Zone1 Morality is natural phenomenon.

[ding]

It is fiction. I am criticizing the "morality" you say is THE TRUTH. You won't admit that you discarded most of the moral commands in the bible and replaced them with something different.

Or maybe you really do think your rebellious son should be stoned to death in the village square.

You can't argue your interpretation of scripture is my interpretation of scripture.

 

[ding]

Your god should have abolished slavery. Like we mere imperfect humans did.

God didn't write the bible. God didn't invent slavery and God didn't end slavery. God created existence.

 

[Donald H]

God didn't write the bible. God didn't invent slavery and God didn't end slavery. God created existence.

Catholics believe that the bible is the inspired word of the god.
You can't un-own the bibles on account of it (they) not being claimed to be literally true.

 

[ding]

Catholics believe that the bible is the inspired word of the god.
You can't un-own the bibles on account of it (they) not being claimed to be literally true.

That's nice. Here's what this Catholic believes...

Technically the word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes known only to the infallible Holy Spirit.

To understand a passage, chapter or book one must know the literary style being employed, the context and the main point being conveyed. Then it's not that difficult to identify embellishment used to make the account more memorable which is usually making the account more dramatic and amazing. Like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree which wasn't really the point of the story.

Good luck on your quest to subordinate religion.

 

[Donald H]

That's nice. Here's what this Catholic believes...

Technically the word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

Where else other than the bibles do you find the word of God? Any infallible sources?

God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes known only to the infallible Holy Spirit.

Fallible men are your only source of information.

To understand a passage, chapter or book out one must know the literary style being employed, the context and the main point being conveyed. Then it's not that difficult to identify embellishment used to make the account more memorable which is usually making the account more dramatic and amazing.

Noah's ark is obviously embellished but you're suggesting there was a true event that founded the story. I think that's very likely. Somebody obviously turned the original story into a double whopper. Or made it up out of whole cloth?

That would probably pertain to the great flood whopper, being a local event. But otherwise in most instances they told a lot of whoppers that were believed literally, and still are. Your interpretations unfortunately doesn't carry as much weight as does the literal believers.

Can you tell me of a bible story that isn't literally true? I've had several Christians tell me that the big fish story 'is' literally true, and provided details for the veracity of the story.

Like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree which wasn't really the point of the story.

I can agree on that.

Good luck on your quest to subordinate religion.

 

[ding]

Where else other than the bibles do you find the word of God? Any infallible sources?

Read what I wrote. Then ask yourself if you really want me to tell you a second time what I already told you.

 

[ding]

Fallible men are your only source of information.

Fallible men are the only source of any information.

 

[ding]

Noah's ark is obviously embellished but you're suggesting there was a true event that founded the story. I think that's very likely. Somebody obviously turned the original story into a double whopper. Or made it up out of whole cloth?

That would probably pertain to the great flood whopper, being a local event. But otherwise in most instances they told a lot of whoppers that were believed literally, and still are. Your interpretations unfortunately doesn't carry as much weight as does the literal believers.

Can you tell me of a bible story that isn't literally true? I've had several Christians tell me that the big fish story 'is' literally true, and provided details for the veracity of the story.

Would you like to discuss this in the Bull Ring?

 

[Donald H]

Would you like to discuss this in the Bull Ring?

I'll discuss the issue anywhere you choose as long as your motives are honest on moving it there?

And of course some agreement on the rules to govern such.

What is your motive? Would you rather not have your comments scrutinized by others?

 

[ding]

I'll discuss the issue anywhere you choose as long as your motives are honest on moving it there?

And of course some agreement on the rules to govern such.

What is your motive? Would you rather not have your comments scrutinized by others?

My motive is to settle this once and for all.

 

[ding]

Would you rather not have your comments scrutinized by others?

No other forum offers more scrutiny than the callout bull ring. The only comments allowed will be yours and mine. I'll have the mods delete anyone else's posts. It will be 1v1 and posts will be on display for all to see.

 

[Donald H]

My motive is to settle this once and for all.

Sure, but nothing is going to be settled once and for all.

So you're proposing a debate on the Noah's ark story in a bull ring? Or is it the big fish story? Or a bunch of whoppers combined?
Or is there something else on which we 'don't' agree?

 

[ding]

Sure, but nothing is going to be settled once and for all.

So you're proposing a debate on the Noah's ark story in a bull ring? Or is it the big fish story? Or a bunch of whoppers combined?
Or is there something else on which we 'don't' agree?

Take your pick. You create the callout in this forum... Make your case for anything you want. Then I'll respond.

Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs

This forum is for all Bull Ring related discussions and call-outs (Challenges)

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Donald H]

No other forum offers more scrutiny than the callout bull ring. The only comments allowed will be yours and mine. I'll have the mods delete anyone else's posts. It will be 1v1 and posts will be on display for all to see.

I don't understand why you don't want others to participate? I may agree if you have a good reason. I have none. Let me know your reason, for consideration.

 

[ding]

I don't understand why you don't want others to participate? I may agree if you have a good reason. I have none. Let me know your reason, for consideration.

I already told you my reason. Do it or don't do it. I prefer maximum scrutiny. Why don't you?

 

[Donald H]

Take your pick. You create the callout in this forum... Make your case for anything you want. Then I'll respond.

Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs

This forum is for all Bull Ring related discussions and call-outs (Challenges)

www.usmessageboard.com

That's premature due to not hearing any reason why you don't want others to participate.

I would be agreeable to keeping some of the spammers out. Some others such as Meriweather would be an asset to a discussion.

So what do we disagree about? We essentially agree that bible stories are embellishments of something. Let's do Noah's ark!

You tell me the true story and I'll hopefully be able to disagree?

 

[Donald H]

I already told you my reason. Do it or don't do it. I prefer maximum scrutiny. Why don't you?

I prefer maximum scrutiny too. That is, participation by others who can contribute either pro or con, but not spam.

 

[ding]

So what do we disagree about? We essentially agree that bible stories are embellishments of something. Let's do Noah's ark!

You tell me the true story and I'll hopefully be able to disagree?

I think you should tell me what you believe it's about.

 

[ding]

I prefer maximum scrutiny too. That is, participation by others who can contribute either pro or con, but not spam.

No, that's not maximum scrutiny. Maximum scrutiny is you by yourself and me by myself. 1v1.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]