Posted on 03/18/2024 5:34:35 PM PDT by grumpa
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
It’s that kind of specific, detailed explanation that makes it crystal clear.
“Are there times when we should understand the Bible literally? Of course! But, should we really interpret the Bible “literally” in every instance? Of course not.”
You’re right about this.
I think many Christians say they interpret the Bible literally as a response to the liberals who repeatedly assert with great emotion and minimal intellect that they never take it literally.
That wouldn’t be a smart response then.
Yes, you make a reasonable point, but only in a limited sense.
The liberal perspective leads to a belief in falsehood, in that it produces denial of Christ’s work on the cross.
That is to say, the liberal perspective leads to a belief in that which contradicts objective reality.
I get it.
You believe your interpretation of your religion is not false.
Super. Go with it. Be happy.
The rest of us can and will continue to say BS.
Your interpretation of texts written thousands of years ago is in no way considered objective reality.
The only thought process which leads the mind to a denial of Christ’s work on the cross is one inspired by a desire follow one’s own rules rather than God’s.
A straw man argument.
It isn’t that they don’t believe there must be interpretation, but that (A) The Bible is true - not a fable or myth (B) That the Bible should be read in context of the culture it was written in and this knowledge should guide interpretation. (C) When interpretation is needed it should be based upon doctrine and passages that do not need interpretation.
To say Christians believe that God has feathers because the Old Testament speaks of the Lord gathering His children as a hen gathers her chicks beneath her wings is silly to the point of blasphemy.
You can’t make up what people believe and then criticize them for it.
Pablum.
Meaningless drivel.
Have a good evening.
A majority of mainstream historians have concluded (among them mostly agnostics and atheists):
1. Christ’s disciples were immediately frightened and confused after he died.
2. Their fear and confusion suddenly changed within a few days, when they devoted themselves to a life of poverty, persecution, imprisonment, torture and death in order to preach the Good News of Christ’s blood sacrifice.
3. A significant skeptic—James—was converted.
4. A mortal enemy—Saul of Tarsus—was converted.
Historians use particular methods in determining whether or not a given event can be considered true.
In concluding what I posted in #13, the historians used the same methods they did to determine that Julius Caesar existed, and that he was a leader of Rome.
I forgot to add another conclusion of these historians—that the disciples truly believed Christ rose from the dead.
One of them, who apparently persisted in his agnostic belief system, concluded that Christ’s resurrection was a true historical event.
Nothing you’ve stated, even if 100% true, proves there is a supernatural realm, especially one where the rules and explanations you are attempting to get others to buy into, exists, in any way.
The data I reference can be found in the book by Gary Habermas, entitled something like “The Case for the Resurrection of Christ.”
Are you sure you understand what you mean by the word “supernatural?”
Don’t care.
I really don’t care at all what other people may think is true, especially unnamed, unsourced fables passed on by an anonymous person on a message board.
I care about what’s true and probable.
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.