bring back slavery!!!!!

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So just to be clear the old testament is consigned to the dustbin of christianity?

well not really, they can still use it whenever they feel like it. for example nobody dismisses the flood, every good christian knows that happened. so what if no geological proof was found, it says so in the bible. it also says god made a bet with satan and allowed him to hurt his most faithful follower but we don't dwell on that much

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it has to me that you believe your god and jesus to be real.
it has to atheists who bash christianity because of your jesus and your god.


atheists disagreeing with religion only have two arguments to support their stance: the fact that one shouldn't hold something to be true without proof (which can be ignored since us illogical humans believe stuff l much though, and i don't lose any sleep over your beliefs. but it does affect me nonetheless.

atheists disagreeing with religion only have two arguments to support their stance: the fact that one shouldn't hold something to be true without proof (which can be ignored since us illogical humans believe stuff like that all the time just to be comfortable) and people like you.
More that one shouldn't hold one thing to be true (to the exclusion of seemingly infinitely many equi-probable others) without proof that their choice is rationally justified and people like Robbie Carrobie

Originally posted by Agerg
You degrade yourself by holding firm to such a distorted interpretation of the Bible

I haven't interpreted anything, nor imposed any exegesis on scripture, i have merely
let the Bible speak for itself. Its Zee that has watered it down to make his neon God
more palpable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I haven't interpreted anything, nor imposed any exegesis on scripture, i have merely
let the Bible speak for itself. Its Zee that has watered it down to make his neon God
more palpable.

I see 😕

So evaluating that certain portions of the Bible (especially the ones which present your "God" as a fiend) are a literally true account of the way things were and are with your "God" is not interpreting anything!?

Originally posted by Agerg
I see 😕

So evaluating that certain portions of the Bible (especially the ones which present your "God" as a fiend) are a literally true account of the way things were and are with your "God" is not interpreting anything!?

i dont think my God is a fiend, thats your interpretation, not mine. I have no issues
with the Biblical God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont think my God is a fiend, thats your interpretation, not mine. I have no issues
with the Biblical God.

To limit your wriggling room I'll ask again (dropping what was in brackets):

So evaluating that certain portions of the Bible are a literally true account of the way things were and are with your "God" is not interpreting anything!?

Originally posted by Agerg
You're doing your best to evade an obvious mistake; indeed I can drop what was in brackets:

So evaluating that certain portions of the Bible are a literally true account of the way things were and are with your "God" is not interpreting anything!?

if one understands that the Bible is inspired, as it claims to be, and that certain Biblical
writers make reference to the same event in such terms as they hold that it was a
literal event, what is there to interpret?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if one understands that the Bible is inspired, as it claims to be, and that certain Biblical
writers make reference to the same event in such terms as they hold that it was a
literal event, what is there to interpret?

erm...you're interpreting it as something that is inspired!??? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
erm...you're interpreting it as something that is inspired!??? 😕

I have interpreted nothing, the Bible itself makes the claim that its inspired, i merely
believe it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have interpreted nothing, the Bible itself makes the claim that its inspired, i merely
believe it.

That is an interpretation Robbie. Other Christians interpret the Bible as not inspired.

Originally posted by Agerg
That is an interpretation Robbie. Other Christians interpret the Bible as not inspired.

Its not an interpretation, look,

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for
reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  that the man of
God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

there is nothing to interpret Aggy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not an interpretation, look,

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for
reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  that the man of
God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

there is nothing to interpret Aggy.

Your interpretation of that text is that it is not something inaccurate written by man (attributed to some bloke called Timothy), that it is instead wholly true.

Originally posted by Agerg
Your [b]interpretation of that text is that it is not something inaccurate written by man (attributed to some bloke called Timothy), that it is instead wholly true.[/b]

No it exists independently of whether i think that its accurate or not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it exists independently of whether i think that its accurate or not.

Yes the text exists. But back on topic, evaluating that it is an infallibly true account of the way things are is to interpret it some way:

[/i]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret[i]
to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]atheists disagreeing with religion only have two arguments to support their stance: the fact that one shouldn't hold something to be true without proof (which can be ignored since us illogical humans believe stuff like that all the time just to be comfortable) and people like you.
More that one shouldn't hold one thing to be true (to the exclusion of ...[text shortened]... thers) without proof that their choice is rationally justified and people like Robbie Carrobie[/b]

so you shouldn't hold that your wife loves you? and before you tell me you have proof, i can say she is a kgb secret agent who merely pretends to love you so that she may steal the secret weapon your government is developing.


we believe stuff we have no proof of all the time. trust, love, optimism are all examples. would you have those eliminated from the human race? or them you can accept?