GutterRat said:But seriously -
Hate to bust your bubble there DtB - but I have seen w/ my two eyes two male animals having sex. Actually, I've seen it several times. It does happen.
artybloke said:You know, it's a funny thing. Whenever I read about the Bible being misinterpreted it's always the other guy who's doing the misinterpretation. Never the speaker.
Nobody ever seems to say, well, it could mean this, or it could mean that, I just don't know.
DevotiontoBible said:What exactly have you seen that not even science has documented?
What if the Bible actually reveals ways in which it is to be interpreted?
Take this discussion on "nature". Does the Bible have anything knowable to say about "nature" or "natural law", and, if it does, is it irrelevant because it is open to interpretation?
We don't. But it's the best we've got. Whose version of "God told me to say this" should I believe? Yours or the Pope's or mine?How do we know we are interpreting reality correctly through our senses?
If "nature" is anything that is happening in the physical universe, male dogs having sex or going through the motions is natural, but what does that say.
As with all controversies, either one party is wrong or both are wrong, but never are both right.
GutterRat said:Two male dogs going at it like newly weds on their honeymoon night!
I've also seen two male horses doing the same.
DevotiontoBible said:There is no such thing as what you claim to have seen. There have never been sexual intercourse between two male dogs or horses penetrating each other like "newly weds" ever documented. Only two male humans do that unnatural act. You have no credibility with your claim.
artybloke said:
GutterRat said:Wow - calling me a liar. But if I was some scientist then you would believe me? Well, you have just lost your credibility.
DevotiontoBible said:You should know this forums rules for substantiating claims.
GutterRat said:Well - let's see a link then? Where is YOUR "scientific" proof?
Maybe you just missed that part in the Bible. Is that possible?What if it doesn't? I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says that you have to interpret it this way or that way, except for the limitations of whatever genre it is (ie a poem is interpreted as a poem, a prophecy as a prophecy etc.)
Just making the statement does not make it so. I find the Bible holding a definition of natural law. Strange that you missed that too. Could it be that your flaw in biblical interpretation is that you read too fast or too infrequently?No it doesn't have anything knowable to say about "natural law." "Natural law" is a philosophical concept inherited from Platonism. "Natural" for St Paul was "what everybody did," not some extrabiblical metaphysical concept.
Then we have stepped outside of a Christian discussion and into a relativistic one. The Christian approaches the Bible assuming that every word of it is true.We don't. But it's the best we've got.
The Holy Spirits. Interpretation comes through his exegesis.Whose version of "God told me to say this" should I believe? Yours or the Pope's or mine?
True. But what is definitely leads to the discussion of ought.Doesn't say anything. Basic philosophical concept #101: "Is" does not equal "ought." But it also doesn't equal "oughtn't."
Mine compares Scripture with Scripture. Yours Compares Scripture with human reason.Now tell me again, why is your interpretation better than mine and why should I trust your way of reading better than my own?
Scrodingers Cat is both dead and alive. Im not making the connection between interpretation and Quantum Physics. Sorry.Do you know the parable of Scrodinger's Cat?
And exactly where would that definition be? I await enlightenment.I find the Bible holding a definition of natural law. Strange that you missed that too.
No, you've already decided what you want scripture to mean.Mine compares Scripture with Scripture. Yours Compares Scripture with human reason.
Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive because we don't know which one it is. When we open the box, it becomes either dead or alive. We don't and can't know the full context of scripture, so two interpretations can be right and wrong at the same time. Capiche?Scrodingers Cat is both dead and alive. Im not making the connection between interpretation and Quantum Physics. Sorry.
And whose Holy Spirit would that be? Yours? Mine? The Pope's? etc...The Holy Spirits. Interpretation comes through his exegesis
First, in the origin of nature, the words of God. Then in his assessment of nature in its pristine form, it was good. Then in his indictment of nature after the Fall, it was corrupt. The Curse upon the earth is of divine origin. It is embedded in the very laws of nature so that the universe is in a turmoil. Nature is connect to the moral state of mankind. There is much Scripture to support this doctrine, but one need not leave the book of Romans. If Paul states that the deviant behaviour of humans who suppress the truth in unrighteousness is against nature, he goes on to describe nature in a non-Platonic manner:And exactly where would that definition be? I await enlightenment.
I do not accept that truth is what every individual believes it to be. Truth is independent of human existence and epistemology and since God is its author, he is able and willing to clearly reveal it. If I compare Scripture with Scripture, I am not deciding what Scripture means. I am allowing God to be his own commentator on the book he has written.No, you've already decided what you want scripture to mean.
I understand perfectly that the above post is utter nonsense. A philosophy based upon contradictions is mental suicide, i.e. insanity. It is an escape from reality, not an assessment of reality. A cat cannot be both dead and alive. Something cannot be both right and wrong. And a living cat that is alive is in no way connected to a right that is wrong. A child can see through such equivocation.Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive because we don't know which one it is. When we open the box, it becomes either dead or alive. We don't and can't know the full context of scripture, so two interpretations can be right and wrong at the same time. Capiche?
Because the Holy Spirit does not belong to me, you, or the pope, he is free to effectually relay truth to man. Do you doubt his power to teach truth? I sense you lack what is the essential ingredient in my wavelength... faith.And whose Holy Spirit would that be? Yours? Mine? The Pope's? etc...
DevotiontoBible said:Rational observation shows that heterosexuality is the natural use of the body. As I have stated before: can you show me one baby who was ever born out of a man's colon? Why? because heterosexuality is the orientation of human sexuality, sponges are autosexual, earthworms are bisexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual orientation.
artybloke said:Proof is for maths & alcohol. What we have is evidence. Now where's yours?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?