rhutchin

I am willing to consider other verses and consider them in context. Because we are told that the law can be summed in two commands, Love God and Love your neighbor, then any other law (such as those you may imagine to exist) would be subordinate to these two commands. They would not negate the two commands but operate consistent with them.

RUmike

I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you, because it's obvious you didn't even read the passage I posted. Where did Ingersoll even so much as cite, discuss, or interpret ANYTHING in the Bible at all?

In fact, his entire point rests not on what a single passage of the Bible says, appears to mean, or was even intended to mean, but simply on how other people over the centuries have honestly interpreted it to mean. He is saying that if an infinite being wrote the Bible, or caused it to be written, that infinite being would know the exact effect of every word upon every single mind that would ever read it. Additionally, this infinite being would know the exact words that should be used to convey his exact meaning to every mind that would ever read it. But since no two minds have ever agreed on what the Bible means or says in its entirety (and most are vehemently opposed to the other's interpretation) we must conclude that either God wanted all to understand it the exact way that it has been understood and that this understanding is their true revelation from God, or he didn't care if all people understood it properly. There is really no escaping this, and therefore all unbelief in the world is the responsibility of God.

Of course this is only if you accept the childish notion that God caused the Bible to be written, more so than God causes anything to be written.

rhutchin

We have from Ingersoll--

“It may be urged that we do not understand the sacred record correctly.…if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood, and also knew that he could use other words that would convey his real meaning, but did not, we would say that he used words on purpose to mislead, and was not an honest man.

…We are told that it is exceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. This statement is refuted by the religious history of the Christian world….

Is it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes and facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the ‘very form and pressure of its time’?�

- Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Note the last line, “…[the Bible] is the work of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes and facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the ‘very form and pressure of its time’?�

In light of this, you ask, “Where did Ingersoll even so much as cite, discuss, or interpret ANYTHING in the Bible at all?� Is it not obvious that Ingersoll was referring to the Bible in his comment and this comment amounts to an interpretation of the Bible (and by implication to a sufficient number of errors in the Bible) and that he is making a statement about the Bible and that which it says?

While there is disagreement on some things in the Bible, there is agreement on major themes (that God exists and created the universe, interacted with the nation of Israel over many years, and provided a means of salvation through Jesus Christ).

placebo

What is your agenda rhutchin? You had to undertake some "selective citing" efforts yourself to single out an unambiguous message of love from the Bible. You've had to minimize if not totally ignore the violence, hatred and ugliness that is such a big part of the Bible. Yet, you want us to believe that you are not taking your Biblical message out of context?

How is it that you have such a clear understanding? Do you understand the Bible better than Pat Robertson? Would you say that you understand the Bible better than the bishops and cardinals that administered the Inquisition? Or those that administered the witch burnings? Do you think that they have studied the New Testament? Do you think that these people understand the Bible and Christ's teachings? I'd venture to say that they have studied more and understand the Bible better than you ever will. And with their understanding they have found justification for their hateful and violent messages and actions.

I doubt that anyone understands the Bible. It certainly is not unambiguous. The Bible has been manipulated and sanitized to meet the user's purpose since its inception. Some use it to quell their fears (e.g. death), some to fuel their hopes (e.g. eternal life), some to justify their worldview, and some to give unquestioned authority to their agenda. You are nothing more than one in a long line who manipulate its meaning.

Mountain Man

I guess I must be missing something? :huh: Why do so many that call themselves "Internet Infidels" worry so much about what the bible says about anything? It's a worthless book. Toss it in the garbage and move on.

mata leao

glad you asked mountain man: the same reason DR. Anthony Flew didnt just walk away! There is a God shaped vacuum in the soul of every non believer and they will be compelled to seek God (even in their bipolar love-hate fixation against God) all their lives. That's why they are here monuntain man. Think about it...they are intelligent, intelligent people can easily make (without much risk) a couple hundred dollars a day in a few hours of day stock trading on the internet. MANY people I know make thousands of dollars a week doing this. If there really was no God and they were absolutely certain of this they wouldnt be here shadow boxing with a non-existant God. They will SAY it is because they fear the Christian right...but that is a paper tiger argument.... they will still be here when Hillary is president! and they know it. No, mountain man, the Holy Spirit compels them here...

John A. Broussard

Isn't that strange. And here I thought I had free will.

I learn something new every day.

John A. Broussard

I would say that the Catholic view that the bible gives the pope "the keys to the kingdom" is a rather profound disagreement with the rest of Christianity.

Or do you feel that that interpretation is not over a "major theme?"

Thank you.

TomboyMom

What is it about being a Christian that makes people talk like bad Shakespearean actors?
Also why does every Christian think his interpretion of the bible is the only correct one, from rhutchin to Fred Phelps? And just by informing us as to what the correct interpretation is, now that we've been fortunate enough to receive it from Pat Robertson, James Dobson or rhutchin, the matter should be settled for us? Just wondering.

RUmike

I must be missing something as well. Why does someone who has 730 posts only now realize that he has absolutely no clue why the people he debates post here? Shouldn't you have cleared this up a long time ago?