That Boat Don't Float!!

[AV1611VET]

Are Roman Catholics not considered to be 'real Christians'?

Before or after his tenure in the psych ward?

 

[JustMeSee]

Before or after his tenure in the psych ward?

I suggest that you reread my last two posts. You appeared to answer a question that was not asked.

What happened to the pastor before, during, and after the time he was in the psychiatric ward?

 

[AV1611VET]

I suggest that you reread my last two posts.

No, thanks -- I suggest you read this one: 788 .

 

[JustMeSee]

No, thanks -- I suggest you read this one: 788 .

I was going along with the flow of the thread. I have become accustomed to threads in C&E going all over the place.

If you wish to answer my question you can PM me or start a thread somewhere else (and invite me).

God can defy science and make the ark float. ok?

 

[sandwiches]

That's probably one of the reasons why Mexico is in the 10/40 Window.

I'm not going to spend an inordinately-long amount of time on this. I have to hurry before the sanballats show up and start accusing me of derailing yet another thread, as I answer you guys' questions.



SOURCE

Just be frank and upfront and say what you mean, AV. You meant to say they're not real Christians. However, we're back to the usual argument.

Us: How do you know who a true Christian is?
You: <Insert Bible verse here>
Us: They also use the Bible as proof that they're Christians.

So, I'm curious as to what the next step would be in here? Are those Christians misreading the Bible? Then, we have to ask again: How do you know you're reading the Bible correctly? How can you verify the accuracy of your interpretations?

Something else. Is it right in the eyes of your god for you to make a judgment on who's a Christian and who isn't? <Insert Bible verse that you interpret to say you are supposed to judge or something similar> Again, how can you verify that your interpretation is correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

God can defy science and make the ark float. ok?

Ok.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

Just be frank and upfront and say what you mean, AV. You meant to say they're not real Christians. However, we're back to the usual argument.

Us: How do you know who a true Christian is?
You: <Insert Bible verse here>
Us: They also use the Bible as proof that they're Christians.

So, I'm curious as to what the next step would be in here? Are those Christians misreading the Bible? Then, we have to ask again: How do you know you're reading the Bible correctly? How can you verify the accuracy of your interpretations?

Something else. Is it right in the eyes of your god for you to make a judgment on who's a Christian and who isn't? <Insert Bible verse that you interpret to say you are supposed to judge or something similar> Again, how can you verify that your interpretation is correct?

I too would be very interested to see AV's response to this question. How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one AV?

There are just a couple responses I would like to not see you say, however you are free to say them if you wish, they are:

"<Insert Bible Verse>" - As Sandwiches has said, all the others use the Bible for this as well.

"Because God has shown me to be correct" - This also won't work because I'm sure others in various sects also experience this.

Maybe this question is for another thread, but I am also curious as to how you apply this logic to other religions? Christians often say they know God is real because they have experienced him. Would the Muslim or the Jew not also have their own God revealed to them through experience? What makes them wrong and you right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I too would be very interested to see AV's response to this question. How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one AV?

Since you're new in town, and since you seem to be sincere, and since I can't go a day w/o being accused of derailing a thread w/o getting hives, I'll answer this.

First, I interpret the Bible literally -- as literally as my phone book -- unless the context of the passage (i.e. the setting that the passage is written) says otherwise. By interpreting It literally, even those hostile to the interpretation are forced to agree that It is saying what It is saying.

Second, I run my interpretation through a set of Boolean Standards that allows for science to have a say in it.

My Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

Last, but not least, I have to remember that I'm fallible, but, as Peter said to Jesus:

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Atheists would fall over themselves to line up and answer Peter's question with their McGraw-Hill bibles in front of them; but, like Paul, I too...

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Since you're new in town, and since you seem to be sincere, and since I can't go a day w/o being accused of derailing a thread w/o getting hives, I'll answer this.

First, I interpret the Bible literally -- as literally as my phone book -- unless the context of the passage (i.e. the setting that the passage is written) says otherwise. By interpreting It literally, even those hostile to the interpretation are forced to agree that It is saying what It is saying.

Second, I run my interpretation through a set of Boolean Standards that allows for science to have a say in it.

My Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

Last, but not least, I have to remember that I'm fallible, but, as Peter said to Jesus:

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Atheists would fall over themselves to line up and answer Peter's question with their McGraw-Hill bibles in front of them; but, like Paul, I too...

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So, when you open the phone book, find the party you want to contact, dial the corresponding number, only to find out the line is no longer in service, what do you do?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, when you open the phone book, find the party you want to contact, dial the corresponding number, only to find out the line is no longer in service, what do you do?

What do my Boolean Standards say to do?

 

[Hespera]

So, when you open the phone book, find the party you want to contact, dial the corresponding number, only to find out the line is no longer in service, what do you do?

Ask too if there is a day gone by that someone has not tried to derail a thread.

 

[Belk]

What do my Boolean Standards say to do?

Whine about Pluto?

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

Since you're new in town, and since you seem to be sincere, and since I can't go a day w/o being accused of derailing a thread w/o getting hives, I'll answer this.

First, I interpret the Bible literally -- as literally as my phone book -- unless the context of the passage (i.e. the setting that the passage is written) says otherwise. By interpreting It literally, even those hostile to the interpretation are forced to agree that It is saying what It is saying.

Second, I run my interpretation through a set of Boolean Standards that allows for science to have a say in it.

My Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

Last, but not least, I have to remember that I'm fallible, but, as Peter said to Jesus:

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Atheists would fall over themselves to line up and answer Peter's question with their McGraw-Hill bibles in front of them; but, like Paul, I too...

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Very good, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

You take a logical approach to literal interpretation. You mentioned that you are fallible, as we all are. What is it about your interpretation that is not subject to fallibility? Why is the creationist right and the scientist wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot, if the bible says one thing and science proves it wrong, go with the bible and tell yourself that stupidity conquers all then put your fingers in your ears and sing as loud as you can.
Creationism wins again.........

1

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it about your interpretation that is not subject to fallibility?

The fact that God, Himself is the Author of the Bible.

He put His stamp of approval on the Words by preserving them throughout all generations.

Why is the creationist right and the scientist wrong?

Because scientists do not go by the Word of God -- they have their own set of standards they use called the Scientific Method.

In addition -- according to scientific philosophy, it is considered 'progress' to be found wrong.

One poster here even told me that he can't wait until science finds something wrong with current science.

In other words, science has a short shelf-life and looks forward to the expiration date.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

The fact that God, Himself is the Author of the Bible.

He put His stamp of approval on the Words by preserving them throughout all generations.

For the sake of argument I will agree with you that God authored the Bible. Would you explain to me why your interpretation of his words are the correct interpretation, and why say, Christians who don't interpret literally are wrong?

Because scientists do not go by the Word of God -- they have their own set of standards they use called the Scientific Method.

In addition -- according to scientific philosophy, it is considered 'progress' to be found wrong.

One poster here even told me that he can't wait until science finds something wrong with current science.

In other words, science has a short shelf-life and looks forward to the expiration date.

Being wrong in Science is celebrated because it means we have an opportunity to learn. Learning about the world around us is really all it is about.

For example, Einstein says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists will not accept that as dogma, they will try to find a way to prove him wrong, or at least get around it. If he is wrong we will celebrate that day.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What do my Boolean Standards say to do?

You tell me. They're your "Boolean Standards."

What is god's stamp of approval BTW? Are you in possession of a original Bible written in god's own handwriting. Or do you have a copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, that has been cobbled and ad hoc'd like the rest of us?

 

[BananaSlug]

You tell me. They're your "Boolean Standards."

What is god's stamp of approval BTW? Are you in possession of a original Bible written in god's own handwriting. Or do you have a copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, that has been cobbled and ad hoc'd like the rest of us?

A better question would be, does he believe that all of the non-KJV Bibles were influenced by Satan? If the KJV is the "only" Bible worth its salt, what does he think about the other versions?

 

[AV1611VET]

A better question would be, does he believe that all of the non-KJV Bibles were influenced by Satan?

Probably.

And you're asking that question wrong.

I consider the entire AV line to be authentic.

So, yes, I think the NIV came from Satan -- no, I do not think the Geneva Bible came from Satan.

 

[BananaSlug]

Probably.

And you're asking that question wrong.

I consider the entire AV line to be authentic.

So, yes, I think the NIV came from Satan -- no, I do not think the Geneva Bible came from Satan.

That is interesting. The NIV is the best selling Bible today. The KJV is probably the most common Bible.