Philotic Web

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

We (as premellinial dispensationalist calvinist baptists) hold to a purely symbolic view of the partaking of the "Elements" as we call them. We do communion monthly, so as not to turn it into desensitized routine. The bread is simply tiny bread wafers, and the wine is grape juice. we still treat communion as a VERY solemn and serious time for reflection and reaffirmment.

[Jayelle]

So Jesus was talking in a metaphor, but Genesis is literal?
_________________
One Duck to rule them all...

Loading baby...65% complete
||||||||||||||||||||||||||..............

[jotabe]

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Genesis had no reaon to be metaphorical, while Christ certainly would not want his followers to practice cannibalism. The distinction should be obvious even to you.
_________________
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

[Eddie Pinz]

So you (and it seems you alone) get to pick a choose where to read the bible literally and where there is symbolism going on? You are right and everyone that disagrees with you are wrong, even though they have brought up very valid points. If so, can you please send me your interpretation of the entire Bible? I just want to be sure that I don't mess anything up.

[Mich]

In far less scathing words, CTCT, Eddie is pretty much saying it as we all are saying. What reasoning do you have behind Genesis having "no reason to be metaphorical"? If Christ is telling people to eat his body without practicing cannibalism, where does he specify that? Maybe he was actually trying to introduce a new way of experiencing a closeness to him that seems like cannibalism. He never specifically says "but woah, I'm being metaphorical, unlike those other times." Do you see why any discussions about what's metaphorical and what isn't can't just be blatant statements declaring what someone meant and what someone else didn't? As has been pointed out countless times, all or most arguments on this forum are backed up with passages, logical reasoning, or others. What is your reasoning behind these latest conclusions?
_________________
Totally Under-Rated Turtle-Like Entity

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

[jotabe]

Your logic operates in a peculiar way
You find a reason for Jesus to speak in a non-literal way, because that would contradict your knowledge. But you can't get through Genesis being read in a non-literal way, despite Genesis contradicts our knowledge.

So...?
_________________

[Taalcon]

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Reading the scripture, and ignoring the biased and unsupported sites you provided, the Earth is described exactly the way it is. Nothing in the Bible says "crystalline." The Bible simply says that the water was separated into the air and sea. It describes the creation of atmosphere.

Jotabe: instead of making complaints about my own arguments, how about you come up with some of your own, supported by hard evidence? (like the Bible)
_________________
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

[Taalcon]

[jotabe]

Again, i am slightly offended that you use the word "evidence" referred to the Bible. Evidence is something objectively verifiable, and it has scientific connotation.

If you say "i believe this" and then go to the bible and find a paragraph that sustains it and say "this is the evidence"... that's an argument devoid of all merit.
_________________

[Azarel]

[jotabe]

I don't get what you mean, Aza.
About the cherry-picking, i was being ironic, as it is a fault very easy to see in others, but very difficult to see in oneself. Essentially every single christian denomination you can think of uses cherry-picking because the literality of the text is incoherent or contradictory in several points. And we all need our beliefs to have a certain degree of coherence.

Of course, you can go all-out with literality, as long as you don't mind being incoherent with logics or with natural laws.
_________________

[Jayelle]

[Azarel]

In honest clarification I meant saying to people "i am the king" in order to get them to believe him. In that verse, he's answering a direct question yes, it is as you say but he also said that he was not of the world and that his kingdom was not a strictly worldly one. By which point pilate most likely didn't know what to believe.

[Caspian]

How will the heat migrate? Each tender sore sights an impulse. Throughout the crazy ally explodes a split chorus. Another aggressive sphere reacts under a visible citizen, and a cube clicks against a pulled disturbance.
_________________
It's not "noob" to rhyme with "boob". It's "newbie" to rhyme with "boobie".

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

... anyway

Jotabe, if you don't accept the Scriptures as truth, then what DO you accept? if nothing, why are you on a religious thread?
_________________
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

[jotabe]

I accept as truth what is true (that's a tautology for you XD). What is objectively verifiable according to experience, and to our knowledge derived from experience.

I accept the Scriptures as the the accounts of people who had a powerful experience with god, or thought to had had it. God doesn't need that a human's experience of the divine is actual, to get use from it.
As human accounts, specially having in account how old they are, they will be flawed and inaccurate, specially the old testament, which hardly qualifies as scripture for me (because of this lack of historical reliability in the older texts). But on faith alone, i accept there is a kernel of truth in there, that there is a God trying to tell us something. A message that isn't really conveyed till he takes it upon himself to become human and tell us. And even then, we only get the account from humans again, though in this case witnessing is more reliable, because the oral tradition of Jesus' teachings became fixed into scripture a lot faster.

I accept this, but i can hardly qualify it as a truth, because it depends on faith alone, because it's unfalsifiable, because objective evidence will never be available.
_________________

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

We'll just see about objective evidence in the End Times. Pray tell, what "objective evidence" proves the Big Bang theory, which you hold to, when there was nobody around to see it? or creation or evolution for that matter? For all your talk about only believeing in objective truth, you sure do believe a lot of perpetuated fallacies.
_________________
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.

[Jayelle]

[jotabe]