And lo on Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:08:11 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> <snip>
>> (Again, if one admits the Bible is simply allegorical fiction, on par
>> with Zeus, Muhammed, and Qutezycoatl, then I'm cool with that. I only
>> argue against people who somehow think their religion is more real than
>> someone else's, or more real than actual experience as actual science,
>> for example.)
>
>
> I'll admit my religion is less real then someone elses, does that win me
> an internet cookie?

cookie

>>>   How could it not be context-dependent?
>>
>> I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)
>>
>> I mean, if the message is so important you're going to condemn every
>> single animal, plant, and human to eternal torture, you could manage to
>> be clear about what you want.
>
> And that's the problem with arguing about religion. There are always
> people willing to take the same book and make opposing claims about it.
> A sect of the Southern Baptist that I'm familiar with claim that every
> word in the Bible is divine and was meant to be read in English, so
> every phrase can be taken completely out of context.

Makes sense, as an omniscient then God would know that the Bible would be  
translated into English and thus had the original Aramaic/Greek written in  
such a way to convey the True Word of God™ only when translated. Now which  
one of the definitive English versions shall we use today?

> Arguing about
> contradictory phrases resulted in the fall-back argument that one should
> "just do what the church says is right." A person was expected to read
> the Bible and ask God for the answer, and in the supposed rare case
> where that didn't work should slowly escalate their question through the
> church ranks, like a tech support request.

Works for Hindus "Have you tried rebooting?"

<snip>
>>>   Or maybe if you try to understand the message instead of trying
>>> deliberately to misunderstand it to attack people.
>>
>> I'm not attacking any person or people. And I *do* understand the
>> message. I just don't understand it the same way you do.
>
> Is there such a thing as a deliberate misunderstanding?

I don't understand what you're asking ;-)

>> I, however, have no personal interaction with any dieties,

Heh I love this misspelling just needs an "ar" to make it dietaries. Makes  
reading this much more interesting.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message