Adam and 4000 BC

I'm not the one who says he speaks truth. That was you.

 

Catholics are Christians, but not biblical literalists. I thought you were asking whether or not we should exclude biblical literalists.

 

They use the New Jerusalem Bible. The Church claims to be the comprehender of it. Some Catholics believe 'literally' what the Church tells them the literal truth is. They also claim that their bible is the most complete and accurate of all bibles.

 

Only for those who resist the truth.

 

What it has to do with it is if you had been reading these discussions you would know that many times I have already told the truth about "the dope" and thus am not dodging any thing.

 

No, I did not say he speaks the truth. But it is interesting that you who seem so interested in what I say do not show the same interest in what "the dope" says.

 

I don't remember him answering me in this thread but I found the answer in another thread. I had forgotten about this statement, so waterbrother I apologize. You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderWaterBrother

As for "Good", I assume you mean God, not finding you in error, the True God does find you in error, it's just that you want to prove yourself right, so don't listen to him.

 

Well, when you'd force people to go back and read all of your posts rather than just answering the question, that's a dodge.

Are these not your words?: Very pretty and with just enough truth to draw disciples to yourself.

Where have I said thedope speaks any truth?


As to interest, I actually take more interest in his posts than yours (often his inspire examination). Yours just seem to invite more reaction because they're so often dodgy, double-speaky and sometimes seem to convey a snidey resentfulness. Which is kinda understandable. It can't be easy arguing on behalf of literalism, particularly in accordance with some old testament writings.

 

Saying that the Eucharist and wine as literally being Jesus' body and blood is not a trait of literalism?

When I went to Sunday school, that is what I was taught. That we should just believe by faith, even if it doesn't make sense to us, but to believe that it really is his literal blood and body.

 

Yes, it is. But how do they get there? Catholics believe that some of the Bible is to be taken literally, others isn't, and only the Church knows which is which. Am I right, Ukr-Cdn? This has the practical effect of shifting ultimate authority from a book to and institution. To be more accurate historically, where Christianity is concerned the institution became the ultimate authority early on, and the Reformation shifted it to the book.

 

Yeah, it seems like Catholics believe that the church is the only official interpretor of the Bible, while the protestants believe the interpreter is the individual, but they all take the book into consideration in their interpretation. In each they reserve why they believe certain parts are literal and which parts are not.

You gave me an idea for a thread :biggrin:

 

Yes, I also have many times said that I believe you to be mislead but I also believe you to be a creation of God and thus are capable of great good and beauty but that does does change the fact that we are also children of Adam and can easily be mislead and are capable of great badness.

 

Also asking someone to constantly repeat themselves is a dodge and if as you had said that you were following the conversations, you wouldn't have to look it up, you would just have to remember what was said.

There is a difference between speaking some truth and speaking the truth.

Sorry, perhaps you didn't.

Again perhaps if you read the posts like you said you did, you would remember how many times I have said; "I don't argue on behalf of literalism" or for that matter fundamentalism or legalism, I argue in behalf of the Bible. The Bible itself says that Jesus spoke in parables and those parables thus were not to be taken literally.

 

Only if you equate Christianity and Catholicism.

 

Early on it largely was, in Western Europe. For the other Christian Churches--Orthodox, Nestorian, etc., it was pretty much the same.--different institutions, same institutional authority, no Bible reading laity. People got their Bible second hand from church authority. And of course there wasn't a New Testament during the early part of the first century, so Christians pretty much did their own thing, as best they could.

 

He asked you once. You refused to answer so he had to ask again. Stop being slippery.

You said he speaks truth. Nobody said that you said he speaks 'the' truth. More wriggling from you there.

You can say you don't argue on behalf of literalism, but you do. Saying that there are parables spoken by Jesus is not a denial of literalism as He identified them as parables when He spoke them.

Why do you deny literalism? You've said in another thread that the children of Adam were incestuous and that even the outcasted Cain got to take a sister or niece as a mate even though he no longer dwelt with the family. (did they ship her to him?)

And the tower of Babel really was an actual tower, the building of which resulted in the people suddenly speakimg all the different languages and no longer understanding one another. That isn't allegory - that really happened, right?

So, admit you're a literalist already. Why deny that?

 

And what badness did I commit that you should pronounce that the true God finds me in error? Waterbrother, we are all capable of mistakes. I John 3;6,7 "no one who abides in him sins, no one who sins has either seen or known him. Little children let no one deceive you, he who does right is righteous as he is righteous."

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment and he who fears is not perfected in love."

 

I did not refuse to answer, I just said I had already answered it and even "the dope" said that I had.

If you say so.

If you say so.

Because there many things in the Bible that are not to be taken literally.

No, by then mankind had been spread pretty far and wide.

Yes it really happened but wasn't just the building of the tower but God who made the people speak different languages, building the tower was the reason for God to do so.

Because I'm not. I do believe much of the Bible can be taken literally but not all and even at that much of what can be taken literally has metaphysical meanings as well.

 

I believe I said you were mislead and don't recall ever saying you had committed badness.

 

It was only the most notable and only that because of it's connection the the Emperors of Rome.