The whole lot was supposed to be taken literally right up to the point that the churches realised they wouldn't be taken seriously. It's still extremely literal in the US bible belt, the Vatican and parts of Africa and the Middle East.Maybe 'allegorical' should say 'figurative' - you'd need an English scholar to define the difference properly. Parables are not to be taken literally, and there are loads of them in the Bible.
Much of rhe Bible clearly to make people think - the camel through an eye of a needle verses are obviously not meant to be taken literally, but to make the reader think about what is meant by what it is contained by. Or to set about making really big needles, one or the other.
I can accept opinions, what I dislike is such as SAB's skewed excerpting. Those excerpts are misrepresented by the cuts made.
For example, this one from the SAB: "Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery."
That last bit - what it actually says: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Those last words make it plausible to interpret as a warning on behaviour being verging close to sin, rather than an actual sin (SAB).It's quite possible to argue when something in heart becomes in fact, and I have no wish to get into that.
That makes SAB's cutting a deliberate removal of context (in this case, the claimed meaning changes with the last three words). It's Fox Bible News type level stuff that SAB made there, creating a statement that wasn't made and then criticising it.
*
I re-read what had seemed like an insult. I think there was probably meant to be a full stop or similar after 'pony' - that makes it make sense to me now (rather than an insult it read as first). Although I still disagree that it is a cop out, I retract that it was an insult and apologise.
*
The logical flaw I referred to had nothing to do with background - it was in response to a question about whether I'd said something was false, when I had not claimed falseness/truth on anything.
The whole lot was supposed to be taken literally right up to the point that the churches realised they wouldn't be taken seriously. It's still extremely literal in the US bible belt, the Vatican and parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Whichever suits them on the day that people listen to.Thus raising the question which version of the two entirely contradictory stories about creation in Genesis (right at the bloody start) do they take literally and which do they discard...
Whichever suits them on the day that people listen to.
If people think Deuteronomy is no longer followed, Gay parents were recently barred from World families day and unmarried parents are barely tolerated.
The whole lot was supposed to be taken literally right up to the point that the churches realised they wouldn't be taken seriously. It's still extremely literal in the US bible belt, the Vatican and parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Some view that Jesus overturned (at least some of) the OT laws, some don't.
Different times in different places mate. In Ireland it was between the 80s and 90s, catechism and dogma were pushed hard before then.Do you know when that was (roughly)?
There is certainly splits between the literal and non-literal interpretations.
Any man that lies with another man as he would with a woman shall be stoned unto death is Leviticus. It's hardly a monopoly though.I thought homosexuality was Leviticus' bag mostly, with the odd NT reference. I don't know who was bothered by the unmarried.
Isn't it the same chapter that prohibits eating pork? Some view that Jesus overturned (at least some of) the OT laws, some don't.
Any man that lies with another man as he would with a woman shall be stoned unto death is Leviticus. It's hardly a monopoly though.
The entire Old Testament is a barrel of fucking laughs to be fair. Is Leviticus the one that says women are unclean during their periods and should be shunned?Leviticus is brilliant. Anyone who has ever worn a poly-cotton blend is going to hell. Fantastic stuff.
I don't see how they can, given he said he came to uphold the law, not change it.
Edit: found it - Matthew 5:17 ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
May not have been caused by wars but one can bet their bottom dollar that the soldiers in most were promised they’d win as god was on their side.
A lot easier to get someone to die for you if they feel there’s an eternal paradise awaiting them if they fall in battle.
Cheers. I write from my own experience - so please feel free to disagree with and/or disregard anything I write. In this context what I have come across would be something like this :
In many teachings there is the idea of 'outer teachings' and 'inner teachings'. The former is where most people will come to meet the teachings, the latter is what some may end up going through. In this sense - and from my understanding (whether correct or incorrect) - inner teachings involve opening to an inner teacher. In christian terms, this teacher may be called the Holy Spirit. Opening to the Inner Teacher involves a process of sorting the wheat from the chaff - keep hold of the wheat, let go of the chaff. This also goes beyond that which is just theoretical right or wrong and into practical experience. So if I come across an idea that claims to be true yet leads to a sense of disconnection, then it may well be best to drop it - whereas an idea that is of the Inner Teacher will lead to a deeper, felt sense of connection with the Divine. In this way I come to realise a kind of discernment beyond that which can be known with only intellectual study. Not everyone's cup of tea and not always so easy but such is life.
Maybe 'allegorical' should say 'figurative' - you'd need an English scholar to define the difference properly. Parables are not to be taken literally, and there are loads of them in the Bible.
Much of rhe Bible clearly to make people think - the camel through an eye of a needle verses are obviously not meant to be taken literally, but to make the reader think about what is meant by what it is contained by. Or to set about making really big needles, one or the other.
I can accept opinions, what I dislike is such as SAB's skewed excerpting. Those excerpts are misrepresented by the cuts made.
For example, this one from the SAB: "Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery."
That last bit - what it actually says: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Those last words make it plausible to interpret as a warning on behaviour being verging close to sin, rather than an actual sin (SAB).It's quite possible to argue when something in heart becomes in fact, and I have no wish to get into that.
That makes SAB's cutting a deliberate removal of context (in this case, the claimed meaning changes with the last three words). It's Fox Bible News type level stuff that SAB made there, creating a statement that wasn't made and then criticising it.
*
I re-read what had seemed like an insult. I think there was probably meant to be a full stop or similar after 'pony' - that makes it make sense to me now (rather than an insult it read as first). Although I still disagree that it is a cop out, I retract that it was an insult and apologise.
*
The logical flaw I referred to had nothing to do with background - it was in response to a question about whether I'd said something was false, when I had not claimed falseness/truth on anything.
inner teaching = in-tuition...not an intellectual state but also not what is sometimes called intuition which is more an emotional reaction. Like a quiet inner knowing. Somenot being funny mate but can you spell that out in lay mans term please
The most important thing is that the heretics get flayed alive.inner teaching = in-tuition...not an intellectual state but also not what is sometimes called intuition which is more an emotional reaction. Like a quiet inner knowing. Some
might call this 'no-mind.' Trying to describe it is not so easy but when experienced it is kind of obvious - perhaps this could also be called
creative insight/expression.
I think it’s possible most don’t really believe deep down. Like a kid clinging onto Santa Claus, hearing rumours he’s made up but just shutting it out.Religion. Understandable a few hundred years ago, totally un-fucking fathomable now. I genuinely, absolutely genuinely wouldn't listen to a single word anyone said who actually believes believes there is a God. Fucking fruit loops and not to be trusted. That's all of them, no exceptions, if you genuinely believe in God, then you're unhinged.
Leviticus is brilliant. Anyone who has ever worn a poly-cotton blend is going to hell. Fantastic stuff.