Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm focusing on the first part of your statement which you attributed to meriweather and I, that the bible is not to be taken literally. Is that what I really said?I said:
And I'm choosing to focus on the part of the statement in which you lied and then wrongly accused me, Christian.I'm focusing on the first part of your statement which you attributed to meriweather and I, that the bible is not to be taken literally. Is that what I really said?
"The reason why is because Ding (and Meriweather) have assured us that the bibles are not to be taken literally..."
That may be your position and you are free to state that as your position but that's not what you did. You stated it as my position and that is false and it is a lie.The bibles are not to be taken literally because they contain rhetoric and allegory!
I don't have anything to walk back because I never said what you claimed I said. You are lying and you are a liar. And that isn't a personal attack. That is a factual statement. You are lying and you are a liar.You can walk it back if you want to try but you're going to do it in a manner which is appropriate when talking in zone 1.
Like I said before, if you think I have violated the rules then you should report it.Your personal attacks and profanity are no longer going to be tolerated by 'me'., regardless of what is tolerated by others.
Fair enough Christian. If you want to characterize the 'big fish' story with a man in his belly as not rhetoric and allegory, then just do so. I'm not stuck on what you want to call it as long as you don't go back to square one and try to call it literal fact.That may be your position and you are free to state that as your position but that's not what you did. You stated it as my position and that is false and it is a lie.
I'm not the one being contrary by misstating you. You are the one being contrary by REPEATEDLY misstating me.Fair enough Christian. If you want to characterize the 'big fish' story with a man in his belly as not rhetoric and allegory, then just do so.
Verily I say unto you, stop being so contrary about everything!
But some passages are. Again... it's like you have absolutely no concept of the different literary styles employed by the authors of the books. Maybe you should google it to learn what that means and how it is applied to interpreting passages.I'm not stuck on what you want to call it as long as you don't go back to square one and try to call it literal fact.
I think you should keep referring to me as Christian. First of all, I'm pretty proud of it. Secondly, it shows the contempt you hold for Christians. You don't do that with people of other faiths, do you?Fair enough Christian.
I didn't lie and I didn't wrongly accuse you. I think this exchange has proven it.And I'm choosing to focus on the part of the statement in which you lied and then wrongly accused me, Christian.
I'm not the one being contrary by misstating you.
Good. Then we have noting on which to disagree. Or at least I haven't. We'll see about you when you get that bullring thing together.2. I didn't say it should be read literally.
Given your history of habitually misstating me I suspect you will do it again. I have little doubt that you won't make a post claiming I said the bible should not be read literally. You've already done it like three times even after I corrected you.Good. Then we have noting on which to disagree. Or at least I haven't. We'll see about you when you get that bullring thing together.
No matter what you didn't say or did say, we had arrived at an understanding that the bibles must not be taken literally on many of it's claims.Given your history of habitually misstating me I suspect you will do it again. I have little doubt that you won't make a post claiming I said the bible should not be read literally. You've already done it like three times even after I corrected you.
As for the bull ring, you'll see it when it happens.
No. We didn't. This is you misstating me again. Would you care to try again?No matter what you didn't say or did say, we had arrived at an understanding that the bibles must not be taken literally on many of it's claims.
Again, we are not in agreement. If you read the bible and conclude that it teaches and condones violence then you are reading the bible wrong.But at the same time we can't allow the Christians to attempt to shirk responsibility for the evils the bible teaches, by allowing it be be put off as rhetoric and allegory.
This seems like something we should debate in the bull ring. Because you don't understand the context of these accounts.On keeping slaves and murdering women and children for two instances, the bible speaks literally.
Tons. Because none of it is rhetoric. That's your word, not mine. You use the word rhetoric to imply regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. I couldn't disagree more with that assessment. I use the words allegory and embellishment.Can you think of any other instances where we could possibly disagree on the bibles' intent being either 'literal' or just 'rhetoric' and 'allegory'?
Then stop pretending that the bibles mean something other than what is stated, if the meaning can't be understood by anybody but a spirit!Again, we are not in agreement. If you read the bible and conclude that it teaches and condones violence then you are reading the bible wrong.
Like I said before... 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.
I'm fine with your using 'embellishment' instead of rhetoric. I'll use rhetoric or embellishment in instances where they mean the same thing.I use the words allegory and embellishment.
hamdardislamicus.com.pk
You shouldn't try to tell me what the word means to me!Tons. Because none of it is rhetoric. That's your word, not mine. You use the word rhetoric to imply regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
