Anti-Semitism In France!

[TommyO 5]

Re "Is it your position that nothing in life is defined and everything is up for interpretation? Because that's what it sounds like. In my experience, in all disciplines, not just religion, some things are ambiguous and some things are perfectly clear. But I guess it just depends on what your definition of "is" is."

Everything in life is up for interpretation, that is why the world is so diverse. You so Tomaaaato I say Tomato. We all bring our own set of instructions to the table. We define our experience based on our experience. No one is free of prejudice or malice and for that matter no one is void of good.

If you think that some things are perfectly clear then you are not looking hard enough. Everyday I learn new things, things that I thought were true one day became unclear the next. That is the mystery of life and that is what makes living so worthwhile.

I have no problem that you beleive in God but as soon as you present him to me in the fashion you do I quickly reject that version of him. I can't for the life of me beleive that a being that is all knowing could come to those conclusions. If I new everything I feel certain I would have come up with very different conclusions. I can't beleive that an omnipitant and devine creature could be as unwise as the one holy books portary.

I also can't beleive that this supreme being would find it neccassary to keep themselves a secret. It's akin to a parent having a child and then leaving them in a field expecting them to grow to be be big and strong and wise and to also expect that they love He/She.

we both have journeyed through life and come to very different conclusions. There may be a very few things that we agree on and still that does not make them true. We may agree for example that the sky is blue but that does not make it so. The sky in fact is not blue, at least I think so.

I am not afraid of a world that is up for interpretation as a matter of fact I love that about life. I am not afraid of the unkown, I prefer it. When you tell me you "know something to be true" I think you are wrong.

Decarte said if we remove all that is not true we can make only one statement of truth "I think therefore I am" Someone esle who I can't remember then came up with "I think I think therefore, I think I am". I would say "I don't care as long as I think I'm thinking I think that's good enough.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I certainly agree with you 100% There is an old saying that goes "scripture intrepretes scripture"! There are no contridictions. What may appear to some to be contridictions are usually verses taken out of context or the reader not having a grash on the whole of scripture and it's broad picture and understanding.

There is a rule of thumb that Bible scolars use. All scripture is taken as literal, unless it's context clearly indicates otherwise. Then we look to the consistancy of scripture to get an understanding.

For example . . . Jesus said, "those who eat my body and drink my blood'. It is obvious from the context that He is not referring to cannibialism, does not have literal meaning, so we look to scripture and context to understand the meaning, which is that we partake in his atoning, substitutionary death as if it was our flesh and blood being offered.

LOL! You're funny, leatha. I love your excitement about all things of God .

Jesus definitely did speak in parables and Scripture does need to be taken into context to understand it. There are so many people that say the Bible contradicts itself, but then when I ask for an example their examples really never DO contradict each other -- they just took them out of context or really didn't understand what was being said.

Other than TOM, who won't talk about it because it's "personal", I have yet to have anyone else respond in the affirmative, that they believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified and resurrected on the third day, and that they also don't take the Bible literally. Is there no one else with this belief system who's willing to admit it and talk about it?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

YES!! without hesitation.

Sorry, I missed the 'taking it literal' part as well.. I got so excited about getting to Glorify God's name I skipped right over that..

Literal, hmm.. I take the Bible literally, yes. However, I think it's been established there were many metaphors and parablles used in the Bible. Some scripture would make absolutely no sense, taken out of context and without a little cross referencing to other scriptures. And, remember, the Holy Spirit is there to help us discern as a believer who has an open heart and asks for understanding. Without that one element, there is no understanding.

LOL! You're funny, leatha. I love your excitement about all things of God .

Jesus definitely did speak in parables and Scripture does need to be taken into context to understand it. There are so many people that say the Bible contradicts itself, but then when I ask for an example their examples really never DO contradict each other -- they just took them out of context or really didn't understand what was being said.

Other than TOM, who won't talk about it because it's "personal", I have yet to have anyone else respond in the affirmative, that they believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified and resurrected on the third day, and that they also don't take the Bible literally. Is there no one else with this belief system who's willing to admit it and talk about it?

If it is parables and metaphors, then it is not word for word (literal).

And if something is word for word, how can it be taken out of context? The answer I have previously heard is that in another verse or chapter, the verse in question is referenced. But since there is no footnote referring you to the correct other verse, it is left up to the individual reader to ASSUME what other verse completes the context. Again interpretation, rather than literal.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I certainly agree with you 100% There is an old saying that goes "scripture intrepretes scripture"!

That goes back to the old vicious cycle;

I know there is a God because the Bible says so.

I know the Bible is True because God wrote it.

If "scripture interprets scripture", then the Bible is not literal.

Something Literal does not need interpretation.

Something figurative does need interpretation.

If Something needs interpretation, it is figurative and not literal.

That is God's Logic.

Did God create logic, or was it the Greeks?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

" 12 For whoever has [spiritual knowledge], to him will more be given and he will [c]be furnished richly so that he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

So people who do not know the "truth" about God should not be allowed to find out the truth about God?

And why is your Biblical text different than the one I posted?

How can the Bible be "word for word" if there is no single Bible. If the Bible can not agree with the Bible, how can it be taken lierally.

If you remember my earlier posts, I mentioned the problems of translation, transcription and political jockying to get what some wanted into the Bible compared to what others wanted.

[BJean 16]

Well said, TOM. And why do some believers have this all-or-nothing approach? Why do they have the NEED to believe that the Bible is literal, proves itself from within its' text, and that anyone who doesn't grasp that concept is reading and interpreting it ALL WRONG? Why don't they understand that since others do not believe in their truth, they will never believe that the Bible is literal and that the proof that they insist is proof, is nothing of the sort?

Some people have a quick grasp of Algebra, others can never get it. Some people who are good at Algebra don't get Geometry. Is that so difficult to understand? Our minds works differently. Our little synapses aren't all wired the same way. C'est la vie. Can't we all just get along? Can't we all live in peace and allow that we have different needs and comfort zones? Belief in God is such a personal thing, it is not something you can legislate, even though there are some folks here who would like to. Well I guess it actually would be possible to legislate it, but how would that make us any better than the people who threw stones at Jesus?

[GeezerSue 7]

With posts like this, you wonder why this thread got to this point. This is a great example of the point I was trying to make previously about double standards.

No one seems to think garbage like this is insensitive or crude, but let me respond and everyone starts pointing the finger!

Anyone care to address the sarcasim and taunting from this person??

I WILL!!!

This person noted that you believe in the literal word of God as written in (some version) of the bible. And, that the bible says that Christ can not only heal the sick but cause people to rise from the dead. And, you had a neighbor kid (whom you didn't mind using as a metaphor to tell me about how I'm going to be sorry that I did't listen to you, so you brought him into the conversation to try to prove your point) who got killed by running into the street.

So, I logically (you remember logic, right?) asked why you didn't gather a group of people to pray about having God un-dead the kid. I mean the bible DOES say that if two or more gather 'round and ask...right?

So, from what I see, you missed a golden opportunity to prove that your God not only answers prayers, but that he can bring the dead back to life.

Which brings up the point...do you even HAVE medical insurance? Because that would indicate that you don't BELIEVE that prayer will fix everything in YOUR life, either, wouldn't it?

[Ron Cusano 0]

That goes back to the old vicious cycle;

There is a verse of scripture that explains your inability or unwillingness to "get it" . . .

1Co 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"

I know there is a God because the Bible says so.

There are many things that testify to the reality of God in addition to the Bible, including His creation!

I know the Bible is True because God wrote it. AMEN, you got it!

If "scripture interprets scripture", then the Bible is not literal.

Something Literal does not need interpretation.

Something figurative does need interpretation.

If Something needs interpretation, it is figurative and not literal.

Interpretation meaning that taken out of context, which so many here delight in doing, it may appear to have other meanings, but when put into the proper context and viewed considering the consistancy of scripture, we have a clear understanding of it's meaning.

Here is an example that maybe you can grasp! If you are very upset with someone, and you yell out in anger saying, "I'm going to kill you"! Taken literally, but out of context, you might assume you are going to murder someone. Taken in proper context, considering the oftern usage of the phrase, you state of mind, what is taking place at the time, etc., it is quite obvious that you are not saying you really are going to kill that person. You are venting anger!

Yes the Bible is to be taken literally, unless the context of what is being said clearly dictates otherwise, which is common in all expression of language. You can twist this any way you want, and I know you will, nevertheless it makes good sense, is right and reasonable, and is accepted by Bible theologians worldwide.

That is God's Logic.

Did God create logic, or was it the Greeks?

Not worthy of a reply!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Under the BuSh administration, which is now allowing torture to extract evidence and then allowing the evidence to be used, I see a next step as torturing atheists, agnostics and non-completed Jews until they actually believe that the Bible is 100% true a la 1984.

'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'

'Yes,' said Winston.

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'Four.'

'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'

'Four.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four.'

The needle went up to sixty.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Five! Five! Five!'

'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'

'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'

Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.

'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

He laid Winston down on the bed. The grip of his limbs tightened again, but the pain had ebbed away and the trembling had stopped, leaving him merely weak and cold. O'Brien motioned with his head to the man in the white coat, who had stood immobile throughout the proceedings. The man in the white coat bent down and looked closely into Winston's eyes, felt his pulse, laid an ear against his chest, tapped here and there, then he nodded to O'Brien.

'Again,' said O'Brien.

The pain flowed into Winston's body. The needle must be at seventy, seventy-five. He had shut his eyes this time. He knew that the fingers were still there, and still four. All that mattered was somehow to stay alive until the spasm was over. He had ceased to notice whether he was crying out or not. The pain lessened again. He opened his eyes. O'Brien had drawn back the lever.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.'

'Which do you wish: to persuade me that you see five, or really to see them?'

'Really to see them.'

'Again,' said O'Brien.

Perhaps the needle was eighty -- ninety. Winston could not intermittently remember why the pain was happening. Behind his screwed-up eyelids a forest of fingers seemed to be moving in a sort of dance, weaving in and out, disappearing behind one another and reappearing again. He was trying to count them, he could not remember why. He knew only that it was impossible to count them, and that this was somehow due to the mysterious identity between five and four. The pain died down again. When he opened his eyes it was to find that he was still seeing the same thing. Innumerable fingers, like moving trees, were still streaming past in either direction, crossing and recrossing. He shut his eyes again.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six -- in all honesty I don't know.'

'Better,' said O'Brien.

A needle slid into Winston's arm. Almost in the same instant a blissful, healing warmth spread all through his body. The pain was already half-forgotten. He opened his eyes and looked up gratefully at O'Brien. At sight of the heavy, lined face, so ugly and so intelligent, his heart seemed to turn over. If he could have moved he would have stretched out a hand and laid it on O'Brien arm. He had never loved him so deeply as at this moment, and not merely because he had stopped the pain. The old feeling, that it bottom it did not matter whether O'Brien was a friend or an enemy, had come back. O'Brien was a person who could be talked to. Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood. O'Brien had tortured him to the edge of lunacy, and in a little while, it was certain, he would send him to his death. It made no difference. In some sense that went deeper than friendship, they were intimates: somewhere or other, although the actual words might never be spoken, there was a place where they could meet and talk. O'Brien was looking down at him with an expression which suggested that the same thought might be in his own mind. When he spoke it was in an easy, conversational tone.

'Do you know where you are, Winston?' he said.

'I don't know. I can guess. In the Ministry of Love.'

'Just now I held up the fingers of my hand to you. You saw five fingers. Do you remember that?'

'Yes.'

O'Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed.

'There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?'

'Yes.'

And he did see them , for a fleeting instant, before the scenery of his mind changed. He saw five fingers, and there was no deformity.

Praise the Lord. BuSh shall set us free and gain us entry into Heaven.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Because while God can and does heal, He does so in according to His own will and plan. It is not a "guarantee" that God will be at our beck and call to heal whenever we ask. Rather, since we live in a fallen world, as long as we are here, we are subject to how the world is - with sickness, pain and death. By the way, it was not a metaphor, unfortunately it was a true story!

I WILL!!!

This person noted that you believe in the literal word of God as written in (some version) of the bible. And, that the bible says that Christ can not only heal the sick but cause people to rise from the dead. And, you had a neighbor kid (whom you didn't mind using as a metaphor to tell me about how I'm going to be sorry that I did't listen to you, so you brought him into the conversation to try to prove your point) who got killed by running into the street.

So, I logically (you remember logic, right?) asked why you didn't gather a group of people to pray about having God un-dead the kid. I mean the bible DOES say that if two or more gather 'round and ask...right?

So, from what I see, you missed a golden opportunity to prove that your God not only answers prayers, but that he can bring the dead back to life.

Which brings up the point...do you even HAVE medical insurance? Because that would indicate that you don't BELIEVE that prayer will fix everything in YOUR life, either, wouldn't it?

[BJean 16]

Tom: In some strange way, I love you.

[BJean 16]

Ron: you're scarier than I thought.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Tom: In some strange way, I love you.

What are you doing Friday night?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The next sound that you will hear is that of Tina's 12 inch skillet contacting TOM's extremely thick skull:faint::help:

[GeezerSue 7]

Because while God can and does heal, He does so in according to His own will and plan. It is not a "guarantee" that God will be at our beck and call to heal whenever we ask. Rather, since we live in a fallen world, as long as we are here, we are subject to how the world is - with sickness, pain and death. By the way, it was not a metaphor, unfortunately it was a true story!

Which "explains" why God NEVER, EVER, EVER heal amputees, right. Either it wasn't in this all powerful and loving God's plan, OR he's imaginary and can't cure hiccups.

I didn't say--or even IMPLY--that your story wasn't true...merely that you were using it as a metaphor. (You get that, right?)

So, if God heals what he wants healed and things that are NOT healed are NOT healed because he doesn't want them healed--and, assuming that God mostly gets what he wants, doesn't that STILL mean that medical insurance is a waste of money...money that you could be using to publish more tracts to convert more Jews?

So, do you have medical insurance and--if you do--doesn't that mean that either...you don't trust God to heal what YOU need healed OR you are going to try to go against God's will and get doctors to try to heal stuff God won't heal on his own?

Curious, huh?