"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
And in case neither of you has been paying any attention to what's actually going on inside the various Christian denominations, there is a great divide within them concerning the subject. Neither Jerry Fallwell nor Shelby Spong speaks for all Christians.

Actually, Igor doesn't care what's been going on in the church. He
is by nature a fundamentalist, so for him giving the bible any meaning
at all means taking it literally.

In article <1z1xpa1nd3.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson wrote: "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes: And in case neither of you has been paying any attention to what's actually going on inside the various Christian denominations, there is a great divide within them concerning the subject. Neither Jerry Fallwell nor Shelby Spong speaks for all Christians. Actually, Igor doesn't care what's been going on in the church. He is by nature a fundamentalist, so for him giving the bible any meaning at all means taking it literally.

A great summary of my beliefs, yes. Had I been religious, which I am
thankfully not, I would be a fundamentalist, insisting on some literal
reading of the bible where the meaning is plain..

i

In article <-PudnbUDPIkgCbzdXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>, Ignoramus16237
<ignoramus16237@NOSPAM.16237.invalid> wrote:
A great summary of my beliefs, yes. Had I been religious, which I am thankfully not, I would be a fundamentalist, insisting on some literal reading of the bible where the meaning is plain..

And why would you insist on that -- because you have good reason to
believe it ought to be read that way or because you *want* to read it
that way?

I wonder if the reason you aren't "religious" (whatever you mean by
that) isn't because of that desire -- because you have an image of how
"religious" things *ought* to be and can't accept the fact that they
aren't that way.

Ted

In article <040220042312047271%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com>, Seeker wrote: In article <-PudnbUDPIkgCbzdXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>, Ignoramus16237<ignoramus16237@NOSPAM.16237.invalid> wrote: A great summary of my beliefs, yes. Had I been religious, which I am thankfully not, I would be a fundamentalist, insisting on some literal reading of the bible where the meaning is plain.. And why would you insist on that -- because you have good reason to believe it ought to be read that way or because you *want* to read it that way?

Because I have a good reason.
I wonder if the reason you aren't "religious" (whatever you mean by that) isn't because of that desire -- because you have an image of how "religious" things *ought* to be and can't accept the fact that they aren't that way.

I am not religious, because there is no evidence that god exists. I
can't suddenly become religious, chant all those prayers and whatnot,
if I am not convinced that god is real. It would be fairly crazy, I
hope that you agree, to pray to a god that you don't even think exists.

i

"Ignoramus11765" <ignoramus11765@NOSPAM.11765.invalid> wrote in message
news:VFednYInReE5zb_dXTWc-w@speakeasy.net... Because I have a good reason.

How can you possibly have a good reason to take something literally the
truth of which you don't believe??????

Ted

"Ignoramus11765" <ignoramus11765@NOSPAM.11765.invalid> wrote in message
news:Wn2dnUbcn8go47_dXTWc-w@speakeasy.net... No Seeker, that was not your question. You asked, why I have any reason to take bible literally if I do not believe in its divinity. I answered your original question, explaining that even though I do not believe in its divinity, the "churches" should believe in its divinity. I do not think, accidentally, that the entire bible should be interpreted literally. What I do think is that when it is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted to mean what it says.
So I didn't ask my question clearly and unambiguously.

*Why* do you think that when the Bible is clear and unambiguous it should be
interpreted literally *and* without error? (yes, I admit, two questions.)

(A third question: how do you decide when something is or is not clear and
unambiguous?)

Ted

In article <bvtuf8$10h9fk$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de>, Seeker wrote: "Ignoramus11765" <ignoramus11765@NOSPAM.11765.invalid> wrote in message news:Wn2dnUbcn8go47_dXTWc-w@speakeasy.net... No Seeker, that was not your question. You asked, why I have any reason to take bible literally if I do not believe in its divinity. I answered your original question, explaining that even though I do not believe in its divinity, the "churches" should believe in its divinity. I do not think, accidentally, that the entire bible should be interpreted literally. What I do think is that when it is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted to mean what it says. So I didn't ask my question clearly and unambiguously. *Why* do you think that when the Bible is clear and unambiguous it should be interpreted literally *and* without error? (yes, I admit, two questions.)

Um, Seeker, can't you think of the answer yourself? If you accept the
bible as the authority, and it says something unambiguous, then it is
what you should accept as the instruction.
(A third question: how do you decide when something is or is not clear and unambiguous?)

By reading.

i

"Ignoramus11765" <ignoramus11765@NOSPAM.11765.invalid> wrote in message
news:E9Scnf5Pq55jGL_dXTWc-g@speakeasy.net... Um, Seeker, can't you think of the answer yourself? If you accept the bible as the authority, and it says something unambiguous, then it is what you should accept as the instruction.
Something can be an authority without being a perfect authority. Why do you
assume the Bible should be taken as perfect, i.e., without errors or flaws?
And something can also be *an* authority without being *the* authority. Why
do you assume the Bible is *the* authority (on whatever you want to regard
it as the authority for)?
(A third question: how do you decide when something is or is not clear
and unambiguous?) By reading.

You can read 1st century Greek unambiguously then I assume. I'll bet you
can't even read 15th century English unambiguously.

Ted

Ignoramus11765 <ignoramus11765@NOSPAM.11765.invalid> wrote:
I do not think, accidentally, that the entire bible should be interpreted literally. What I do think is that when it is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted to mean what it says.

So do you think the bible is clear and unambiguous about gay marriage?
If so, please quote the sections (because I don't agree).