RE: Jesus Camp (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

MasterJack53 -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:06:35 PM)

yes sunshinemiss, Im a Master. I started in the lifestyle in 1973. Some of the rules in the lifestyle today I probably helped get into the lifestyle. Im not claiming I did but its possible. how about you? how long you been whatever it is you call yourself? as for the part of my post about the church not being scriptual, the Bible lists the requirements to be a pastor, priest, or minister and Im sorry but it says you must be male. It also says, "a woman shall remain silent in church" see 1st Timothy chapter 2 verses 11 & 12 and chapter 3 verses 1-13. Of course if you dont believe the Bible is Gods word I probably would get a better reply if I told you to read an Archie comic or something.



MasterJack53 -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:11:09 PM)

I dont know about your Bible but in MY King James version it begins by saying the Bible is written by man but inspired by God. Now I read that to mean He put the words in the minds of those that wrote the Old Testement and the Gospels in the New Testement. Granted, King James rearranged it but then, maybe he was inspired by God. Who knows. But as for me, I believe it.



Kirata -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:11:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Know Your Christians - Ted Rose - Slate Magazine

Fundamentalist is a term used to describe American conservative Protestants....

Well first of all, Ted Rose is wrong, surprise, and I would seriously suggest you seek out a better theological reference than Slate Magazine. Secondly, the predatory clerics who promote a literal interpretation of the Bible are all nominally of the Christian faith.

I say "nominally" because, of course, a literal interpretation of the Bible is blatantly unscriptural. As Van Deventer points out...

The New Testament is full of examples where people erred by failing to recognize Jesus' use of figurative language. When Jesus spoke of the temple of His body (John 2:21) the Jews erred in thinking of a physical temple and sought His death on the basis of this mistaken literal interpretation (Matt. 26:61). Nicodemus' literal interpretation led him to wonder if being "born again" meant to "enter a second time into his mother's womb" (John3:4). When Jesus spoke of "a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" the Samaritan erred in wanting a literal drink of water (John 4:10-15). These examples are sufficient to demonstrate that a literal (nonfigurative) interpretation can lead to mistaken conclusions.

See also here.

Those who preach Biblical literalism are flim-flam men, not part of the Protestant mainstream -- despite the fact that they make more noise than all of the rest of Protestantism put together.

K.





MasterJack53 -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:14:49 PM)

those are CHURCHes with a similar faith, not faiths as you said. a faith would be Christian, Jewish,Muslim etc. perhaps youre not as smart as you want everyone to think you are?



rulemylife -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:16:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Know Your Christians - Ted Rose - Slate Magazine

Fundamentalist is a term used to describe American conservative Protestants....

Well first of all, Ted Rose is wrong, surprise, and I would seriously suggest you seek out a better theological reference than Slate Magazine. Secondly, the predatory clerics who promote a literal interpretation of the Bible are all nominally of the Christian faith.

I say "nominally" because, of course, a literal interpretation of the Bible is blatantly unscriptural. As Van Deventer points out...

The New Testament is full of examples where people erred by failing to recognize Jesus' use of figurative language. When Jesus spoke of the temple of His body (John 2:21) the Jews erred in thinking of a physical temple and sought His death on the basis of this mistaken literal interpretation (Matt. 26:61). Nicodemus' literal interpretation led him to wonder if being "born again" meant to "enter a second time into his mother's womb" (John3:4). When Jesus spoke of "a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" the Samaritan erred in wanting a literal drink of water (John 4:10-15). These examples are sufficient to demonstrate that a literal (nonfigurative) interpretation can lead to mistaken conclusions.

See also here.

K.


Sorry, but there are far too many who believe in a literal interpretation, and for you to pretend having no knowledge of the many who do is just being disingenuous.



NihilusZero -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:19:53 PM)

Alright. What's going on here?

I was at work and missed the beginning of what has now become a biblical literalism topic?

Zealotry and literalism don't necessarily overlap, though. But the zealots are the ones convinced of having the perfect cipher for every excerpt in religious texts letting them know precisely which ones are meant to be applied literally, which figuratively and to what degree of each in each instance...which becomes its own inerrant literalism.



NihilusZero -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:22:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Those who preach Biblical literalism are flim-flam men...

Presumably. Then again, to be able to state as much, one needs to have there very same assured correct knowledge of the deity's intent when crafting this supposed book via fallible media.



Kirata -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:22:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Sorry, but there are far too many who believe in a literal interpretation, and for you to pretend having no knowledge of the many who do is just being disingenuous.

Unh, far too many what precisely? People, or all those "many many faiths"? [:D]

K.



rulemylife -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:27:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Sorry, but there are far too many who believe in a literal interpretation, and for you to pretend having no knowledge of the many who do is just being disingenuous.

Unh, far too many what precisely? People, or all those "many many faiths"? [:D]

K.


Well. I gave examples of those faiths.

I'll be happy to provide more.




RCdc -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:31:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

And I suppose, with your premise, followers of christ should come along and apologise for you and those that are like you who claim to be christian and have a misguided stance on females not being in positions of authority within the church? Jesus treated women with dignity and respect. You just exhibited neither.
Jesus would be appalled by your misogyny.

the.dark.


There are certain religions that follow that line of thinking based on the book and older ways of living. Call it misogyny if you like but in this day and age those women in those churches are making choices and belief decisions also.

K GotSteel made my point for me.



I do understand that.  My post was being slightly ironic whilst using his train of thinking - I should have ended with a sarcasm slant.  My one question always comes from the point that people who claim to be christian, who do not follow the teachings of Jesus and stick rigidly to the OT.  That always seems pretty weirdout for me.

the.dark.



Kirata -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:31:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Presumably. Then again, to be able to state as much, one needs to have there very same assured correct knowledge of the deity's intent when crafting this supposed book via fallible media.

Did you not comprehend the point being made in the blue-colored text in my post? There is no need to assert an "assured correct knowledge of the deity's intent when crafting" the book, or even to suppose that it was "crafted" by deity in the first place.

K.





RCdc -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:36:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Well. I gave examples of those faiths.

I'll be happy to provide more.




Ok.  Still waiting.

the.dark.



NihilusZero -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:37:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Did you have a problem comprehending the point being made in the blue-colored text in my post? There is no need to assert an "assured correct knowledge of the deity's intent when crafting" the book, or even to suppose that it was "crafted" by deity in the first place. Where do you pull this stuff out of?

K.

All I got from the encapsulated blue text is that you either think or were proposing that Jack Van Deventer's insight into scripture is more enlightened than anyone else's possibly could be. He "asserted assured correct knowledge" of how the bible is to be interpreted.



RCdc -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:39:09 PM)

I find it pretty ironic when a person picks on a denomination for taking the bible in a literal state, whilst taking the bible themself in a literal state.
What makes you so correct and them so wrong?

the.dark.



NihilusZero -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:42:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I find it pretty ironic when a person picks on a denomination for taking the bible in a literal state, whilst taking the bible themself in a literal state.
What makes you so correct and them so wrong?

the.dark.

It's easier to point out the fallacies inherent in biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy than it is to deal with the fallacies of the presumptions of "literally understanding" how to interpret the bible as it was specifically intended in each instance.



RCdc -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:43:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJack53
Of course if you dont believe the Bible is Gods word I probably would get a better reply if I told you to read an Archie comic or something.


Of course, you cannot be a christian without following christ, correct?
And seeing as when he travelled he had women alongside him, doesn't matter?
Not to mention when push came to shove, the men ran and the women stayed beside him...

the.dark.



rulemylife -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:44:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I find it pretty ironic when a person picks on a denomination for taking the bible in a literal state, whilst taking the bible themself in a literal state.
What makes you so correct and them so wrong?

the.dark.


Instead of me providing more examples of religious sects that take the Bible literally, this is probably a better avenue.

Why would any rational person take this ancient book literally?



MasterJack53 -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:46:56 PM)

I did not mean to insult all people from Missouri, only the ones in that church. I have a very good friend,slave, and lay in Springfield so I would not disparage all from the show me state.[image][/image]



RCdc -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:48:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I find it pretty ironic when a person picks on a denomination for taking the bible in a literal state, whilst taking the bible themself in a literal state.
What makes you so correct and them so wrong?

the.dark.

It's easier to point out the fallacies inherent in biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy than it is to deal with the fallacies of the presumptions of "literally understanding" how to interpret the bible as it was specifically intended in each instance.



Whilst that may be the case, that is a weak excuse that might allow a person to get away with not explaining... and I would still ask the same question of the OP regardless.
What makes the OP correct and them wrong.  I would like scriptual references, hebrew and greek translation and historical back up.  If he cannot produce these, then his apology is empty and void. (edit to remove 'any' - because it would be lazy if I did not request for them all).

the.dark.



Kirata -> RE: Jesus Camp (11/11/2009 11:51:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
I can literally (literally, get it? [sm=rofl.gif]) keep providing examples all night long if these don't suffice.

Before you can "keep providing" them you'll have to start providing them. So by all means, get with it. Aside from Christianity, what other faiths are you referring to in that "many many faiths" claim of yours? The word "literal" does not appear in the body of the link you referred us to in citing the Mormons as Biblical literalists (amusing though the idea is). Biblical literalism is by no means the mainstream Protestant view, Slate Magazine notwithstanding. And where literalism is fraudulently proclaimed to be legitimate, it is not applied consistently enough to qualify as even a flawed standard of intepretation.

But hey, we can slide on the details. I don't want to compromise your inerrancy. [:D]

K.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875