|
 |
On 11/21/2012 5:01 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>>> The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
>>>
>>> (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
>>>
>> What contradictions?
>
> No. I mean that something that's accurate and literally true wouldn't
> need interpretation to be understood properly. The very fact that it
> requires interpretation (and that it's open up to it) is contradictory
> to the claim that it's literal.
>
> (And it being open up to interpretation really can be seen, given that
> there are over 30 thousand denominations of Christianity, all of them
> varying interpretations, some of them with wildly varying ones, even on
> core issues.)
>
More or less my point, though, in fact, the real point is, that you also
can't "not" interpret such a thing, when it can't even get basic things,
at the core of its entire story, straight, like, whether or not you
actually still exist in any sense you did in life (or anything vaguely
resembling that, or, even at all). Taken "literal", the implication of
ecclesiastics *should be*, "Don't screw up now, because there isn't any
'after'". Its not until the NT that they borrow Roman/Greek nonsense
about an afterlife, then try to make it sound like something better than
the sort of endless, but otherwise, meaningless existence they thought
there was in death.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
