Bible Questions?

It describes the ray of creation. Thought, word, and deed. God conceives the word, God speaks the word, and the word is manifest in reality.

 

If they are just questions, why the derogatory comments to go along with them?

 

And I noticed that you still haven't answered rudenoodle's questions that you thought were so serious.

 

Once again if they are just questions, why do you accompany them with derogatory comments?

 

Whether the words of the Bible originally were brought down from beyond Creation.

We have a soul, each one of us: therefore it appears that for it unhypocritically and of a clear conscience It for existence Must Be also beyond creation from worldly sources. The soul is some self-decision for faith that the individual (with It) shares with the rest of his Trusted Humanity where the Words are fleshed about and for. It's a wierd man who thought of that.

 

Actually I have responded quite specifically to his questions. Why does it pain you to deal with the obvious absurdities that are presented by the contradictions put forth in the bible and the contradictions that are fabricated to uphold them?

 

There could be something that we are overlooking such as a message behind the situations.

What I noticed is that we are ending up changing the values of what is being said to accommodate our own arguments. We can do this by making jokes and by carrying an agenda.


It seems like no one is seriously looking into the questions being asked.

Can we end the tangents, please, and apply a little more tact and thought behind this?

 

I don't know what lack of thought or tact you are referring to. Is there something specific being left unattended?

 

The questions being asked in this thread. Some questions aren't answerable in their current state because they end up changing the values and don't seem to be serious. They are being marked as, "Well, that's what the Bible says", but that simply isn't true.

The Bible says nothing about finger warmers, for example... lol.

Here is what you said previously.

My question: What absurdities are you referring to? How is this question not a tangent? How does it relate to the questions?

 

Sorry if I was being too direct with you, the dope. It's just my way of saying that I am a little frustrated to see this thread being derailed.

I really enjoy this thread and I honestly do take it seriously. I just don't want that to change.

It just seems that the questions being asked aren't genuine and that we are just going back and forth with each other.

Even though Rudenoodle isn't a believer, he still asks good questions... but lately it's taking another direction.

 

Obviously to suggest that foreskins are suitable material from which to fashion finger warmers is an absurdity. I recognize it as such. Why would I consider it to be a tangential issue? It is a sarcasm that points directly at another absurdity, that circumcision is a Godly act. It obviously is not. The answer must be something else. Circumcision is a cultural practice. Again, the bible is a book and cannot speak.

 

True and I realize that.

What I am saying is that we did not go further into this question so how do we know it is absurd?

Not that you are wrong, but we glossed over it and didn't engage the question at all. Maybe by engaging the question we could come to another understanding other than it just being a cultural practice.

No, but through context, it can reveal a meaning. The Bible is a book of meaning. It can reveal something to us if it is taken into context as a whole. Same with any movie or any book.

 

It requires a great measure of incredulity to perceive of immolation as anything other than a predatory act. No less than a cult of human sacrifice.
If you have another explanation I welcome your view.

 

I don't have another explanation that's why I was asking the question. All I was saying is that we can be overlooking something so it can end up expressing a message on the human condition. In other words, the 'cultish act' as you say can represent man's nature before Jesus or numerous other possibilities. I am not that familiar with the Bible so I really can't say, but there are others that are.

The Bible, if written by God, would be a book written for the present and for the future. Revealing another intended message at a later date. The idea is that it is for man till Jesus returns, so it would have to include future messages.

 

mhmmm, that is what I said. That's not an explanation on the practice. It is a description on the argument on what the Bible intends to do.

 

God did not write the bible. The bible was written by men who were led by their own inspirations. The bible contains information that is relevant to all times past present and future. We are inclined to view it as a historical document however when we do so, it becomes a relic alluding to a future prospectus. I consider the bible to be a living statement of the nature of the world and its living inhabitants. It represents all one may encounter in this life, all the prejudices and malice, all the hopes and dreams and contests for power, and all the practices beneficial or not.
Meaning cannot be extracted on the basis of belief. We cannot discern meaning by cross referencing scripture alone. No context is meaningful absent its' experiential conjugations. We are the salt of the earth. We must bring our own reason to bear in these matters.

 

I actually have a lot of respect for many of your views and agree with much of it but not all. To me, by you saying that it is relevant only furthers my belief in the Bible being the word of God because it would need to be relevant to all times and express our condition in such a way as it does -- I guess we have to agree to disagree.


But to prevent this thread from being out of touch with its intention, I created another thread here: "Why Do You Believe That The Bible is The Word of Man?"

 

I do not disagree with you that the bible is a Godly or good word. I do not believe that the bible is the word of man. I know for a fact that the document I read was translated from the original tongues being the "version" set forth A.D. 1611, "revised" A.D. 1881-1885, and A.D. 1901. Compared with the most ancient authorities and "revised" A.D. 1952. Only a belief can argue with these facts. These are all the acts of men. If the purpose of this thread is to answer questions about the bible, then only a dispassionate assessment is required. What is it that you are looking for from this thread?

 

I am looking for a deeper understanding of what God's intention was in various events in the Bible. What scriptures reference each other and how. Basically, the full portrait of Christianity, or at least a much clearer view of it -- Surface knowledge on anything bugs me a little. Also, what God expects of his children.

" then only a dispassionate assessment is required."

I guess you have a point, but I think passion can be useful in understanding more of what the Bible is describing. It seems that the lack of passion can bring up rude comments about the Bible. Jesus did say that the pure of heart will see God and part of that requires of us to forget about ego.