Replies

The difference is that my statements make rational sense, while your scriptural quotes don't make rational sense. I think from a reality basis, and you've chosen to follow a mystical basis. I think -- to a large extent -- in terms of essentials, while you live according to scripture.

I suspect you didn't read my post very carefully. Perhaps when you saw scriptural quotes you decided that they could not possibly make rational sense, and never bothered to determine what point I was trying to make, and whether the quotes supported my point or not. Let's test you: can you paraphrase the point I was trying to make? [Hint: I stated it clearly more than once.] The next question is harder: can you see why the quotes supported my point? I can help you on this if you need it.

If my God does exist, then my "mystical" basis is in fact the reality basis, while any materialistic basis is in fact the wrong basis. So in effect, you are simply asserting that my God does not exist. How utterly convincing.

I'd really be interested in what you think heaven's gatekeeper question will be. Will it be about faith in Jesus, believing in God, or how well you've used the mind God gave you?

There's a parable about stewartship in the New Testament. How do the essentials in that parable apply to the question about using your mind?

You mean "stewardship." First, the idea of a "gatekeeper question" is extrabiblical. I'll stick with what Jesus said about the whole issue. I'm sure you have heard that before. If you haven't, I'll be glad to inform you.

Second, regarding the parable. Let's use reason and see where we get. Let's take the followiong as our hypothetical assumptions. As hypothetical assumptions, you need not agree with them. Just see where the logic takes you anyway.

That God authored that parable, and that it does have a meaning.
That we aren't sure what that meaning is. What, precisely, is the meaning of the "talents" that each servant was given? Is it supposed to be the mind?
That the rest of the Bible is equally valid as God's Word, and that some passages are more obvious in their meanings.

So, did God have a specific object in mind when He said, "talent"? Or could it be any object, such as "mind," which is the interpretation you favor? [Note that at the time of writing, a "talent" was a fixed amount of money. This parable is often preached as a lesson in giving to the church. This also could be questioned in the same way.]

Let's try a different interpretation and see what we get. God gives to most men all of the equipment they need to rape a woman. Does the parable then teach us that God expects men to rape as many women as they can?

Clearly the answer is "no." God has something else in mind for that organ.

You may have overlooked the context in the parable, that the servants were investing the "talents" to get gain for their Master. He, and not they, would be the judge of how well they had used what He had given them.

The conclusion: In light of the rest of the Bible, some interpretations of this parable are invalid.

Addendum: We need to use the interpretation God intended, not supply our own. So how do the essentials of that parable apply to the use of one's mind? By using our mind to the profit of God, not to our own ends.

Finally, at one time you thought I might have a background in philosophy. Apparently at that time I was making sense to you. Was I using my mind then, or not? Have I stopped?

Or would you say that a person is using his mind only when he agrees with you and Ayn?