Muhammad, prophet or pretender

[Blackleaf]

Cute.....I thought someone might comment somewhere along those lines.

It simply means the extent sir or ma'am. A cylinder could seem to be flat; even square, and circular or round. It all depends on perspective.

All I'm saying is that it isn't good to be closed minded due to petty word games. I'm sure you understood my actual meaning just fine.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

Christians today may take the "four corners" thing to be allegory, but that's not how it was intended to be interpreted when it was written. Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, that there was water both under and above the earth, and that the sky was a physical object with vaults in it that allowed water to fall down onto the earth. The book of Revelation even has the earth rolled up like a scroll in the end of times. The Biblical authors had no understanding of how the world worked, and it showed.

[popsthebuilder]

Christians today may take the "four corners" thing to be allegory, but that's not how it was intended to be interpreted when it was written. Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, that there was water both under and above the earth, and that the sky was a physical object with vaults in it that allowed water to fall down onto the earth. The book of Revelation even has the earth rolled up like a scroll in the end of times. The Biblical authors had no understanding of how the world worked, and it showed.

Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense. The Hebrew had a big problem with this along with hypocrisy and pride.



Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, well, tell that to all those fundamentalist Christians out there who do, indeed, take the Bible absolutely literally.

[Cavebear]

Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense. The Hebrew had a big problem with this along with hypocrisy and pride.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

Given that so many christians demand that their text be considered as literal, I don't think you have a book to stand on.

[popsthebuilder]

Given that so many christians demand that their text be considered as literal, I don't think you have a book to stand on.

It's okay. I don't need to stand on a book.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

Yeah, well, tell that to all those fundamentalist Christians out there who do, indeed, take the Bible absolutely literally.

I do.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

[Cavebear]

It's okay. I don't need to stand on a book.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

You are posting as if the above posts were aimed at you and you are somehow defeating them.  Why is that?

[Mike Cl]

Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal sense.

Why is that Pops???  And why is the bible found only in one small area of the world and in an obscure (Aramaic) language?  Isn't the message to be universal, since your god created the entire universe?  And why are all sacred books found in only one spot on earth?  My answer is that this clearly demonstrates that all sacred books are man-made.  If a universal god wanted to give a universal message he could have issued the same book in all languages that ever was or will be. 

[SGOS]

Very little of the Bible is to be interpreted through a literal lense.

I agree totally.  As a Christian in an attempt to keep my Christianity, I recognized early on that you can't take everything in the Bible literally.  You have to discard the fallacious and the absurd.  This is where things started to fall apart in my Christian life. 

The Bible stories that describe how God spoke to mankind use devices like a burning bush, or a man who climbed a mountain where God spoke to him.  Really, what's the point of having to get to the top of a mountain to communicate with God?  It's a metaphorical suggestion that talking to god requires great strength of character and commitment.  The very basis of the Bible as the word of God, can't be taken literally.  It has to be apologized as symbolic and metaphorical.  And for as much as mankind loves the symbolic, truth gets lost in metaphor.

The parts that don't have to be taken literally are the known historical facts like the Romans ruled the greater Mediterranean area.  But the inclusion of such facts doesn't support anything divine, any more than the inclusion of Nazi Germany in a comic book make Captain America true.

That the Bible is the word of God must be taken on blind faith. Bible study and theological thought given to a mishmash of literal and metaphorical are exercises of imagination.  We might say that God's existence is metaphorically true and gain heart, but that's not very satisfying as a rational conclusion that there is an actual God.

[Hydra009]

Christians today may take the "four corners" thing to be allegory, but that's not how it was intended to be interpreted when it was written. Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, that there was water both under and above the earth, and that the sky was a physical object with vaults in it that allowed water to fall down onto the earth. The book of Revelation even has the earth rolled up like a scroll in the end of times. The Biblical authors had no understanding of how the world worked, and it showed.

To be fair, it's not like most people living during those times would know much better.  For them, the whole world was just most of Europe, some parts of Africa, and a little bit of Asia.  That's it.  Water under and over the Earth makes intuitive sense since it rains and water seeps up out of the ground.  And picturing a flat earth is probably the second most intuitive but wrong notion humans have had about our planet (the first is being oblivious to deep time).  All that makes sense at a time when humans had a poor understanding of the world.

What doesn't make sense is how an omniscient god who allegedly speaks through them shares all their failings.

[SGOS]

What doesn't make sense is how an omniscient god who allegedly speaks through them shares all their failings.

AMEN!

[Baruch]

The universal god is the product of theology.  The perfect god is the product of theology.  It isn't the product of actual cultures (most of us aren't academics).  So all those criticisms apply to theologians.  Too bad for them.

The popular gods of old, or now ... are much like their worshippers, as they always have.  The Universal and Perfect god is a straw-man invented by theologians, and turned to other use by atheists.  In other words, dishonest rhetoric.

And once again, semantics intervenes.  I don't think Pop's notion of literal matches other people here, anymore than my notion of metaphorical matches other people here.  People talking past people, at best.

Ancient people couldn't even read.  Culture and religion were oral (see Oral Torah).  Literate people produced literate religion, which is why whatever Moses believed, it was never written down.  Same for Jesus and Muhammad.  Wonder why?

And literate people were the upper class and the middle class that makes the predation of the upper class possible.  People like Caiaphas (upper) and Paul (middle).  Folk religion is ain't.

[popsthebuilder]

Why is that Pops???  And why is the bible found only in one small area of the world and in an obscure (Aramaic) language?  Isn't the message to be universal, since your god created the entire universe?  And why are all sacred books found in only one spot on earth?  My answer is that this clearly demonstrates that all sacred books are man-made.  If a universal god wanted to give a universal message he could have issued the same book in all languages that ever was or will be.

IT is universal. Every one has the capacity to abide by the Spirit. It does not have to be known through any sacred texts in my opinion.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

You are posting as if the above posts were aimed at you and you are somehow defeating them.  Why is that?

I do not understand what it is you are asking.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

I agree totally.  As a Christian in an attempt to keep my Christianity, I recognized early on that you can't take everything in the Bible literally.  You have to discard the fallacious and the absurd.  This is where things started to fall apart in my Christian life. 

The Bible stories that describe how God spoke to mankind use devices like a burning bush, or a man who climbed a mountain where God spoke to him.  Really, what's the point of having to get to the top of a mountain to communicate with God?  It's a metaphorical suggestion that talking to god requires great strength of character and commitment.  The very basis of the Bible as the word of God, can't be taken literally.  It has to be apologized as symbolic and metaphorical.  And for as much as mankind loves the symbolic, truth gets lost in metaphor.

The parts that don't have to be taken literally are the known historical facts like the Romans ruled the greater Mediterranean area.  But the inclusion of such facts doesn't support anything divine, any more than the inclusion of Nazi Germany in a comic book make Captain America true.

That the Bible is the word of God must be taken on blind faith. Bible study and theological thought given to a mishmash of literal and metaphorical are exercises of imagination.  We might say that God's existence is metaphorically true and gain heart, but that's not very satisfying as a rational conclusion that there is an actual God.

That is very opinionated.

In my opinion the vast majority is not to be taken literally, yet is truthful in manifold ways and levels. It is written by men inspired by GOD or rather inspirited by GOD. some more than others no doubt.



Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk