I'm still fighting the chocolate thing. I absolutely can not have it in the house. I still lose my resolve too easily. I dearly love that I have lost almost 40 lbs. and I am excited about getting below 170 because I haven't been below 170 for about 7 years. About 17 yrs. ago I lost down to 140. Some of my friends thought I looked too skinny in the face because they were so used to seeing my bloated face. One friend who I didn't see for about 2 months didn't recognize me when she saw me at 140. It is such an exciting prospect to think that I will actually be able to do that again. But more importantly, STAY that way! My DH told me last night that I'm beginning to get my "figure" back. I wanted to say, "round is a figure" but decided I should accept the compliment like my doctor says.

Oops I hope I didn't put you on a guilt trip Carlene. Wavydaby: Good job.

This circle of posts has become so silly I am going to opt out (I know you'll all be disapointed LOL) and I'm leaving so I can try to do something so I can fit into Carlene's smaller jeans.

Carlene he won't even state that it is his opinion that the Bible is to be taken literally. He says that the Bible says that it is to be taken literally. He doesn't think at all for himself, evidentally. He only tells us what the Bible says, it isn't him saying it. He's voiced that here quite often. He's only the messenger. If the Bible doesn't say how to resolve the fact that fetuses are sinners, he doesn't have a way to solve it. Just wants us to know the message that remarried divorced people are adulterers and that fetuses are sinners.

Ron if you're not saying that divorced people who remarry are adulterers, why didn't you simply say that "The Apostle Paul" said in the Bible that divorced people who remarry are adulterers? You stated it like you invented the concept.

Ok, ok, baptism doesn't have anything to do with absolving sin. What are we going to do with all these sinning fetuses?

So when are you people going to start insisting that every woman take her fetus to get it baptised, just after the sperm penetrates the egg?

No, no, no. I am not liimiting the grace and love of God. You are by saying that your ideology is the only true one that God accepts for entry into heaven. That is extremely limiting!

Ron, you don't really mean take it up with your own church, do you? You believe that your way is the only way, so what good will it do us to take it up with our church really? That is if it doesn't embrace the same teachings as yours.

The same Southern Baptist Church that I mentioned earlier considers my first husband and me still married. Nevermind that we had our marriage annuled by the Catholic Church. (They do not recognize the doctrine or sacraments of other churches) (Which by the way, the Catholic Church does!) Nevermind that I have remarried and that my first husband's biological child was adopted (with biological father's consent) by my current husband. Nevermind that my first husband has remarried and had a daughter. Nevermind that both of us from our first marriage have lived happy married lives with subsequent spouses and have provided loving, Christian homes for our children. We are still married according to their doctrine. Period. Makes about as much sense as saying that once saved, always saved, no matter how you behave. You can slide from grace, you can play cards, you can dance, you can fornicate, you can kill someone, but they believe that you will always be forgiven because you were saved and baptised according to that church's interpretation of the Bible and because of their doctrine which is based upon that interpretation. In their eyes, that's part of the beautiful package of being saved, having accepted fully that Jesus died for your sins, and that God is the one true God. Very very nice for believers of that doctrine. If you understand all of that, you might more easily understand why it is so important that some people believe that theirs is the only "literal" interpretation that is possible. Very sweet, very convenient, very liberating, very single-minded and to a degree very self-serving.

Ron: You're the one who said that doing good works doesn't mean you are saved. You're the one who said that if Carlene's dad was continuing to be a sinner that his salvation was suspect. You're the one who is playing word games. Earlier you said that if a person was saved, they are not going to hell. I don't doubt that her father believed that Jesus was the way, the truth and the light. I don't doubt that her father was saved. I also don't doubt that her family and his church believe that he is now in heaven. The difference from what you are saying about salvation and being saved, and going to hell and the Southern Baptist Church that I became baptised in, is that my particular Southern Baptist Church said that not only did I have to be "saved" to go to heaven, I also had to be baptised in the Baptist Church to complete my salvation and route to heaven. If that is true, then there is no way that Carlene, the good Catholic girl, is going to heaven, whether she believes in Jesus and that he died for our sins or not. Which is pretty much what you have posted here, over and over. However by your standards I am heaven bound because, although I went to the Catholic church for many years and raised my children as Catholics and sent them to Catholic schools, I was baptised in the Baptist Church and was "saved" at church camp when I was around 12. And although I am going to heaven, my Catholic husband (who has the highest moral standards of anyone I have ever met) is going to hell and my beautiful children are going to hell. Poppycock! I don't believe that there is anyway that you're going to convince me Ron, that my nearly perfect husband is going to hell because he didn't embrace your church's doctrine or your interpretation of the Bible, nor are my incredibly good children going to hell. AND I do not actually think that I have a sure path into heaven because I chose to follow my first husband and be baptisted the Baptist church. Absoutely nothing you have said or anything that the Bible tells us will convince me of that. I don't know Carlene well, but from the sound of things here I would be willing to say with some certainty that Carlene is far from having a soul committed to hell. I think you are playing word games now so that you don't have to say straight out that you believe that Carlene is bound for hell fire and damnation. Everything that you've posted here previously has pointed to exactly that. P.S. The reason George Bush's name keeps coming up on this thread is because he has many of the same beliefs that Ron does and his beliefs and his behavior and decisions are impacting the whole of American society. It goes to the core of this argument!