02 Apr 06
Originally posted by RBHILLYour act is tiresome. It was fun for a short time. Believable for even less.
April Fool. I guess the only true fools are atheist. There is a definition of a fool in the Bible.
Psalm 14:1a The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
I strongly dislike you. As both wolf and sheep.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarr😉 A spicy full-bodied white like Rabl's Austrian Gruner Veltliner is an exciting alternative.
Of course this will depend to some degree on how the baby is seasoned. But, the general rule is this: wines that go well with pork go well with baby. I recommend a Burgundy or Grenache.
From Argentina, Dona Paula's Los Cardos Malbec is remarkably supple and would be perfect, too. 😵
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is the context of the Gospels that requires expertise.
I am not suggesting that the Gospels have to be read LITERALLY; there are many passages that are clearly parables or are in figuerative language. However, I do not regard it as a particularly difficult proposition to read the Gospels and understand its basic message based on a common sense evaluation of the words used in the context they are used in. As ...[text shortened]... understanding this document. Perhaps you could give some reason why such methods are necessary.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerA bald assertion is not a fact. The "context of the Gospels" is readily discernible to anyone who undertakes even a casual study. The message of Jesus was preached to the common man in obvious ways so that it could be understood by all Mankind. It is people like the RCC and the evangelicals who want to turn a clear message into something convoluted and then claim it can only be understood by use of the proper "Secret Decoder Rings".
It is the context of the Gospels that requires expertise.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThen we clearly don't need experts in Roman-occupied Palestine, NT Greek or Jewish history, right?
A bald assertion is not a fact. The "context of the Gospels" is readily discernible to anyone who undertakes even a casual study. The message of Jesus was preached to the common man in obvious ways so that it could be understood by all Mankind. It is people like the RCC and the evangelicals who want to turn a clear message into something convoluted and then claim it can only be understood by use of the proper "Secret Decoder Rings".
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMake some sort of argument, please. We clearly don't need to think at all if we simply agree that someone is such an expert that we should take whatever they say as 100% accurate. That's what you do with the RCC, but I believe most people prefer to think for themselves a little bit.
Then we clearly don't need experts in Roman-occupied Palestine, NT Greek or Jewish history, right?
EDIT: There's little dispute in any of those areas, at least so far as would be relevant to an understanding of the Gospels.
02 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderKeep your ad hominems and abuses to yourself.
Make some sort of argument, please. We clearly don't need to think at all if we simply agree that someone is such an expert that we should take whatever they say as 100% accurate. That's what you do with the RCC, but I believe most people prefer to think for themselves a little bit.
My point is simple - when reading documents written almost 2,000 years ago in a dead language you cannot simply assume that the English translation (and why should you trust the particular translation in the first place?) will give you the sense that a person at the time would have taken from it. Figuring that bit out does take some expertise, yes.
This reasoning isn't rocket science - it's just common sense.