8 ms·

You also left out "allegorical".

by jakear 3y ago

DonHopkins 3y ago
So you're a "Cafeteria Christian"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians
- jakear 3y ago
  I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically. Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    So you've definitely proven my point you're not arguing in good faith, just from blind faith.
    - jakear 3y ago
      This is life, pick your axioms – Readjust as necessary to optimize attitude. Don't act like you don't do the exact same. :)
      - DonHopkins 3y ago
        There's a huge difference. I change what I believe when it's proven wrong. You just dig in deeper, believing things that have been proven wrong even harder that ever.
        jakear 3y ago
        Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation). Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?
        DonHopkins 3y ago
        So you stopped believing things that science has proven right, and switched to believing things science has proven wrong. Simply changing your beliefs isn't enough, you have to change them from worse to better, not from an incomplete but self improving modern scientific narrative to an incoherent and false stagnating bronze aged mythological narrative (which is so ridiculous on its face that children can easily through see it, like your Noah's Ark story that you choose to ignore, or the fact your "good book" that's supposed to give moral guidance doesn't prohibit slavery, but does treat women as property), but here you are proudly bragging that you went the opposite direction. Just as I predicted, you just dig deeper in when proven wrong. So what is it about the Abrahamic narrative that appeals to you so much that you reject the very science that makes it possible for us to communicate, and to live long healthy lives? The pro-slavery, anti-women stuff? To me, that's a strong reason to reject your bible as a source of moral or scientific guidance. But you be you, if you desperately need justification for your bigotry and hatred and subjugation of women and slaves. The Bible and Slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery >In 1 Peter 2:18-20, slaves are ordered to "in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Women in the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible >1 Corinthians 14:34–35: These verses read in the Authorized Version "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Don't even bother trying to defend and rationalize the Bible's support of slavery and subjugation of women, or your belief in it. You're not going to convince me or anyone else to support slavery or abuse women. Evangelize your bigoted bronze age religion to somebody else, or simply give up and stop spreading your bigotry and hatred and anti-science propoganda.
    - jibal 3y ago
      jakear says "He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value" but he pretty much did: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-iota-not-dot-will-pass-law-until-all-accomplished https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-...
      - jakear 3y ago
        He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect. Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

You also left out "allegorical".

by jakear 3y ago

You also left out "allegorical".

So you're a "Cafeteria Christian"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians

jakear 3y ago
I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically. Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  So you've definitely proven my point you're not arguing in good faith, just from blind faith.
  - jakear 3y ago
    This is life, pick your axioms – Readjust as necessary to optimize attitude. Don't act like you don't do the exact same. :)
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      There's a huge difference. I change what I believe when it's proven wrong. You just dig in deeper, believing things that have been proven wrong even harder that ever.
      - jakear 3y ago
        Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation). Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?
        DonHopkins 3y ago
        So you stopped believing things that science has proven right, and switched to believing things science has proven wrong. Simply changing your beliefs isn't enough, you have to change them from worse to better, not from an incomplete but self improving modern scientific narrative to an incoherent and false stagnating bronze aged mythological narrative (which is so ridiculous on its face that children can easily through see it, like your Noah's Ark story that you choose to ignore, or the fact your "good book" that's supposed to give moral guidance doesn't prohibit slavery, but does treat women as property), but here you are proudly bragging that you went the opposite direction. Just as I predicted, you just dig deeper in when proven wrong. So what is it about the Abrahamic narrative that appeals to you so much that you reject the very science that makes it possible for us to communicate, and to live long healthy lives? The pro-slavery, anti-women stuff? To me, that's a strong reason to reject your bible as a source of moral or scientific guidance. But you be you, if you desperately need justification for your bigotry and hatred and subjugation of women and slaves. The Bible and Slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery >In 1 Peter 2:18-20, slaves are ordered to "in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Women in the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible >1 Corinthians 14:34–35: These verses read in the Authorized Version "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Don't even bother trying to defend and rationalize the Bible's support of slavery and subjugation of women, or your belief in it. You're not going to convince me or anyone else to support slavery or abuse women. Evangelize your bigoted bronze age religion to somebody else, or simply give up and stop spreading your bigotry and hatred and anti-science propoganda.
  - jibal 3y ago
    jakear says "He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value" but he pretty much did: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-iota-not-dot-will-pass-law-until-all-accomplished https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-...
    - jakear 3y ago
      He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect. Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]