spin

spin:
------
Aren't all religious traditions "inspired", Amos, be they Christian or Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever? Is being "inspired" a means of saying unreasonable? or unable to be reasoned with?
------

Amos:
------
Sorry to object but by definition there can be no Christian religious traditions because Christianity is not a religion but a state of being without religion.
------

Pure escapism, Amos. You can redefine things as much as you like. All that does it make your language unrelated to what other people say. Face it, christianity is a religion. Most christians face this fact. It's your turn.

Amos:
------
When Jesus became fully Christ he left the scene and nobody really knows what he did after Ascention into heaven.
------

As I don't believe this stuff, your attempts at differences don't work on me (or most other people).

Amos:
------
If only by definion, Christians are in heaven and since there are no Churches in the New Jerusalem it is even ignorant to suggest Christian traditions exist. You probably mean protestant traditions.
------

This is not even what your front men say on the subject. Are you a closet heretic? Christians -- or at least the great bulk of them -- don't go to heaven. The end up in the new earth.

spin:
------
Metaphorical interpretations are metaphorical because they do not relate directly to the text but are seen to hint at other meaning by the interpreter. There is no necessary connection between the metaphor and the original text. Many metaphors are simply bad interpretations of people who don't want to face what the text actually says. Are you, Amos, one of those who don't want to deal with what the text actually says?
------

Amos:
------
Metaphors relate directly to the text but not to the literal interpretation of it. Parables and metaphores are used to describe non-conventional ideas of events with conventional words.
------

You're hedging. One has to have the knowledge that there is a metaphor in operation before interpreting it as such. This is fine for literature where it doesn't really matter one way or another. When it comes to dealing with religious texts metaphors as the main means of conveying religious notions is a non-event, because the religious ideas have to be able to be communicated to the lowest denominator.

Overwillingness to find metaphors usually means, not reading what the text actually says -- for one reason or another.

Amos:
------
Yes I can deal with the text
------

I haven't seen you do so.

Amos:
------
and hold that the bible is inerrant.
------

That's interesting, but why do you hold it as inerrant? Is it because of your religious beliefs? If so, there is no point in discussing the content of any of the texts with you because you cannot have a meaningful opinion of your own.

Amos:
------
Paradoxes only exist in the mind of the interpreter.
------

Another dose of unsupportable mysticism.

Amos

If it does not make sense in our mind does not give us the right to say that the author was wrong in his mind.

spin

Amos:
---------
If it does not make sense in our mind does not give us the right to say that the author was wrong in his mind.
---------

"right"?

Analysis has nothing to do with rights. It works on attempts to apply logic. The logic may be correct or it may not be. But without attempts at logic you can say nothing useful at all.

"Yes" says "I believe."

"No" says "I reason."

Neither response may be correct in a given situation.

Amos, the system you seem to expound is airtight. This leads to suffocation. I don't really see why you are posting to a secular web, when you can't say "no". Pronouncements may make you feel a little secure when you say them and that may be the reason why you post them here.

Making sense of what we have and what is around us is one of the tasks that face us.

When we are faced with conflicts in the biblical narration, we have to deal with them. One way is to say that they don't exist. Another way is to say that errors indicate that the texts are rubbish. Yet another way is to see why conflicts exist as they will help us understand the text.

For example, some people say that because one part of the bible says that the flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights while another part says 150 days that the writers have taken two accounts and deliberately put them together as they were dealing with the same material and they were each holy, sewing them into the one account.

The inerrantist says, they are not in conflict, but deal with two different things, hiding his/her head under the sand. The other says that the text is not worth reading, while reading it. I think only the third way is of use.

Amos

Maybe you do not know but I have stated before that I write here for my own pleasure. It is important for me to learn to articulate my thoughts and this is the best place to do it. I've been censored from several religious boards
for no obvious reason.

I once took a course in Port Royal logic and found it very good. It was contemplative and just right for me. In here "yes" means I understand and "no" means I don't understand. If you don't understand don't bother reading it because logic is opposite to contemplation. Logic is for juniors and it was held that contemplation is for seniors.

spin

Amos:
------
Maybe you do not know but I have stated before that I write here for my own pleasure. It is important for me to learn to articulate my thoughts and this is the best place to do it. I've been censored from several religious boards
for no obvious reason.
------

Perhaps it's only the infidel who will allow you to say what you want.

Amos:
------
I once took a course in Port Royal logic and found it very good. It was contemplative and just right for me. In here "yes" means I understand and "no" means I don't understand. If you don't understand don't bother reading it because logic is opposite to contemplation. Logic is for juniors and it was held that contemplation is for seniors.
------

You can't get away from it. Logic is the foundation. Without it you don't communicate. Contemplation without the base of logic is a ship without an anchor. Where I come from there is another expression which I'll have to translate: contemplation is for self-stimulators. I'm not in total agreement with that sentiment.

The choice I gave was beyond the passive I understand or I don't understand. Yes is often I accept. No is an active response. There is of course a third response, which breaks the dilemma and produces more results. And that is, "hang on, let me think about it (from various angles)."

Amos

Fair enough and here the contemplative employs the machinery of logic to break new grounds or opens up dormant fields with a renewed version of the old argument. Induction is what changes things and for this insight is required.