Posted on 05/22/2015 8:54:09 PM PDT by imardmd1
I don’t know.
All I know is what Moses had recorded.
Isn't this enough for you?
https://www.google.com/search?q=rome+kill+people+for+owning+bible&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475&gws_rd=ssl
Yes.
I also take it figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically and as darned good advice!
Wouldn’t think of it!
My brother boxed mine once and burst an eardrum!
Oh, I agree with you that Rome has a problem. Rome is why the Church and I are no longer all that simpatico.
I could say the same about prayers to God. Taking the role of a counter-advocate for a moment, you have no real proof God has received, or heard, anyone’s prayer. You BELIEVE He has. Arguendo, any prayer God heard and “answered” can be explained away using logic and reason, physics, and probability theory. We can play that game if you want to.
Moses lived 1400 years before Christ (or, roughly 3400 years ago), and more years than that before the Vatican (for the sake of this discussion, “Rome”). So, if it is your argument that Moses “recorded” the Bible, then he, arguably, would have held claim to the original copyright, though I am unaware of any copyright laws in existence 3400 years ago. Again, arguendo, is it your position that Rome acquired Moses’ copyright? If so, how do Rome go about acquiring it? From Moses’ heirs? From his estate? You did say that Rome held the copyright. I’m just curious as to how Rome acquired the copyright. As for my opinion, I don’t think the Bible is copyrighted (though some newer “versions” or “translations” may be).
“You’re thinking literally; I’m speaking figuratively.”
I’m thinking logically.
Speaking figuratively is, in the final analysis, meaningless (i.e., it can mean anything and nothing at the same time); it is strictly subjective. It’s fun for purposes of illustration, but is useless for explanation.
I don’t know how old you are, but about 35 years ago William F. Buckley had a TV show wherein he would debate liberals. The liberals would ALWAYS base their arguments on emotion or feelings, and Buckley would eviscerate them with logic and reason. It was fun to watch.
Emotion does have its place, and is essential for the arts. The arts without emotion would be...well, I don’t know what it would be, but it would be cold and bleak and bland, and it wouldn’t be art. But emotion cannot be a substitute for, say, math and science (just look at the fraud known as AGW).
And it appears the mantel has fallen on FR.
It's fun to participate!
The arts without emotion would be...well, I don’t know what it would be, but it would be cold and bleak
Pardon me, but I believe you're speaking (actually, writing) figuratively in the above. FWIW
“Eviscerate” is most definitely used figuratively. Writing is a form of art, is it not?
But you said "Speaking figuratively is, in the final analysis, meaningless . . ."
And then you just went and did it again!
(Buckley is literally dead now--I guess he won't mind if his words are still alive and sharp as a two-edged sword, able to divide fact from fancy with logic. Oh, wait . . . )
Yes, in the final analysis it IS meaningless. It’s fun to do, but it doesn’t really matter, does it?
And against gutless wonders; too!
No to me, for I plan on the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.