Was the Apostle Paul Gay????? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2004, 04:29 PM   #136
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


The prize isssssssssss The Essential Clash... a two cd set... the London Calling 25th Anniversary Legacy Edition, The Essential Clash DVD, a rarrrrrrrre 7" vinyl promo of London Calling and a poster! I got Mick Jones' autograph back in October!! My friend in England who is a sound guy, did sound for Mick Jones and Tony James new band CarbonSilicon and was kind enough to ask for an autograph. When my friend came to the states he visited me and my family and gave me the autograph. OMGGGG I am going to be Clashing out for dayyyyys. This so beyond off topic but I reallllly don't care!!! I am just amazed.
Congrats.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-09-2004, 04:47 PM   #137
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Well I'm saying if it's not actually the 10 commandments or quoted directly from Jesus.
Well, we are still at the "mercy" of a human author. The reliability of the quote and the reliability of the non-quote are identical. Either they are both inspired and inerrant, or they both are not.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 04:58 PM   #138
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Well, we are still at the "mercy" of a human author. The reliability of the quote and the reliability of the non-quote are identical. Either they are both inspired and inerrant, or they both are not.
But we have some that is quoted by Jesus and backed by man, some handed down by God and backed by Jesus and man, and then we have some that's stated by man and backed by...oh nothing else.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-09-2004, 09:21 PM   #139
The Fly
 
pwmartin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: western Pennsylvania
Posts: 107
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i find someone, like nbcrusader, who is very rigorous in his interpretations -- or rigid -- because he's at least consistent. wrong, in my opinion, but i admire the rigor.

i'm not totally clear on how you think my stance -- that the bible is largely metaphoric, is most likely crawling with 2,000 years of agendas written in, and should be taken in spirit rather than letter, and *cannot* be used to legislate in a modern democracy -- is inconsistent with your statement: "With the Bible, a collection of books written by many authors with different writing styles and covering centuries of history, it's critical that we understand context and the author."


We are dealing with a conflict of narratives here, and I don't know how it can be rectified. Other than conversion.

Inconsistencies are bound to linger in each person's viewpoint and take on reality.

Irvine511 has assumed truths about reality (including God and humans) that are different than nbcrusader's and others' here. To you, Irvine511, their views are probably always going to seem inconsistent, and vice versa, because you are not dealing with the same set of data and assumptions. You are arguing from entirely different narratives.

Irvine511: what do you really mean by "the Bible is largely metaphoric"? Spell that out a little bit more. Have you ever seriously studied the Bible? How can you make such a broad-sweeping statement about something which you never really seem to have taken very seriously. I mean, people devote their entire lives to understanding Scripture, interpreting its metaphor and never feel that they begin to see the bottom of its well.

My hunch is that ncbrusader (and others) don't see what you've termed as "inconsistencies" precisely because they're arguing from within a narrative context that causes them to see those inconsistencies as something consistent, coherent. They could lob the same criticism of inconsistency at some other part of your belief system (and you do have one...don't fool yourself). It may not be sexuality, but it may be something else.

You hold logical consistency and the primacy of your own personal narrative in high regard (some in another narrative might even say you "worship," "idolize" those things). There may be nothing wrong with that. But I think this debate might just boil down to belief that the Bible has a story to tell that gives a different account of reality that we, apart from it, can't think up on our own.

That made no sense at all. But I meant to mean something
__________________
pwmartin is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 10:04 PM   #140
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But we have some that is quoted by Jesus and backed by man, some handed down by God and backed by Jesus and man, and then we have some that's stated by man and backed by...oh nothing else.
So, if Paul added a "God said" at the beginning of his letters, we would have a different doctrine?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 12:35 AM   #141
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


So, if Paul added a "God said" at the beginning of his letters, we would have a different doctrine?
No we're not that naive. If we had other scripture to back it up things would be different. Please don't trivialize it. We've had enough of that.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-10-2004, 08:37 AM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:29 PM
There are many biblical scolars who agree with both points of view presented here in this thread. Lets not be so righteous that we do not see the other side has made valid points.

And this statement is for both sides in the debate.

I would have to say that overall, this past week in FYM has been my most enjoyable. I think we have had some REALLY good threads that expressed different points of view equally well. Thank you to all who have been here making me think.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 08:48 AM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Same here
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 08:56 AM   #144
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 05:29 PM
I also agree Dreadsox.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:26 AM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:29 PM
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:28 AM   #146
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:29 PM
i don't think paul was Gay and i don't like green eggs and ham

thank u
db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:42 AM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
i don't think paul was Gay and i don't like green eggs and ham

thank u
db9
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 10:30 AM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pwmartin
Irvine511 has assumed truths about reality (including God and humans) that are different than nbcrusader's and others' here. To you, Irvine511, their views are probably always going to seem inconsistent, and vice versa, because you are not dealing with the same set of data and assumptions. You are arguing from entirely different narratives.

Irvine511: what do you really mean by "the Bible is largely metaphoric"? Spell that out a little bit more. Have you ever seriously studied the Bible? How can you make such a broad-sweeping statement about something which you never really seem to have taken very seriously. I mean, people devote their entire lives to understanding Scripture, interpreting its metaphor and never feel that they begin to see the bottom of its well.

My hunch is that ncbrusader (and others) don't see what you've termed as "inconsistencies" precisely because they're arguing from within a narrative context that causes them to see those inconsistencies as something consistent, coherent. They could lob the same criticism of inconsistency at some other part of your belief system (and you do have one...don't fool yourself). It may not be sexuality, but it may be something else.

You hold logical consistency and the primacy of your own personal narrative in high regard (some in another narrative might even say you "worship," "idolize" those things). There may be nothing wrong with that. But I think this debate might just boil down to belief that the Bible has a story to tell that gives a different account of reality that we, apart from it, can't think up on our own.

it makes sense, and i've been thinking about it all day. we are, in some ways, talking past one another, because we are not starting at the same point. i do not accept the bible as Truth. others on this list do. so the argument must necessarily be not the specifics of the bible, since those cannot be trusted, but why and how one chooses to regard the bible as Truth.

you're right: i do worship and idolize the human capacity for thought and rationality. i don't worship my own, cause i always wish i were smarter, but i do trust it because, at the end of the day, i know it's all i have. i don't believe i'm always right, in fact i believe pretty much the opposite -- that our conclusions are always incomplete, there's always more to be discovered, and no one can ever *know*, we can only learn.

that's the attitude -- and, i would argue, a rather humble one, where you are aware of your limits but you seek to push them when you can -- that i take towards life.

when i say the bible is largely metaphoric, i think it's akin to Jesus' parables: stories meant to explain larger truths. i don't think the world was created in 7 days, i don't think eve was made from adam's rib. these things are utterly illogical and run contrary to science. since i am human, and science is a human language, i choose to use that as currency to understand the world rather than a book that was written a long time ago by many different people that much of the world doesn't know about (or care to know about). i also see the Bible as a self-referential, closed system with no need to prove itself other than by referencing itself. i've made the comparison before that it seems almost North Korean in it's circularity (at least from what i can tell): as in, "He Leads Because He is Great, and He is Great Because He Leads."

therefore, it's unimportant to me to spend years studying the specifics of the bible. i would enjoy a bible study class very much, but i'd seek to gain from that what i would in any literature or history or anthropology class. i am agnostic about the bible, but i am aware of it's importance, what i remember being taught about the new testament is, at moments, stirringly beautiful. this doesn't mean, however, that it is literally true, and i think the facts are incidental to the truth. as in, the literal sentences of the bible are a means to get at larger issues and to hopefully illuminate, in whatever way, that scary thing we call "the human condition."

in that sense, i'm not sure the Bible has any more weight than the great tomes of Western literature. is there more wisdom and knoweldge in The Bible than in, say, _Hamlet_? _Ulysses_? _Gravity's Rainbow_?

i can't say, nor would i pretend to say. but i do know that quite a lot of people take the Bible very seriously, and a lot of people view it as Truth. i cannot say, absolutely, they're wrong, nor do i think that's even important.

this is the essence of agnosticism -- humility, and the awareness of the limits to human knowledge and the awareness that we all make choices to put our faith in different places. i may put mine in rationality, you may put yours in the Bible, but the one trump card i feel entitled to pull is that i make no claims on the Truth, i profess only to know that i cannot ever know, and this strikes me as more humble and honest.


no idea if the above makes any sense.

and i agree with Dread: great discussions all around.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:31 AM   #149
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
There are many biblical scolars who agree with both points of view presented here in this thread. Lets not be so righteous that we do not see the other side has made valid points.

And this statement is for both sides in the debate.

I would have to say that overall, this past week in FYM has been my most enjoyable. I think we have had some REALLY good threads that expressed different points of view equally well. Thank you to all who have been here making me think.

Peace

Eh not me... I think EVERYONE is wrong except for me hehehehehe... i kill me...


Seriously though, I totally enjoy discussing things of this nature. Online forums really give me the oppurtunity to do so. I stay at home with my kids (9, 7 and 3), so I don't really get the chance to discuss things like this very often. And when my kids start arguing about the validity of scripture or saying that they are really starting to lean towards a more Zen Buddhist approach to life, I just send them to their rooms, so that puts me at an unfair advantage. ha! I'm on a roll today.

Take care Dread and everyone else, and thanks for starting this post! Much fun....

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:54 AM   #150
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i don't think the world was created in 7 days
It wasn't until I started studying other religions and esoteric spiritual paths that I began to understand the Bible better. One interpretation is that the 7 days of Genesis has its roots in what Hindus call Yugas, or vast cycles of time. In their cycles of time 1 day is 4,320,000 years, so 7 days would be 30,024,000,000 years. This would make the 7 days make more sense in terms of evolution.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com