You know where I stand. I believe the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God. I cannot prove that it is and you cannot prove that it isn’t.
The Holy Bible is one of my two “axioms” (as I have said many posts previous to this one.)
We don’t really need to discuss this any further, do we?
If you are just trying to save the poor readers of my posts, feel free to do so.
Yes, I heard that my junior year in a humanities class that engineers were required to take. It sure sounded convincing when he said it, me being an atheist at that time, I even used the argument. You start a thread and we can discuss it.
All I am saying here is that your logic is flawed when it comes to analyzing the words to which @zecarlo has been referring. It has nothing to due with the belief in them as truth. The logic you have applied is the equivalent of using a word to define that same word. That doesn’t work regardless of one’s belief.
Then how do you interpret Matthew 26:52, since you don’t approve of my interpretation? Please give a detailed thought other than just criticizing my interpretation.
it is known as allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. It is a very common practice of students of the Bible.
This is exactly what I believe about the Holy Bible. There is one sole author of the Holy Bible, the Holy Spirit. Because of this “axiom” it is extremely logical to allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. All “theorems” are derived from that “axiom.”
Of course, if you don’t believe the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, it would be very illogical to allow the Bible to interpret any word apart from parts that were written by the same person, and even then, man is not perfect.
Assuming that I totally believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, where has my interpretation ever not been logical? It doesn’t exist. My logical approach is one of my greatest assets in interpreting the Bible.
Because the univocal and inerrant interpretation puts on the constraint that the Bible must harmonize with itself. This means that for the passages that contradict one another (and there are many) some sort of negotiation with the text has to be done in order to justify one of the two passages with the other one. That negotiation/conclusion circles back to the belief that all of the text must harmonize and only arises because of that belief. It’s the opposite of how logic is applied to any other field and is circular, not linear (as logic is).
What you call circular logic is proof or consistency that the Bible is the word of God. Linear logic used in interpretation can only proceed knowing that the Bible is the word of God.
Lucky for them and many more others, anyone reading anything online has likely benefited immensely
I would like to repeat, expand, modify what I said before
Christianity has functioned as a foundation for many great things, as you well know it’s not guaranteed to continue to do so.
Philosophy has functioned as a foundation for many great things, as someone may well know, it’s not guaranteed to continue to do so.
Islam has functioned as a foundation for many of those same things, even if Muslims have not continued to do so.
The West was in dark ages while da Mooozlems were doing alright for some time.
So this:
Reads kind of like - what have you done for me lately?
Which is partly my fault for reading it that way, I’ll admit
For me it is becoming about positioning myself so that my own body becomes part of the load bearing structure, rather than arguing which tradition brings or has brought more worldly benefit
Do you think that there is a single palestinian in gaza that Hamas doesn’t consider an expendable device to carry out their will?
In case its not obvious, I’m pointing the finger at Hamas here, and painting Palestinian non combatants as the victims of a malignant terrorist organization.
no i was a long term member but got perma banned as i dared comment on the jewish role in the slave trade and the new import of degenerates into Europe.
Any logic is circular, depending on how the other person looks at it
Trying to harmonize what originally appeared as contradictions is very much logical and scientific
I don’t believe the Bible to be the Perfect Word of God, but I do think it was at least added to incrementally by people that had seriously reflected on most of what came before it
I get that your doing this can seem extremely lenient and merciful from a certain perspective and I appreciate that, but I must ask for even more - specifically because you appear to argue that Palestinian lives don’t matter.
Your position appears to be that quantitative analysis is completely pointless since qualitatively they are all victims. Victims of Israel, victims of Hamas, might as well be walking dead people already, so might as well get it over with by killing them all
I disagree, while agreeing to the “no” which you seemed to have asked of me