brvheart 1,752 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 http://www.wecantknow.com/Countdown clock!That could just as well be run by a Christian group. Pretty much everyone thinks they're crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted May 14, 2011 Author Share Posted May 14, 2011 http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=112535948832738Pre Rapture Orgy Event hahaha Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The Bible doesn't say anything about the rapture happening on the 21st. It actually says that no one will know the time, including the angels and Jesus, so they wouldn't need to reject a literal interpretation of the Bible, they would just need to start believing in a literal interpretation.According to you. But no one can agree on how to interpret the bible. It would be one thing if all Christians believed one thing and all Atheists another. The thousands of different christian interpretations are a de facto proof that biblical literalism is fundamentally illogical. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 According to you. But no one can agree on how to interpret the bible. It would be one thing if all Christians believed one thing and all Atheists another. The thousands of different christian interpretations are a de facto proof that biblical literalism is fundamentally illogical.The bible is not literally true.Jonah got no more swallowed by a whale than pinocchio did.But just cause it aint literal, doesnt mean there isnt a God, or Jesus wasnt divine. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The bible is not literally true.Jonah got no more swallowed by a whale than pinocchio did.But just cause it aint literal, doesnt mean there isnt a God, or Jesus wasnt divine.Right.Wait, what? Then how do we know which is which? Do we just follow our common sense?What happens when our common sense tells us that a person coming back to life probably isn't real? Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 According to you.It really does say that. I don't think it's a matter of opinion.29“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.32“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.36“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.You might argue that all of the signs of Revelation contradict this, but nevertheless it's a fact that the bible says that the day of the second coming cannot be known. Religious people believing otherwise just proves that some people want to, not that biblical literalism itself is illogical. The prediction of a dead person riding clouds to earth makes biblical literalism illogical. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 It really does say that. I don't think it's a matter of opinion.You might argue that all of the signs of Revelation contradict this, but nevertheless it's a fact that the bible says that the day of the second coming cannot be known. Religious people believing otherwise just proves that some people want to, not that biblical literalism itself is illogical. The prediction of a dead person riding clouds to earth makes biblical literalism illogical.But does it really mean that? What the bible really means is pretty much always a matter of opinion. It's also a fact that some Christians believe that the day can be known. That there is no standard whatsoever for biblical interpretation proves that biblical literalism is illogical. You don't even need to bother with assessing the factual basis for the various competing claims. Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 But does it really mean that? What the bible really means is pretty much always a matter of opinion. It's also a fact that some Christians believe that the day can be known. That there is no standard whatsoever for biblical interpretation proves that biblical literalism is illogical. You don't even need to bother with assessing the factual basis for the various competing claims.I'm so confused.What is biblical literalism? I assumed it meant that you take the Bible literally.Edit: You don't have to answer that, I'll just google it.2nd edit: Still confused by you. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I'm so confused.What is biblical literalism? I assumed it meant that you take the Bible literally.Edit: You don't have to answer that, I'll just google it.2nd edit: Still confused by you.What I mean is that two standards have to be met to reasonably interpret the bible literally-1.there has to be a fairly universal agreement as to what the bible is actually saying. 2.this interpretation has to reasonably agree with the verifiable facts. Since standard one is not met(not even close in my opinion) then we don't have to bother with factually refuting a particular interpretation.If standard 1 is not met then a literalist is saying that a)the large majority of people interpret the bible incorrectly and b)the bible provides a clear standard by which people can guide their beliefs. It is not logical to hold both of these beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 2.this interpretation has to reasonably agree with the verifiable facts.ahahahahahahahahaha Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 What I mean is that two standards have to be met to reasonably interpret the bible literally-1.there has to be a fairly universal agreement as to what the bible is actually saying. 2.this interpretation has to reasonably agree with the verifiable facts. Since standard one is not met(not even close in my opinion) then we don't have to bother with factually refuting a particular interpretation.If standard 1 is not met then a literalist is saying that a)the large majority of people interpret the bible incorrectly and b)the bible provides a clear standard by which people can guide their beliefs. It is not logical to hold both of these beliefs.Wait, so you're saying if one person (Harold Camping) doesn't agree then it's not universal? I mean, I guess 120 people signed up for this pet service, so that means it's not universal... right? Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Wait, so you're saying if one person (Harold Camping) doesn't agree then it's not universal? I mean, I guess 120 people signed up for this pet service, so that means it's not universal... right?Everyone doesn't have to agree. Reasonableness of Biblical Literalism=% agreement on meaning x consistency with facts. But since facts are part of the formula you're going to want agreement to be as high as possible. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Everyone doesn't have to agree. Reasonableness of Biblical Literalism=% agreement on meaning x consistency with facts. But since facts are part of the formula you're going to want agreement to be as high as possible.Then by that definition, it's a universal Christian belief that we can not know what Jesus will return. Since that is what the Bible literally says. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Right.Wait, what? Then how do we know which is which? Do we just follow our common sense?What happens when our common sense tells us that a person coming back to life probably isn't real?It just comes down to Faith, Jesus favorite virtue. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 It just comes down to Faith, Jesus favorite virtue.Not sure if your response is a joke (because it's somewhat hilariously misses the point).But, if it's not a joke, then my point remains: how do you know what to have faith in? Clearly you don't have faith in someone being swallowed by a whale. The why in Jesus' resurrection? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Not sure if your response is a joke (because it's somewhat hilariously misses the point).But, if it's not a joke, then my point remains: how do you know what to have faith in? Clearly you don't have faith in someone being swallowed by a whale. The why in Jesus' resurrection?A valid point when you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Who said we don't think it's possible that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish? (the Bible doesn't say whale) Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 A valid point when you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the BibleNot so much that I dont believe, as in I dont get it.How can something be taken literal, when the meaning of an event is so translational dependent.For example, if the bible is completely literally true, than God is into some really over the top, theatrics, making use of special effects that would shame spielberg.Why destroy all life with a fantastic flood, taking place over 40 days and nights. When, being God , he coulda just snapped a finger, and accomplish the same result.If he could create the universe in 7 days, then why did it take 40 to redo the earth.Its not literal, but it is meaningfull. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Who said we don't think it's possible that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish? (the Bible doesn't say whale)He survived. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Who said we don't think it's possible that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish? (the Bible doesn't say whale)It's "whale" in the KJV, which I would agree is a mistranslation. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It's "whale" in the KJV, which I would agree is a mistranslation. http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesea...7&version=9 Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 He survived.You're forgetting the God part. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesea...7&version=9Right, in the Jonah 1:17 it's a "big fish", but when Jesus refers to the story in Mattew 12:40 , it's a "whale".40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.My only point is that the notion that Jonah was swallowed by a whale isn't something ignorant non-believers came up with. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Who said we don't think it's possible that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish? (the Bible doesn't say whale)I was simply responding to the earlier poster who set down the framework that some parts of the bible are allegorical.Also, I've never understood the knee-jerk reaction to the Jonah story where people insist that it was a "fish," not a whale. "Oh, it was a fish? Then, yeah, it's perfectly realistic for him to have been eaten and reemerge days later. But a whale, no, that would never happen." (BTW, the first such argument that I'm aware of comes from Inherit the Wind, no?) Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yeah, it could be a sea snake for all I care. If God is involved, things don't have to be naturally possible. I agree with your sentiment though.Base: touche. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now