Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rorschach is hardly used by psychologists nowadays as it is believed to have a very low validity.
[/size][/font]
Not from the field, but from what I can gather about the test, you'll be diagnosed delusional for seeing anything in the inkblot other than a very narrow range of description. Seeing religious symbolism will no doubt be amongst the many things that do not fit the description.
Rorschach is hardly used by psychologists nowadays as it is believed to have a very low validity.
[/size][/font]
More evidence that an IQ in the genius range isn't correlated with, well, anything really.
I agree only to a certain extent, because I'm pretty sure that there was somebody home at one point in your life, but then you decided to throw him out.I totally agree --- in the words of my wife - (about me) ---
- Your lights are on, but no one's home ---
I'm an ex-computer [mainframe] operator with an AA degree in Business Administration. I graduated summa cum laude in 1978, can play chess blindfolded, know PI to the 20[sup]th[/sup], and have an IQ of 176.
Where?Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally, and so do [should] I [we].
Where?
Is this the beginning of God creating everything or the beginning of God creating man?[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]
[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]
Um, AV...where are you getting that Jesus took it literally?
Remember, Jesus knew of the power of metaphorical language, hence his use of parables. Jesus could have made the same point regarding divorce by citing the creation account as metaphor, and not literal reportage of fact.
So what? The beginning of creation could have been 13.5 billion years ago too.[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]
Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally, and so do [should] I [we].
I just finished reading over this interesting essay by Michael White called "Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog."It caught my eye in that it reminds me of how many creationists view the scientific process:
Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?
Then Jesus did not know how the Earth was formed. Hence, Jesus was not the son of the creator of the earth, or at least the two were not talking to each other.
I'm not going to go through the history of allegorical thought as it applies to the Scriptures, but for the record, the genealogies would make no sense if the Scriptures were allegorical. Especially for a nation that used genealogical records to ascertain tribal lineage and judgments concerning inheritance.
Wow. And I can quote Shakespeare. Doesn't mean Hamlet existed, even though the play contains many truths about human nature.Note also what Jude says ---
[bible]Jude 1:14[/bible]
Thanks for bringing this gem to my attention!Offtopic:
Maneki, thank you for reposting that comic! I reformated my computer and the bookmarks wheren't saved so I lost it.
So you read the Bible like a Dr. Seuss book?I love how you cite "the history of allegorical thought as it applies to the Scriptures," yet you ignore writings like St. Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis.
[bible]Ezra 2:59[/bible]
[bible]Nehemiah 7:61[/bible]
Are you afraid that accepting some parts of the Bible as metaphorical turns everything into a metaphor? So, Jesus' parables, Psalms, Lamentations -- you take those to be literal fact, because otherwise you would be forced to believe the entire Bible to be metaphor? How sad. Although, as a old-school computer guy, I can see how you'd be more comfortable with things either being ones or zeroes -- totally either one thing or another, with no space in between.
Wow. And I can quote Shakespeare. Doesn't mean Hamlet existed, even though the play contains many truths about human nature.
Only the metaphorical parts.So you read the Bible like a Dr. Seuss book?
How disrespectful.
The Wall Street Journal is sub-Islamic propaganda.Only the metaphorical parts.
You mean you read all of it like the Wall Street Journal? How disrespectful.
I don't see how it is disrespectful. I can see how it might be disrespectful to your biblical interpretation; however, how do you know your interpretation is correct? How do you know your interpretation is not seuss-esque?So you read the Bible like a Dr. Seuss book?
How disrespectful.
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?