Luke 10:25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30 Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion.
34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.'
36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"
37 And he said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
RexRed wrote:26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
Rex, do you think "the law" above is the same contextual use of "the law" that I was asking about earlier in this thread?
mesquite wrote:RexRed wrote:26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
Rex, do you think "the law" above is the same contextual use of "the law" that I was asking about earlier in this thread?
I think that the law was inadequate and was striving for something that was somehow answered in the above passage. What is law without compassion, mercy, liberty, justice and of course... love?
1Co 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
Mesquite,
I didn't read Fox's post (that you said "Like you did here?") the way you did. I think it pointed out that there are those of all factions, etc. that are not indicative of the rest.
Correct Momma Angel. I think he read it that way too, but I think he likes his interpretation better.
Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite,
I didn't read Fox's post (that you said "Like you did here?") the way you did. I think it pointed out that there are those of all factions, etc. that are not indicative of the rest.
Of course you didn't Momma. You were not on the receiving end of the lumping and generalization that both you and Fox continually rail about.
Foxfyre wrote, "The whole problem with the nonreligious and the anti-religious is they tend to look to .....", and then she went on to complain about lumping all Christians together.
ContradictionsThe Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
Foxfyre Wrote:
Quote:There's no way around it that people of faith have their weirdos and misfits and some of them call themselves Christian. It is as silly to lump all Christians into that group as it is to lump all nonbelievers in with their screwball fringe.
It would have been nice, Mesquite if you had also bolded the first sentence of this paragraph where Foxfyre points out that she knows there are Christians as well as non-religious that don't fit the mold.
That's all I was saying.
C.I.,
You just posted that in the Evolution thread. Again, do you have any opinions of your own except for who you hate? I'd just one time like to hear in your own words an explanation of something you post. You make a statement and then run and hide. Then you come back and laugh because we ask for clarification. IMO, Frank would be very disappointed in your debating skills.
CI,
How many threads are you going to paste this same stuff into? BTW.... I did reply to this in the evolution? how? thread. ;-)
Not everybody gets involved in all the threads where I post the same articles. If you have a problem with that, that's your problem, not mine.
cicerone imposter wrote:Not everybody gets involved in all the threads where I post the same articles. If you have a problem with that, that's your problem, not mine.
Didn't say it was a problem. Just a question. You know what a question is? It is something that requires an answer because the person asking it does not know the answer. That does not make it a problem.
A useless question as usual.
cicerone imposter wrote:A useless question as usual.
C.I.,
Pretty judgemental, aren't you? I reiterate, you put yourself on a superior level. Why?
MA, I posted this.
Foxfyre wrote:The whole problem with the nonreligious and the anti-religious is they tend to look to these obscure groups, the distinct minority, and hold them up as proof of what Christians believe or even the product of what the Bible teaches.
There's no way around it that people of faith have their weirdos and misfits and some of them call themselves Christian. It is as silly to lump all Christians into that group as it is to lump all nonbelievers in with their screwball fringe.
Foxfyre lumped, then proceeded to criticize lumping as being silly.
Mesquite,
It's not that I am missing your point. But, Foxfyre is very good about not lumping all of anyone into anything. So, I can understand how both of us could have a different take on this quote. I took it that if she knows not all Christians are alike then she also knows all non-believers, etc. are not alike also.
You obviously read her posts through the same rose colored glass as you do a certain book, but enough of this. This is not an all about Fox thread.
Momma Angel wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:A useless question as usual.
C.I.,
Pretty judgemental, aren't you? I reiterate, you put yourself on a superior level. Why?
Superior to a two year old. Well, maybe not....
mesquite wrote:You obviously read her posts through the same rose colored glass as you do a certain book, but enough of this. This is not an all about Fox thread.
And you seem to read them through welder's goggles. This is not an all about mesquite thread.
