YEC part Trois

(407 Posts)
PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:15:49

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:52:17

Last was to daftdame.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 11:58:44

For me the Bible is eternal truth, I say that in faith.

Does that mean that the bits of the Bible that show your god to be genocidal (the Flood), terroristic (Plagues of Egypt), pro-slavery (Leviticus) and misogynistic (forcing an unmarried woman to marry her rapist) are "eternal truth" too?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 12:20:37

Januarymadness now who's getting Post Modern? Regarding judging correct interpretations, God is the only judge.

Snorbs Sabrina* externals can effect changes in gene expression, those externals could be stress, diet etc. Thus our behaviour and thinking can actually affect the way our genetics determine our physiological make up or pre determinate state.

I think this is quite exciting, with regards to the concept of sin, the revisiting of sin in inheritance and complete Redemption through Christ, this could explain how we are not merely victims of our genetics at birth, complete redemption, free will, is in biological terms viable. (Some psychologists try to argue the opposite - dangerous thinking IMO.)

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 12:23:27

Snorbs no. You have to take the Bible in entirety, Jesus preached love. What do you know about the difference between the Old and New Covenant? (Being under Grace and under the Law.)

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 12:30:03

if God is the only judge and the Bible not his litteral word you are in no place to try to convince others that yours is the right path.

And most certainly the Bible is not very convincing evidence in support.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 12:38:10

Concept of 'sin' and redemption of christ in epigenetics? I'm speechless, I really am.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 12:53:00

You have to take the Bible in entirety, Jesus preached love. What do you know about the difference between the Old and New Covenant?

All I know about the difference seems rather contradictory. On the one hand there is a god who is supposed to be eternal and unchanging. On the other the same god decides to have a complete about-face from the fightin' and smitin' god of the Old Testament to the loving and caring god of the New.

I don't understand how you can have a supposed book describing Eternal Truth that nevertheless can be interpreted as coming with a "Best Before 1AD" sticker on the first section.

Are you suggesting that the genocide, slavery and child-murder of the Old Testament didn't happen? Or it did happen but what was ok then is no longer ok since Jesus? Or what? How do you reconcile a god that says it's fine to beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives with the same god saying to love your neighbour?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:23:30

Januarymadenss I never said the Bible wasn't God's literal word. History is literal but the interpretation of it can vary depending on how your mind regards symbolism, metaphor and allegory. Jesus is the 'author and finisher' of our faith. Like any author He can use symbolism, and does so with the parables that have literal and symbolic truth.

Sabrina and Snorbs, it is evident that your understanding is the Bible is lacking, since you cannot reconcile it's events, if you are seeking understanding of God, this involves spiritual understanding because He is a spiritual being.

If you want to receive spiritual understanding of the Bible you need to pray to God for it, ask for revelation, from the Holy Ghost in Jesus' name, of the truth in The Bible. Then read the Bible. Pray in faith, believe, since this is God's will it will be answered.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:32:44

back to the beginning.

The bible CAN'T be his litteral word. The documents were written in such a way that for us to understand them required translation and interpretation..... therefore not the exact words as dictated/written

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:33:47

January What is your definition of 'literal?

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:35:17

Why would God write a book that you had to pray to him to understand it. Surely the point of such a book is to understandhim and lead you to him?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:36:51

Is in fact anything in the natural world literal, since our perceptions vary? All our senses are subjective in the way we perceive and utilise information from the information that is supplied from our nerve endings.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:37:51

lit·er·al  (ltr-l)adj.

1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.

3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.

5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

All of the above.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:38:47

note 2 and 3

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 13:39:00

it is evident that your understanding is the Bible is lacking, since you cannot reconcile it's events, if you are seeking understanding of God, this involves spiritual understanding because He is a spiritual being.

You're right that I cannot reconcile the Bible's contradictory suggestions about the Abrahamic god's nature in any way other than reading it as mythology rather than Eternal Truth. It works fine that way.

However you evaded the question. My question was, given you regard the Bible as Eternal Truth, how do you reconcile your god saying it's fine to beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives with your same god saying to love your neighbour?

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:42:08

January All books can be described as interactive in the way we individually utilise information from them. They affect us consciously and subconsciously, they can have physical effects such as something sad making you cry.

Praying is spiritual communication, a way of asking the author (spirit being), about what the intentions of the book were.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:46:21

Snorbs What I don't know I take in faith. The Old Testament for me is reconciled through understanding of the Fall, the Old and New Covenant.

We were created as beings who needed communion with God. After the Fall we showed we did not trust Him, we went our own way. The Old Testament shows the consequences of this. Even then provision was made so that we could continue to be blessed until Jesus Christ came to offer redemption.

The law still remains now, however you can choose to live under Grace or under the law.

Living under Grace, is described as the New Covenant, what happens, once you have accepted Jesus, is that the Holy Ghost writes the laws in your heart and you follow that.

Living under the Law is described as the Old Covenant, where you seek to follow all the laws of the Old Testament. When you failed, which you would inevitably, you had to make sacrifices in order to be blessed. Failing to keep the law also meant you were cursed. Like crime and punishment.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:49:19

You can derive different meanings from"To kill a mockingbird". But the book is as written. Yours is not

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:50:40

January thanks for your definition. The trouble is, with our language and the way it changes even the very etymology of our words employ metaphor. I find it very difficult to say anything is purely literal.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:52:30

how about "verbatim" or "as written" then

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:54:36

January A lot of literary theorists would disagree with you re "To Kill a Mockingbird", what about 'reader-response' theories, historical contextual interpretations? You can not separate an author or reader and what they write / read from the world around them and their response to it.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:55:34

January ?? What about it, verbatim that it?

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 13:55:49

but at least you are getting the authors words....

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:56:17

January I'd laugh at the irony grin.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 13:58:16

January Or is the author just a puppet of his / her contemporary Zeitgeist?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now