Im A Christian Again

[Guest end3]

I'm still thinking about this conversation.

 

Do you truly see Numbers as ONLY metaphorical? I want to be clear. What I am hearing from you is that you don't believe those were actual plain directives of behavior for the ancient Israelites. Is that right?

 

Phanta

 

No, I believe it was literal, but a means to achieve the sin-free goal. Sin being something to be kept in control by the law.

 

Yeah – how’d that work out for Israel?

 

Bible-god sure caused plenty of suffering and genocide when Israel disobeyed his law – leaving little to NO effect on his fallible, sinful, earthly children.

 

How’s god’s awesome plan (trying to achieve a sin free goal) going for the rest of (sinful, fallible) humanity?

 

--S.

 

Wide is the path....but the door....you know the rest. Truthfully, I think we can achieve it in small amounts, and some get pretty close as adults.

[Sconnor]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

Opinions aside: the fact of the matter – end is cherry picking.

 

In fact, that is what all Christians do to rationalize their own idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

That’s why Catholicism doesn’t allow women priests.

That is why evangelicals keep women out of authority positions in the church.

That is why some Christian denominations propagate women as subservient.

That is why polygamy is a way of life at the FLDS church.

That’s the ideology that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their will in Mormon sects.

That is why men burned women at stakes.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

And they all go to their bible for their marching orders.

 

And from their own particular interpretation from the bible, they ALL rationalize its god’s will.

 

Just like you do, end -- when you make unsubstantiated, outrageous claims about god’s character and will.

 

That's why end has no credibility.

 

--S.

 

All you have listed is transient "truths" Scott...truths at the time.

 

Regardless, those “truths” and your supposed “truths” are constructed in the same way – by rationalizing spurious scripture to fit your warped world-view and then make the outrageous claim it came from god.

 

--S.

[Sconnor]

I'm still thinking about this conversation.

 

Do you truly see Numbers as ONLY metaphorical? I want to be clear. What I am hearing from you is that you don't believe those were actual plain directives of behavior for the ancient Israelites. Is that right?

 

Phanta

 

No, I believe it was literal, but a means to achieve the sin-free goal. Sin being something to be kept in control by the law.

 

Yeah – how’d that work out for Israel?

 

Bible-god sure caused plenty of suffering and genocide when Israel disobeyed his law – leaving little to NO effect on his fallible, sinful, earthly children.

 

How’s god’s awesome plan (trying to achieve a sin free goal) going for the rest of (sinful, fallible) humanity?

 

--S.

 

Wide is the path....but the door....you know the rest. Truthfully, I think we can achieve it in small amounts, and some get pretty close as adults.

 

Some?

 

As always you disregard the actual argument and diverge, diverge, diverge.

 

Notice how you can not argue against the notion that bible-god caused mass suffering and genocide, supposedly to achieve his goal of a sin-free society – a society and humanity -- in general -- (The majority of his earthly children) who continue to be fallible (sinful) humans.

 

Face it end, the bible is bullshit and your imaginary god’s plan is patently absurd.

 

--S.

[Ouroboros]

So how can it be literal and not literal at the same time?

 

Are you saying can it function literally now? I assume it can function literally if one keeps the entire law. I don't practice it literally as a function of the renewed covenant. Should it be essentially literal for me. Yes, I think if I were all the way to my salvation destination, then I would be complete, mature in Love......it should be written on my heart....a complete understanding via God's definitions, not ours.

Sorry. I still don't understand.

 

Was the law literal for the Jews or not?

[Guest end3]

Was the law literal for the Jews or not?

 

Yes

[Ouroboros]

Was the law literal for the Jews or not?

 

Yes

So they literally had to use a pagan/wiccan ritual to figure out the guilt?

[Phanta]

So how can it be literal and not literal at the same time?

 

Are you saying can it function literally now?

 

In this post you said, clear as day, that if it's taken metaphorically, there is no actual witchcraft(...just metaphoric witchcraft, I guess...though it's weird God would illustrate with such a Pagany witchy example). No actual witchraft behavior. Metaphor. That's what Hans and I both got from your post.

 

Now, here, you say it was a literal instruction.

 

Which leads me back to, "That literal instruction looks like magical witchcraft." In other words, the quality of the curse and the ritual and the potion are the kind of characteristics I would expect to see in Wicca, a Pagan religion. To me, this is clear as a sunny day with no clouds in the sky.

 

I conclude, therefore, that the Bible is a book written by and describing the journey of many different believer to understand something about God. For security/power reasons, they said (and possibly believed) these things were edicts from God-- possibly assumed they were given as such to a Grandfather or Great Unclie by God in the distant past, well after it had become tradition and the original human philosophers who just generated these ideas were long dead and unable to refute-- as opposed to hanging with the less powerful (against enemies) truth which is that they are merely human ideas about God. This is one of those pieces of evidence that the original thinkers who came up with at least some of these rituals were still heavily influenced by the Pagan tradition they were leaving behind.

 

God said nothing about bitter water exposing adulteresses. Some people thought that would tell them something supernaturally, through God. So they said it came from God, but these Pagan-influenced people were the real authors of an idea they had about God.

 

Hans is asking how can it be intended by the author to function literally as you recently said it was meant by God, and not literally, as you indicated in the first post I reference. Notice I didn't write literally and metaphorically. It could conceivably be both of those things. But your first post said it was not to be taken literally. Then you said it was to be taken literally.

 

Therefore, Hans is asking how something can be meant literally and not literally at the same time (different from asking if it can be literal and metaphorical at the same time).

 

In other words, he is confused. And he is not alone.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

So how can it be literal and not literal at the same time?

 

Are you saying can it function literally now?

 

In this post you said, clear as day, that if it's taken metaphorically, there is no actual witchcraft(...just metaphoric witchcraft, I guess...though it's weird God would illustrate with such a Pagany witchy example). No actual witchraft behavior. Metaphor. That's what Hans and I both got from your post.

 

Now, here, you say it was a literal instruction.

 

Which leads me back to, "That literal instruction looks like magical witchcraft." In other words, the quality of the curse and the ritual and the potion are the kind of characteristics I would expect to see in Wicca, a Pagan religion. To me, this is clear as a sunny day with no clouds in the sky.

 

I conclude, therefore, that the Bible is a book written by and describing the journey of many different believer to understand something about God. For security/power reasons, they said (and possibly believed) these things were edicts from God-- possibly assumed they were given as such to a Grandfather or Great Unclie by God in the distant past, well after it had become tradition and the original human philosophers who just generated these ideas were long dead and unable to refute-- as opposed to hanging with the less powerful (against enemies) truth which is that they are merely human ideas about God. This is one of those pieces of evidence that the original thinkers who came up with at least some of these rituals were still heavily influenced by the Pagan tradition they were leaving behind.

 

God said nothing about bitter water exposing adulteresses. Some people thought that would tell them something supernaturally, through God. So they said it came from God, but these Pagan-influenced people were the real authors of an idea they had about God.

 

Hans is asking how can it be intended by the author to function literally as you recently said it was meant by God, and not literally, as you indicated in the first post I reference. Notice I didn't write literally and metaphorically. It could conceivably be both of those things. But your first post said it was not to be taken literally. Then you said it was to be taken literally.

 

Therefore, Hans is asking how something can be meant literally and not literally at the same time (different from asking if it can be literal and metaphorical at the same time).

 

In other words, he is confused. And he is not alone.

 

Phanta

 

Certainly I am doing a poor job here. Initially, the Bible does not ask us to conclude, but remain in faith as we don't possess all the information. About the literal and non-literal. I believe the OT law was certainly literal for the Jews. When I describe it metaphorically, and maybe I am using the word incorrectly. The Christian word for the example is "type" as in Abraham is "in type" God.....typology.

 

I think I am using it correctly...metaphorically. For example, as you can read it literally, you can also read it metaphorically. God being the water, the woman being the church, the husband being Christ, etc. I don't think figuratively is the right word. Keep in mind I'm lacking in some of these areas....I know, duh.

[bdp]

this thread has gotten really, really uninteresting.

[Ouroboros]

[For example, as you can read it literally, you can also read it metaphorically.

Of course. But the point is that the Bible was inspired by paganism.

[Steve20]

I wonder if she masturbates to thoughts of Jesus like I did, pretending I was a bride of Christ. I had a relationship with that bastard too you see......and he was a Bastard and a product of rape.

 

disgusting.......

ps thats what the "talmud" says

[Steve20]

Sort of a Christian fence sitter/desist here but fundies like the OP do a terrible job of convincing people......too much of a know it all attitude.

[Overcame Faith]

So how can it be literal and not literal at the same time?

 

Are you saying can it function literally now?

 

In this post you said, clear as day, that if it's taken metaphorically, there is no actual witchcraft(...just metaphoric witchcraft, I guess...though it's weird God would illustrate with such a Pagany witchy example). No actual witchraft behavior. Metaphor. That's what Hans and I both got from your post.

 

Now, here, you say it was a literal instruction.

 

Which leads me back to, "That literal instruction looks like magical witchcraft." In other words, the quality of the curse and the ritual and the potion are the kind of characteristics I would expect to see in Wicca, a Pagan religion. To me, this is clear as a sunny day with no clouds in the sky.

 

I conclude, therefore, that the Bible is a book written by and describing the journey of many different believer to understand something about God. For security/power reasons, they said (and possibly believed) these things were edicts from God-- possibly assumed they were given as such to a Grandfather or Great Unclie by God in the distant past, well after it had become tradition and the original human philosophers who just generated these ideas were long dead and unable to refute-- as opposed to hanging with the less powerful (against enemies) truth which is that they are merely human ideas about God. This is one of those pieces of evidence that the original thinkers who came up with at least some of these rituals were still heavily influenced by the Pagan tradition they were leaving behind.

 

God said nothing about bitter water exposing adulteresses. Some people thought that would tell them something supernaturally, through God. So they said it came from God, but these Pagan-influenced people were the real authors of an idea they had about God.

 

Hans is asking how can it be intended by the author to function literally as you recently said it was meant by God, and not literally, as you indicated in the first post I reference. Notice I didn't write literally and metaphorically. It could conceivably be both of those things. But your first post said it was not to be taken literally. Then you said it was to be taken literally.

 

Therefore, Hans is asking how something can be meant literally and not literally at the same time (different from asking if it can be literal and metaphorical at the same time).

 

In other words, he is confused. And he is not alone.

 

Phanta

 

Certainly I am doing a poor job here. Initially, the Bible does not ask us to conclude, but remain in faith as we don't possess all the information. About the literal and non-literal. I believe the OT law was certainly literal for the Jews. When I describe it metaphorically, and maybe I am using the word incorrectly. The Christian word for the example is "type" as in Abraham is "in type" God.....typology.

 

I think I am using it correctly...metaphorically. For example, as you can read it literally, you can also read it metaphorically. God being the water, the woman being the church, the husband being Christ, etc. I don't think figuratively is the right word. Keep in mind I'm lacking in some of these areas....I know, duh.

 

End, perhaps what you are trying to get at is that many things in the bible have a double meaning. There is the meaning that applied to those who were alive at the time and then there's the meaning which may apply to those of us who live in the modern day world. Thus, while this passage may have been taken literally by those alive at the time, now it's meaning to us is more metaphorical.

 

Disclaimer: I don't agree with this, but I think it may have been what you were trying to say.

[Ouroboros]

End, perhaps what you are trying to get at is that many things in the bible have a double meaning. There is the meaning that applied to those who were alive at the time and then there's the meaning which may apply to those of us who live in the modern day world. Thus, while this passage may have been taken literally by those alive at the time, now it's meaning to us is more metaphorical.

 

Disclaimer: I don't agree with this, but I think it may have been what you were trying to say.

I think too that this is what he is saying; however, at one point it was literal, and, as a literal law, it was heavily influenced by a pagan worldview.

 

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

[Wizened Sage]

Hmmm.

[Guest end3]

So when you say that the writings are sexist, I am of the opinion that you are missing the intent of the relationship between man and woman as God has defined.

 

And I am of the opinion that you are cherry picking.

 

Opinions aside: the fact of the matter – end is cherry picking.

 

In fact, that is what all Christians do to rationalize their own idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

That’s why Catholicism doesn’t allow women priests.

That is why evangelicals keep women out of authority positions in the church.

That is why some Christian denominations propagate women as subservient.

That is why polygamy is a way of life at the FLDS church.

That’s the ideology that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their will in Mormon sects.

That is why men burned women at stakes.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

And they all go to their bible for their marching orders.

 

And from their own particular interpretation from the bible, they ALL rationalize its god’s will.

 

Just like you do, end -- when you make unsubstantiated, outrageous claims about god’s character and will.

 

That's why end has no credibility.

 

--S.

 

All you have listed is transient "truths" Scott...truths at the time.

 

Regardless, those “truths” and your supposed “truths” are constructed in the same way – by rationalizing spurious scripture to fit your warped world-view and then make the outrageous claim it came from god.

 

--S.

 

I agree as I do make judgements about scripture I don't fully understand....which could be transient. But those are not the ones I am making my stand on. Love never fails, grace, and love for your brother. Refute those if you wish to carry on Scott.

[Guest end3]

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

 

So let's weigh the two options.....the one that opts for God to be an inconsistant pagany sexist God and in so give us justification for heaving coal on an already large burning fire of hate for each other....like this thread for Justna.

 

or option two, that the outcome of revelation from the Bible yeilds the message of Christ.....Love and Grace for our neighbor that is glad Justna is happy with her belief.

[Phanta]

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

 

So let's weigh the two options.....the one that opts for God to be an inconsistant pagany sexist God and in so give us justification for heaving coal on an already large burning fire of hate for each other....like this thread for Justna.

 

or option two, that the outcome of revelation from the Bible yeilds the message of Christ.....Love and Grace for our neighbor that is glad Justna is happy with her belief.

 

Yeah...number one is not an accurate reflection of the option I was offering.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

 

So let's weigh the two options.....the one that opts for God to be an inconsistant pagany sexist God and in so give us justification for heaving coal on an already large burning fire of hate for each other....like this thread for Justna.

 

or option two, that the outcome of revelation from the Bible yeilds the message of Christ.....Love and Grace for our neighbor that is glad Justna is happy with her belief.

 

Yeah...number one is not an accurate reflection of the option I was offering.

 

Phanta

 

Quote per Phanta:

"It struck me along the lines I was talking about yesterday...Judaism and the Torah growing from Pagan roots. And here is one of those instances where God is telling people to be very Pagany. It's yet another illustration of how what God dictates as absolute truth changes in accordance with the development over centuries of human understanding. "God" doesn't change. "God" didn't say these things. It's merely what humans were trying on for a time, falsely determined as directive or instruction from God".

 

 

I took bolded number one as Pagany.

I took bolded number two as inconsistant.

And sexist is splattered throughout your interpretation.

 

What did I miss in my take?

[Ouroboros]

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

 

So let's weigh the two options.....the one that opts for God to be an inconsistant pagany sexist God and in so give us justification for heaving coal on an already large burning fire of hate for each other....like this thread for Justna.

I think it's fair to present the problems of the Christian faith and talk about them.

 

Are you afraid of the truth?

 

If God is a pagany sexist God, the so be it. Just accept it, instead of getting so huffy-and-puffy that he's not. Accept what the TRUTH tells you.

 

If you had said, "Yes, it's a pagan law. God screwed up, or the truth is that Christianity has roots in Judaism, which in turn has its roots in paganism, then that's the truth." I'd be much happier than you're trying to cover it up.

 

or option two, that the outcome of revelation from the Bible yeilds the message of Christ.....Love and Grace for our neighbor that is glad Justna is happy with her belief.

Or it is a sexist religion based on pagan traditions. That answer is still much simpler.

 

Besides, the "sexist" part was your metaphorical interpretation of the pagan law, not the law itself. The fact they tested the women had nothing to do with Phanta's first post. She only pointed out the pagan part of the law. You made it to a question about sexism when you presented it as a metaphor for the sinful woman and the righteous man.

[Guest end3]

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

 

So let's weigh the two options.....the one that opts for God to be an inconsistant pagany sexist God and in so give us justification for heaving coal on an already large burning fire of hate for each other....like this thread for Justna.

I think it's fair to present the problems of the Christian faith and talk about them.

 

Are you afraid of the truth?

 

If God is a pagany sexist God, the so be it. Just accept it, instead of getting so huffy-and-puffy that he's not. Accept what the TRUTH tells you.

 

If you had said, "Yes, it's a pagan law. God screwed up, or the truth is that Christianity has roots in Judaism, which in turn has its roots in paganism, then that's the truth." I'd be much happier than you're trying to cover it up.

 

or option two, that the outcome of revelation from the Bible yeilds the message of Christ.....Love and Grace for our neighbor that is glad Justna is happy with her belief.

Or it is a sexist religion based on pagan traditions. That answer is still much simpler.

 

Besides, the "sexist" part was your metaphorical interpretation of the pagan law, not the law itself. The fact they tested the women had nothing to do with Phanta's first post. She only pointed out the pagan part of the law. You made it to a question about sexism when you presented it as a metaphor for the sinful woman and the righteous man.

 

The "truth" of the matter is in the bigger picture, which to me is greater. That you are using an interpretation to hurt another. Par for the course.

[Ouroboros]

The "truth" of the matter is in the bigger picture, which to me is greater. That you are using an interpretation to hurt another. Par for the course.

Wait. We did ask you for the correct interpretation. You admit it was literal, besides also being metaphorical. How is that "hurting someone"? Truth hurts?

 

Why are you or she here if it hurts you?

[Phanta]

Phanta's original posting about this Bible quote was to point out that exact thing, not that it could have additional interpretations meaning something else.

 

So let's weigh the two options.....the one that opts for God to be an inconsistant pagany sexist God and in so give us justification for heaving coal on an already large burning fire of hate for each other....like this thread for Justna.

 

or option two, that the outcome of revelation from the Bible yeilds the message of Christ.....Love and Grace for our neighbor that is glad Justna is happy with her belief.

 

Yeah...number one is not an accurate reflection of the option I was offering.

 

Phanta

 

Quote per Phanta:

"It struck me along the lines I was talking about yesterday...Judaism and the Torah growing from Pagan roots. And here is one of those instances where God is telling people to be very Pagany. It's yet another illustration of how what God dictates as absolute truth changes in accordance with the development over centuries of human understanding. "God" doesn't change. "God" didn't say these things. It's merely what humans were trying on for a time, falsely determined as directive or instruction from God".

 

 

I took bolded number one as Pagany.

I took bolded number two as inconsistant.

And sexist is splattered throughout your interpretation.

 

What did I miss in my take?

 

The part where I said the verses are not the simple edicts of God, but rather some ideas by some deists built on previous rituals from the Pagan people they emerged from. The authors (or, more likely, redactors) had some ideas about who God might be and what God might want.

 

Is it really about God? I don't know. It certainly wasn't relayed to them in quote form by God. And it's surely not consistent with modern, anti-pagan, anti-witchraft sentiment from many Christian sects.

 

The end of my statement is what you missed:

'"God" didn't say these things. It's merely what humans were trying on for a time, falsely determined as directive or instruction from God".' Pagan humans, moving, slowly, in another direction.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

The "truth" of the matter is in the bigger picture, which to me is greater. That you are using an interpretation to hurt another. Par for the course.

Wait. We did ask you for the correct interpretation. You admit it was literal, besides also being metaphorical. How is that "hurting someone"? Truth hurts?

 

Why are you or she here if it hurts you?

 

Maybe she thought y'all would be understanding having identified with the struggle....she was wrong that y'all could see any better than before.

 

I don't think it hurts me too much Hans. I take it as more as an inherent duty to stand up to this kind of stuff....makes me feel good.

[Guest end3]

The part where I said the verses are not the simple edicts of God, but rather some ideas by some deists built on previous rituals from the Pagan people they emerged from. The authors (or, more likely, redactors) had some ideas about who God might be and what God might want.

 

Is it really about God? I don't know. It certainly wasn't relayed to them in quote form by God. And it's surely not consistent with modern, anti-pagan, anti-witchraft sentiment from many Christian sects.

 

The end of my statement is what you missed:

'"God" didn't say these things. It's merely what humans were trying on for a time, falsely determined as directive or instruction from God".' Pagan humans, moving, slowly, in another direction.

 

Phanta

 

 

You are free to choose Phanta....just trying to point out the result(s) of your choice on the person of interest here. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but we each have our paths to walk.