I doubt "om" goes to church?
What is the "plain reading" of this scripture?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Om, get it out of your system. Tick-tock.
Believing in reality isn't blasphemy. Cult thinking doesn't define Christianity. That is something fundamentalists don't get. You don't own the word.
I am a rational person and Christian. Magic isn't real.
You're neither.
Your view isn't biblical. It is just a story. The bible is a figurative work to impart a morality. Not a science book. Petulance and willful ignorance are not true faith.
Faith is accepting reality and still believing.
Hurry!
Bye om
:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:
Aimiel
Well-known member
Yeppers: don't post blasphemy on TOL or you'll get banned. :duh:
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know about the universe; there are some biblical reasons to think it is as old as you are thinking, but there is evidence for the recent creation of the earth in this form, and especially for the flood.
The largest evidence for the global flood (by volume) is the sheer fact of massive sedimentary terrigenous rock on top of the underlaying on up to 75% of continent space. A new school of Australian geologists, for ex., are hammering out the Centralia theory, which is grappling with the fact that 80% of the surface of Australia, the center, is rapidly deposited sedimentary. How much water force does it take to get sediment that far inland to bury Ayers?
This is coupled with the newest material on vertical tectonics, which is astounding. A researcher in London's geological society, Clemens, has shown that granitic magmaism must be completely rewritten because domes like Yosemite's could form in 5 hours in vertical fractures and shafts from vertical movement. And it is magma causing it. Silvestru's Geology and Deep Time is a good place to start.
Uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The other thing I notice about this post is that if magic means God did certain things instantly that otherwise appear to take a long time, then yes there is magic. OTOH, there are mathematicians about mutations like Sternberg (see LIVING WATERS) who show that it would take 100M years for just 2 mutations to occur, and that won't cut it as far as whale evolution is supposed to go. So if magic means adopting horrifying mathematical positions (like the above) then there is a lot of magic going on. The whale is so complex, even the reproductive system has a cooling system that appears to have been designed at BMW. It's very obvious that it started that way. And that is just one of 8 remarkable systems that have to have been seriously remodeled by 100M-year chances to have what we see today. Not a chance. Just people who have taken magical positions instead of an infinite designer and Creator.
Uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.
Lon
Well-known member
So no resurrection from the dead, no literal person called Jesus Christ...
I'm sorry, but 1 Corinthians 15:17 ... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
No point in a talking God either then. Liking Christian morals, pick and choose, is not Christianity. Worse, "liking" them is meaningless and arbitrary. I am, however, glad you were here for a short time. ALL liberal theology, ultimately, is this absurd in thinking. It is the illogical conclusion of liberal theologians.
A LOT of assumptions there. "Denying the existence of" is the absurd as the first response. We seek out the truth of a matter, not dismiss such first off, that is the absurd.
Er, even science points to diversity happening from unity. Your objection is odd.
No, you want a Christianity that fits you, and the rest of us to give in to your expectations.
That's not what we are talking about. Not even a little bit.
:doh: If you can't follow its directions, you can't get to where it is at. There are actual directions and even recipes in scripture. :sigh:
This is wrong on so many levels. For man to exist, even if by evolution, it would require a same place and language. Separate nations didn't spontaneously generate at the same time. THAT would be magic. :doh:
That's not rationality, it is skepticism. You confuse the two. In your mind, if you 'doubt it' that is 'rational' confusing initial skepticism as if it were a virtue. Some things seem impossible, but I've 'seen' the impossible. Rational is fine. Overt skepticism is a self-fulfilling prophecy on a path to nowhere.
It 'contains' figurative passages, but no, it is not figurative.
True of both fiction and nonfiction.
Interplanner
Well-known member
re Olivia on the flood,
The geologic and cultural evidence of a worldwide flood is greater than ever, but I can understand an objection to the death of everyone at that time. What we do know is that there are seemingly pointless details that confirm the flood in cultures all over the place--a sub-Mayan tribe that says one family of 8 that survived it but with the name of TocToc or similar. They even have a date for the amount of time between creation and the flood, and while I don't know about Mayan futurism, they were quite accurate about the past.
The geologic and cultural evidence of a worldwide flood is greater than ever, but I can understand an objection to the death of everyone at that time. What we do know is that there are seemingly pointless details that confirm the flood in cultures all over the place--a sub-Mayan tribe that says one family of 8 that survived it but with the name of TocToc or similar. They even have a date for the amount of time between creation and the flood, and while I don't know about Mayan futurism, they were quite accurate about the past.
Interplanner
Well-known member
two notes on the plain meaning. It can take some work to get there. Once it is worked out the Bible will have a more intriguing meaning than we thought.
1, "he leads me beside still waters." It has usually been thought that this was about the shepherd finding still pools of water for his sheep. It's a nice image--if sheep in a desert had trouble drinking from moving water. They don't. But the verse from Ps 23 has nothing to do with this image. Instead "beside" is actually "past" and "still" is actually "brackish" or "toxic." The verse means that the shepherd pushes his flock past a water source that he knows will kill them.
2, "women will be saved through childbirth," thought to be a naive or mysogynist line by Paul. We have to remember how different something can sound to those who first heard it. This line was not originally addressed in the modern age of obstetrics, or of anesthesiology. Nor even of 'natural' midwifery: "That's not pain" said the local Port Wenn midwife to Louisa, when she heard the 'natural' childbirth mother screaming horribly. "That's the woman taking charge of her labor." Louisa was not convinced!
It did not mean these "Christian" women would be saved if they just prayed a lot, and ignored modern medicine or midwives both.
It did not mean these women were not Christians until they had had kids.
All those things are horrible readings of the passage, as though Paul was out of his depth and expertise.
The women Timothy lived around kept "Diana" talis(wo)men to protect them with superstitions through childbirth. Diana in 1st century Asia Minor was a cult. It was a nature religion. It was a fertility religion, too, so these poor women were emotionally invested in her, whether married or not. If they were pregnant, it was because of Diana; if they were afraid of childbirth, they were too adore Diana and keep the manifold-breasted icon of her nearby or hold it during birth.
All Paul meant was that, now that these ladies were Christians, they did not need to 'trust' in Diana about childbirth. They would be kept as safe as they could be apart from all that, by having faith in God, and growing in love, holiness and discreetness.
This follows a historical reminder that the woman Eve let herself be deceived. The Diana cult put women on a pedestal as much as the women put it on a pedestal. Paul meant that the Christian women should cease practicing any superstition that had to do with Diana, because God is the giver and protector of life. The restrictions Paul put on women apply more in such a case than anywhere else. And the followers of the lesbian cult were not that far away either.
"Be kept safe..." is the best rendering; no common sense medical practice that would make either mother or child safe would have been ignored.
1, "he leads me beside still waters." It has usually been thought that this was about the shepherd finding still pools of water for his sheep. It's a nice image--if sheep in a desert had trouble drinking from moving water. They don't. But the verse from Ps 23 has nothing to do with this image. Instead "beside" is actually "past" and "still" is actually "brackish" or "toxic." The verse means that the shepherd pushes his flock past a water source that he knows will kill them.
2, "women will be saved through childbirth," thought to be a naive or mysogynist line by Paul. We have to remember how different something can sound to those who first heard it. This line was not originally addressed in the modern age of obstetrics, or of anesthesiology. Nor even of 'natural' midwifery: "That's not pain" said the local Port Wenn midwife to Louisa, when she heard the 'natural' childbirth mother screaming horribly. "That's the woman taking charge of her labor." Louisa was not convinced!
It did not mean these "Christian" women would be saved if they just prayed a lot, and ignored modern medicine or midwives both.
It did not mean these women were not Christians until they had had kids.
All those things are horrible readings of the passage, as though Paul was out of his depth and expertise.
The women Timothy lived around kept "Diana" talis(wo)men to protect them with superstitions through childbirth. Diana in 1st century Asia Minor was a cult. It was a nature religion. It was a fertility religion, too, so these poor women were emotionally invested in her, whether married or not. If they were pregnant, it was because of Diana; if they were afraid of childbirth, they were too adore Diana and keep the manifold-breasted icon of her nearby or hold it during birth.
All Paul meant was that, now that these ladies were Christians, they did not need to 'trust' in Diana about childbirth. They would be kept as safe as they could be apart from all that, by having faith in God, and growing in love, holiness and discreetness.
This follows a historical reminder that the woman Eve let herself be deceived. The Diana cult put women on a pedestal as much as the women put it on a pedestal. Paul meant that the Christian women should cease practicing any superstition that had to do with Diana, because God is the giver and protector of life. The restrictions Paul put on women apply more in such a case than anywhere else. And the followers of the lesbian cult were not that far away either.
"Be kept safe..." is the best rendering; no common sense medical practice that would make either mother or child safe would have been ignored.
Last edited:
Livelystone
New member
Not a physical mountain and Satan was showing Jesus the spiritual kingdoms of the spirit and soul of all of mankind that authority over was given to satan when God passed judgement on all who were part of the fall in the garden
Power over them that he said had been given to him for him to give to who ever he wished was what he was trying to tempt Jesus with
Interplanner
Well-known member
The whole world in that period and locale often meant the Roman empire and anything bordering it.
Livelystone
New member
Whole world is whole world
Kingdoms is plural. Roman empire is singular
Meanwhile if we are going to change the meaning of words in the Bible we might as well just throw it out and take up studying Moby Dick