Why is thinking these so popular?

[vossler]

Is it? I think even the Catholic Church permits abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. And that is just as premeditated as any other.

I hardly think it is performing an abortion is such a case is murder; I don't even think it should be considered a pregnancy. How do you murder someone who has no chance of existing? Isn't this similar to what we do when we remove life support for those who have no chance of living?

When you dismiss the things I consider sinful as irrelevant, then, why do I not have the right to consider that you are the one twisting scripture?

I'm not taking away your right to do that, I just said it wasn't relevant to my point or this thread.

Would it not make just as much sense for me to say rejecting evolution requires twisting scripture and puts one in the habit to do so---and the evidence is that most people who reject evolution accept, even promote, actions I consider sinful--some of them equivalent to murder.

If you have evidence of that, yes.

I don't think you have established at all the truth of the last statement above. All you really establish is that those who disagree with you on evolution are likely to disagree with you on other matters. But who is and who is not interpreting scripture correctly cannot be determined on the basis of how closely they agree with you.

Of course who is or is not interpreting Scripture correctly cannot be determined on how closely they agree with me, if only it were that easy. It can however be determined on how closely they agree with Scripture. That is my only test.

Again that doesn't establish "where the battle rages" or where it should.

The battle rages wherever Scripture is minimized or dismissed.

 

[gluadys]

Of course who is or is not interpreting Scripture correctly cannot be determined on how closely they agree with me, if only it were that easy. It can however be determined on how closely they agree with Scripture.

Circular reasoning, since your judgment of how closely they agree with Scripture is identical to how closely they agree with your interpretation of Scripture, so it still comes down to how closely they agree with you.

The battle rages wherever Scripture is minimized or dismissed.

And there will be differences of opinion on where that is. So it is not productive to call another person's opinion "twisting scripture". That is simply a judgmental way of saying you don't agree with their interpretation.

 

[Hooksta]

Speaking of evolution - has anyone ever wondered if people from the Middle East have evolved over the last 2,000 years? A significant portion of the population in the region seem pretty backwards to me.

How much dumber where they 2,000 years ago when all the events in the Bible were taking place????

I grew up Catholic but find myself more and more believing in a Creator that may have inspired evolution.

I'm just not sure God needed to write a book to let us in on his plans. A book that we had to translate into other languages ourselves, invent a printing press, publish the thing so that we can sell it in local retail stores for profit so that the likes of Pat Robertson can tell us how God uses Katrina to destroy gays. There are many faiths in the world and all are spread like a slick pyramid marketing scheme. (We want our religion to be bigger so I'll tell 10 people and then those 10 will tell 10 until our religion wins). I mean God couldn't trust Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree...the one and only thing he said they couldn't do. So a better plan is to write a book and rely on man to spread His perfect Word??? Rely on man to get the story or Jesus right for something as important as eternal salvation!!!?

Just this week we got the swine flu? Was that evolution of a virus or is God upset with the drug war in Mexico?

 

[vossler]

Circular reasoning, since your judgment of how closely they agree with Scripture is identical to how closely they agree with your interpretation of Scripture, so it still comes down to how closely they agree with you.

Obviously that's the hope, ones interpretation should closely agree with Scripture. Yet if given Scriptural evidence of a misinterpretation I'm more than willing to reconsider my interpretation.

And there will be differences of opinion on where that is. So it is not productive to call another person's opinion "twisting scripture". That is simply a judgmental way of saying you don't agree with their interpretation.

Of course there will be a difference of opinion on where that is, each of us comes to the discussion from a different perspective. Whether it is productive or not isn't my goal, my goal is to call out what I see and engage in the battle for the truth where it exists.

 

[shernren]

How do you murder someone who has no chance of existing? Isn't this similar to what we do when we remove life support for those who have no chance of living?

I don't know if you would be surprised, but many people would consider that (removing life support, even for someone who cannot survive without it) murder.

I might admire the passion with which you draw up lines to divide the masses into right and wrong. Just remember that there are many out there - many of whom are our brothers and sisters in Christ - by whose lines you'd be on the "wrong" side as much as us.

Those in glass houses ...