anonemouse

Just what a lot of us were trying to get across in the "Antisemitism in France" thread. If you interpret the Bible literally, you will probably fail to understand the entire message behind the words. Like was stated by some other people in the "Antisemitism in France" thread, this statement comes across like you believe and expect others to believe in God because you fear Hell, not because you actually have faith in God or believe that Jesus is your savior. IMO, fear of what may happen if you don't believe isn't a good reason to be a Christian.

I've had the "last supper mentality" since November, when I decided to go ahead with surgery. Luckily, I have gotten sick of pigging out, so I have definitely slowed down. I am trying right now to eat good foods, and to be honest, they are usually more satisfying than the crap I was eating before.

Actually, the majority doesn't still support him. His approval rating is very low, in the 30s the last time I saw them. Plus, you can't forget that the majority of Americans voted in the Democrats to Congress, which is another signal that the Republican President is on shaky ground.

I just thought I would throw this out there: If you need the Bible to be a Christian, you aren't a very good Christian, IMO. True Christianity is about faith in God, believing that Jesus is your savior, helping the less fortunate, and loving your fellow man (no matter what his beliefs or actions are). If you can't do that without a Bible in your hand, that says a lot about where your true priorities lie as a Christian. Your Christianity becomes more of a self-serving devise at that point, instead of a faith and will to help others. Somehow, I doubt God and Jesus would approve.

This page illustrates many of the problems with the Noah's Ark story.

But what is "a kind"? Is it defines as "fish" or "bird" or "cat"? Is a hawk a different "kind" than a finch? Is a lion a different "kind" than a domesticated house cat?

Come on, do you honestly believe that? Carnivores and hebivores have entirely different digestive tracts. A strict carnivore can't survive as an herbivore, and an strict hebivore can't survive as a carnivore.

If this is true, then you would have to believe in evolution, which you don't. So which is true, Noah's Ark or evolution?

German Shepards and Dalmations are not separate species, they are separate breeds, which is an entirely different thing.

So a story in the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true? It would literally be impossible to fit two of every species on Earth on a boat the size of the Ark, not to mention all the different foods that the different species require. Plus, how would you keep the carnivores from eating all the other species? Just say, "Oh well, one less species"?

No, Ron, there goes YOUR spiritual foundation. Other people realize that the message as a whole is more important than the words used. Getting bogged down in whether something is or isn't literal only blinds people to the message behind the words. If they understand the overall message, that's great. Not thinking the entire Bible should be taken literally does not make someone a worse Christian than someone that takes the entire kit and caboodle literally, word for word. YOU don't even take the Bible literally, Ron. You've said that several times. If you are interpreting the words of the Bible in the context of the time they were written, you aren't taking the words literally. "Literal" and "in context" are mutually exclusive, like Carlene said.

Yes, but no one (in my opinion) is arguing over whether God literally or figuratively created the world or that Jesus was resurrected. What people are arguing over is whether Biblical standards and law should be interpreted literally in today's world. Ron says that the Bible should be interpreted literally (unless it is a verse that he thinks should be interpreted within context). Pretty much everyone else is arguing that Biblical standards and law should be interpreted within the context of the time they were written (in other words, they aren't literal in today's world), and that those same standards and laws may not necessarily hold true in today's world, if interpreted literally.

Therefore, it can't be interpreted literally. If that statement has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was written, shouldn't the rest of the Bible? You can't pick and choose which statements should be interpreted literally or contextually. Either they should all be interpreted in the context of the time they were written (in other words, shouldn't be taken literally in today's world) or they all should be interpreted literally. The Bible may have been a literal document when it was first written, but in today's world it would be shortsighted to interpret it literally.

Gadgetlady, a cloak is a cloak is a cloak. You don't need context to correctly interpret that word.

Again, if you must use context to correctly interpret something, it isn't literal.

Exactly, Ron. You yourself have said that certain parts of the Bible must be interpreted in context. If something has to have "context" to be interpreted correctly, it isn't literal.

I did, but I think it was just because I am an extremely private person. I don't like sharing personal details with strangers. Heck, I'm not fond of sharing private details with people I know. It wasn't a pleasant experience for me, but luckily it was over quickly.

I had to have pulmonology clearance because my insurance required it. I didn't have to have a sleep study done, though. The spirometer I had to blow into during the clearance aggravated my asthma for a few days afterward, but all in all, it wasn't a big deal at all.

Dahlia, to be honest, I've never seen you post, to my knowledge. You've only been here for 11 days. That isn't enough time to meet many people, let alone decide if the entire board is supportive or unsupportive. There is a shit-load of people at this board who have gone through hell to get their bands, and they would be more than happy to give you support if you would ask for it instead of demanding it as your due. People don't react well to statements that come across as demands. There are always going to be people that have clashing personalities. That's part of life. At least the people here are going to tell you like it is, instead of saying, "Poor you, everything you are doing is perfectly right and everyone who says otherwise is attacking you." Support doesn't always mean agreeing with people, it is about helping you to learn what is appropriate and what isn't. You wouldn't consider a person that says to a drug addict, "You just keep doing everything you're doing and don't change a thing" as being supportive, would you? Dahlia, if you stay, you will get support. But you will also get constructive criticism and tough love, if necessary.

There are still going to be meteorological events like El Nino/La Nina that affect current weather patterns. The overall pattern, though, is one of warming. It is also argued that as global warming progresses, it will cause worse El Nino/La Nina events.

I think it's an interesting concept. I may have to watch the program that is airing on Discovery to find out more.

The thing about global warming is that while the Earth does experience periodic warming and cooling events, the current warming trend is happening much faster than scientists think is natural (based on evidence of the speed of past warming events). Scientists base a lot of their conjecture on recorded temperatures for the past few hundred years, and on temperatures that they have estimated with several other techniques (including basing warming trends on the size of tree rings - warmer temperatures create wider rings). A lot of it is really hard to explain, especially to non-scientists (to explain the methods behind some theories, other theories have to be explained), but I will try to do my best if you have questions. I am not an expert in the theory behind global warming, but I have studied it in several classes.

Very true. My parents, who are Christians, by the way, say that a Christian is proven by his actions, not by what he professes. In other words, a person can swear up and down that he or she is a Christian and that they are following the word of God, but at the end of the day, what really matters are the actions they are taking. I think my aunt and uncle are perfect examples of people who say they are Christian but don't really walk the walk. I think I mentioned them earlier in the thread, but I am not sure. They are devout Southern Baptists and help run a homeless shelter in Nashville. Instead of helping every person who comes to them for help, they only help the Christians and those who are willing to sacrifice their beliefs for a night in the shelter or a plate of food (anyone staying in the shelter must attend services). To me, that isn't what true Christianity should be about. True Christianity should be helping the less fortunate, period. Not putting demands and conditions on that help.

That's definitely true, but some statements should be seen as mean, vicious attacks, even if we do think that they're right on. Sometimes, an unfounded attack is an unfounded attack, and shouldn't be tolerated. I'll be among the first to admit that the majority of the people on both sides that are heavily involved in this thread have made some attacks that really weren't necessary. Everyone involved in this thread is very passionate about the topic, and passionate people can easily become offensive, whether consciously or unconsciously. I'll admit that for a while, I was consciously baiting Ron. That doesn't mean I didn't believe every word I said, but I was so offended by his views that I took every word he said very personally. It became my misssion to piss him off and make him lose his cool and show everyone the wolf I thought was hiding under the sheep's clothing of Christianity. After cooling off for a while, I have come to the conclusion that Ron is probably a pretty nice guy, as a whole. Do I agree with his views? No. Will we ever see eye to eye on most issues? Heck, no. Do I think we can discuss issues in a relatively civil manner? I think so, in most cases.

That's why I asked. I didn't want to pass judgement and make a possibly regretable remark without knowing what you were disgusted by. I have to agree with Carlene. No one is forcing anyone to read threads at this board. If anyone doesn't want to read a certain thread or get involved in political or religious discussion, they don't have to. We aren't standing behind anyone with a whip at their computer saying, "You MUST read this! Or else!" To imply that this single thread makes the entire site unsupportive is simply illogical.